On a somewhat related note, I heard an ad for AT&T while driving to work this morning that was disparaging VOIP service as inferior to landlines here in California. The main thrust of the radio spot was the recent power outages in California prevented people using VOIP from making calls, while those using landlines still had a dialtone. There was the typical scaremongering, with the implication that people who needed to call 911 couldn't if they were relying on VOIP, while AT&T customers were "safe" because AT&T has generators at the switching stations.
You claim that "In the annals of history, the people who change the world generally take credit for their work"
It would be more accurate to say "people take credit for world-changing ideas." I don't think it follows that the majority of people whose ideas were world-changing are credited (think of all the inventions from the 19th century where we're unsure of who actually did it "first") or necessarily interested in credit. And I believe you're drawing an especially unreasonable conclusion to assert that people who aren't seeking the limelight (either exclusively or as a byproduct) are "remarkable." Maybe it's become remarkable in the 15-minutes-of-fame world that the majority of slashdotters live in, but it doesn't seem that surprising to me.
In my experience, the people who make the biggest difference often don't want a big deal made of what they do. That's either because of their social proclivity (shyness) or because they're genuinely modest. Neither of those traits should be, I think, unexpected in a mathematician. I recognize that there are some folks who get a thrill out of the publicity, but most of the mathematicians that I know (and my wife is one) are not really that interested in acclaim.
All that aside, you completely missed (whoosh) my point that Russia is not the West. Which means that perhaps this person is more interested in what his fellow Russian mathematicians (perhaps coworkers and friends) think than in where he sits in the estimation of some American researchers.
To call dad, press two To call the popular kid from Mrs. Smith's class, press three To find an adult who will buy you beer and cigarettes, press four For all other questions, please stay on the line
The incredulity that this mathematician might have been more interested in the challenge of the work than fame and fortune in the Western world practically oozes from each sentence.
I'm all for capitalism and the idea of "prizes" to encourage research, but have we really become so jaded that it's a complete shock when someone does something worthwhile merely for its own sake? Perhaps he's gone on to other challenges, or he's wrapped up in some research that has his complete attention. Heck, perhaps he just enjoys math for its own sake and doesn't want to deal with all the side-effects of notoriety.
Palm's "inability" to multi-task is vastly overstated. On my 650, I can switch applications and not lose network or telephone connectivity. In fact, I regularly copy things to and from memos from the Blazer browser, and the connection is always still active when I switch back. Of course, Blazer is coded so that it always does a page load on startup (configurable to your home page or the last page visited) which isn't really bandwidth friendly.
The main issue with multitasking revolves around Palm's stated programming guidelines, which instruct developers to save their application's state when the launcher (or another application) is called. I've carefully read the SDK (back when I was writing Palm software for a previous employer as a sideline to my main job) and I don't see any reason that an SSH application couldn't keep its connection even during an application switch. The network stack doesn't appear to require a change in connection state during application exit.
According to this blog (http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadin ejad-trying-to-infect.html) it looks like propaganda isn't the only thing the Iranian President is trying to spread. It looks like visitors (from Isreal only) using IE are getting a nice little installer attempt. Wonder what it does:-)
We know that putting monkeys on typewriters [for an extremely long period of time ] will result in the works of Shakespeare
You missed my point, which is that the current quality of information (and writing) on Wikipedia is extremely poor. In fact, poorer than what could be produced by the monkeys on computers given a long period to work.
The idea of the "monkeys on typewriters" illustration is that with an unlimited amount of time, a random process could produce something that would appear "structured." At this point, Wikipedia hasn't been around long enough for the monkey-randomness to produce anything like Shakespeare. And my expectation is that it won't live long enough to get anywhere close.
Further, I think that any writer (which is my day job) can tell you that the quality of Wikipedia isn't likely to get better, because it's actually in a worse situation than the monkeys on computers. The non-random, article-by-committee nature of the writing is doomed to read like something, well... written by a committee. Which is to say: poorly. Add to this the "any-12-year-old can edit articles on physics" openness, and you've got something that not even a monkey could love.
but the product was not rejected as "too safe." The patentattorney-inventor wanted a ridiculous amount of money (a percentage of the gross) for use of his patented product.
When it comes to stories about business, you'll generally find that NPR is on the side of the "poor, downtrodden" patent attorney, rather than the businessman that's out there trying to make a living. I've always wondered where the tin-foil hatted idiots over there think that products and services come from, and why they're so hostile to capitalism and small businesses...
I fail to see how putting monkeys at computers would result in something with quality that is significantly different from the current content of Wikipedia
Notorious throughout the slashdot community for malapropisms and misspellings.
Funny thing is, I read an interview with Rob where he said he's currently using a Mac. As far as I know, all recent Macs have the option of turning on spell checking across the OS -- so for instance, typing this on my Powerbook I see red underlines under misspelled words in the "Comment" text box on the submission page. Which means that he's either too lazy to turn this feature on -- or worse, too lazy to try and correct misspellings and typos that are already clearly marked.
from the Stainless Steel Rat books. As I recall, in one he and his mentor lay low for a week in a fully-automated McSwiney's, where the customers place orders using screens and the automatic machinery inside cooks the order and drops it out a slot. Periodically someone comes along to empty the cashbox and replenish the supply of food ingredients, but that's the only maintenance the place requires.
It's a good idea, but considering the package-vending machines still aren't reliable, I don't think the technology is there yet. Can you imagine the bad PR if customers drove up to the McDs and the sign on the screen said "not accepting orders at this time" for a day or two before someone realized that the hamburger conveyor belt was jammed?
Spam and anti-virus are good examples of fields where the "solution" is reactive to the problem.
1. Spammers and malicious code writers come up something annoying. 2. Anti-spam and anti-virus software reacts with a method to prevent the annoyance. 3. Spammers and virus writers implment new tactics. 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad infinitum (The "Proft!" step is probably at 1a and 3b, but that's another issue)
It's not that the spammers are "beating" the spam filters, it's that they are using new tactics and it takes a certain amount of reaction time for the filters to be updated to fight the newly evolved threat. This is why spam filters aren't the ultimate solution to spam, though they are a useful stop-gap
It used to be that when I was using Google to search for something generic, I would get a mix of aggregators/link farms and legit sites in the returned results. Usually the legit sites were near the top and had some relevance to what I was looking for, even if I eventually needed to refine the search to find exactly what I was looking for. In cases where I was searching for something specific, like an appliance name and model number, the results were almost all legit sites.
These days, even targeted searches return a high proportion of links to farms. In fact, some search term combinations seem to return ONLY farm links. I know that there's a constant arms race between search engines and SEOs, but at this point it looks like Google is falling behind. This dilution of results is going to be a bigger problem (in my opinion) than the problem of click-fraud. If Google can't fix their search results, they're going to lose ad revenue as people switch to something that returns better results.
While I don't have a "better" solution at the moment (suggestions, anyone?) I'm sure come competitor or up-and-comer will be along to solve the problem.
The effects of gravity are still felt by a sleeper on this "mag-lev" bed, so it doesn't really do anything for your ability to sleep, it just has a cool furniture factor.
the "magical gyroscopic effect" the GP suggested is no more nonsensical than your "magical spiraling mass of dust"
An actual answer involves the fact that the pre-solar mass was likely spinning (not "spiraling") on the same plane the elliptic. The formation of planets occurred on this same plane for obvious reasons, leaving our current system (minus Pluto) of planets with similar planes.
As for the dark matter question, my understanding is that the theory claims that most dark matter is comprised of WIMPs, particles which don't interact in the same way as the "normal" matter which makes up stars and planets.
How about climbing off your high horse and answering the questions, if you can... or don't you get enough of an ego boost giving an answer as opposed to a put-down?
An employee stock purchase plan (where you buy stocks at a discount if you agree to put money into the plan) is something completely different than options. ESPPs generally offer the stocks at a discount to the current price, or a discount off the average price over some historical period, and once you have signed up for a period, you are obligated to purchase the stocks. Options are, well... optional. They are an offer to sell you a certain amount of stock at a particular (fixed) price. You can choose to exercise the options and purchase the stock or not, in which case you aren't obligated in any way to do anything.
My last employer offered options, and I had a grant that was vested when I left. But the options were underwater (they cost more to exercise than I could get by selling the stock) so I didn't exercise them. I now have a lovely piece of paper that says "Option Grant" at the top, but which means nothing.
Jobs either decided not to exercise options, or the options were withdrawn. In neither case is the they type of class-warefare issue that you imply.
Ok, so there are a number of "Web 2.0" entrepreneurs who aren't in it soley for the money. (Or equally likely, IMO, some entrepreneurs are now standing pat in the hopes of a bigger payday later... but that's another issue).
So what? Back in the "Web 1.0" days there were also a good number of folks who didn't immediately go off the deep end when VC money became available. I was personally involved with two startups just before the dotbomb burst, and both had offers that they turned down because they wanted to keep control. This is nothing new, despite the ridiculous article. (Another hint to BW: don't try for "hip"--you just come off as lame)
And the folks in the story are still definitely a minority, as far as I can tell. There are still lots of folks out there who are trying the old scam of trying to get VCs to give them money based on a business plan and a Flash demo. It's just that now instead of "we'll give it away at a loss, but make it up on volume" there's the "we'll create a 'community' and sell advertising" theme.
Sure insurance companies do their best not to pay on claims when they can. This is, unfortunately, part of our current uncivil society. For every legitimate claim made against them, there is problably more than one frivolous claim. If you could count on all your customers being honest, this wouldn't be an issue. As a provider of insurance, they have to find the middle ground between two options: pay out on every claim and have premiums that reflect this (read: ridiculously high) or make it impossible to claim and have everyone leave for another insurer.
Those who go with "Fly-by-night Inc" get low rates and a high bar to claims. When I had a big national insurer, I had high premiums but the claims process was never an issue: the customer service was pretty darn good.
Of course, for those interested in a better model, I'd suggest AAA. My wife and I have AAA's auto and home insurance and this month we recieved a "dividend" check of $60. That's the difference between what we paid into the system and what AAA paid out in claims. Our insurance cost is significantly less than what it was with our last insurer, and the claims process is reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
On a somewhat related note, I heard an ad for AT&T while driving to work this morning that was disparaging VOIP service as inferior to landlines here in California. The main thrust of the radio spot was the recent power outages in California prevented people using VOIP from making calls, while those using landlines still had a dialtone. There was the typical scaremongering, with the implication that people who needed to call 911 couldn't if they were relying on VOIP, while AT&T customers were "safe" because AT&T has generators at the switching stations.
You claim that "In the annals of history, the people who change the world generally take credit for their work"
It would be more accurate to say "people take credit for world-changing ideas." I don't think it follows that the majority of people whose ideas were world-changing are credited (think of all the inventions from the 19th century where we're unsure of who actually did it "first") or necessarily interested in credit. And I believe you're drawing an especially unreasonable conclusion to assert that people who aren't seeking the limelight (either exclusively or as a byproduct) are "remarkable." Maybe it's become remarkable in the 15-minutes-of-fame world that the majority of slashdotters live in, but it doesn't seem that surprising to me.
In my experience, the people who make the biggest difference often don't want a big deal made of what they do. That's either because of their social proclivity (shyness) or because they're genuinely modest. Neither of those traits should be, I think, unexpected in a mathematician. I recognize that there are some folks who get a thrill out of the publicity, but most of the mathematicians that I know (and my wife is one) are not really that interested in acclaim.
All that aside, you completely missed (whoosh) my point that Russia is not the West. Which means that perhaps this person is more interested in what his fellow Russian mathematicians (perhaps coworkers and friends) think than in where he sits in the estimation of some American researchers.
To call dad, press two
To call the popular kid from Mrs. Smith's class, press three
To find an adult who will buy you beer and cigarettes, press four
For all other questions, please stay on the line
The incredulity that this mathematician might have been more interested in the challenge of the work than fame and fortune in the Western world practically oozes from each sentence.
I'm all for capitalism and the idea of "prizes" to encourage research, but have we really become so jaded that it's a complete shock when someone does something worthwhile merely for its own sake? Perhaps he's gone on to other challenges, or he's wrapped up in some research that has his complete attention. Heck, perhaps he just enjoys math for its own sake and doesn't want to deal with all the side-effects of notoriety.
Palm's "inability" to multi-task is vastly overstated. On my 650, I can switch applications and not lose network or telephone connectivity. In fact, I regularly copy things to and from memos from the Blazer browser, and the connection is always still active when I switch back. Of course, Blazer is coded so that it always does a page load on startup (configurable to your home page or the last page visited) which isn't really bandwidth friendly.
The main issue with multitasking revolves around Palm's stated programming guidelines, which instruct developers to save their application's state when the launcher (or another application) is called. I've carefully read the SDK (back when I was writing Palm software for a previous employer as a sideline to my main job) and I don't see any reason that an SSH application couldn't keep its connection even during an application switch. The network stack doesn't appear to require a change in connection state during application exit.
Sorry. Try this:
e jad-trying-to-infect.html
http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadin
According to this blog (http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadin ejad-trying-to-infect.html) it looks like propaganda isn't the only thing the Iranian President is trying to spread. It looks like visitors (from Isreal only) using IE are getting a nice little installer attempt. Wonder what it does :-)
You insensitive clod!
We know that putting monkeys on typewriters [for an extremely long period of time ] will result in the works of Shakespeare
You missed my point, which is that the current quality of information (and writing) on Wikipedia is extremely poor. In fact, poorer than what could be produced by the monkeys on computers given a long period to work.
The idea of the "monkeys on typewriters" illustration is that with an unlimited amount of time, a random process could produce something that would appear "structured." At this point, Wikipedia hasn't been around long enough for the monkey-randomness to produce anything like Shakespeare. And my expectation is that it won't live long enough to get anywhere close.
Further, I think that any writer (which is my day job) can tell you that the quality of Wikipedia isn't likely to get better, because it's actually in a worse situation than the monkeys on computers. The non-random, article-by-committee nature of the writing is doomed to read like something, well... written by a committee. Which is to say: poorly. Add to this the "any-12-year-old can edit articles on physics" openness, and you've got something that not even a monkey could love.
but the product was not rejected as "too safe." The patentattorney-inventor wanted a ridiculous amount of money (a percentage of the gross) for use of his patented product.
When it comes to stories about business, you'll generally find that NPR is on the side of the "poor, downtrodden" patent attorney, rather than the businessman that's out there trying to make a living. I've always wondered where the tin-foil hatted idiots over there think that products and services come from, and why they're so hostile to capitalism and small businesses...
I fail to see how putting monkeys at computers would result in something with quality that is significantly different from the current content of Wikipedia
Notorious throughout the slashdot community for malapropisms and misspellings.
Funny thing is, I read an interview with Rob where he said he's currently using a Mac. As far as I know, all recent Macs have the option of turning on spell checking across the OS -- so for instance, typing this on my Powerbook I see red underlines under misspelled words in the "Comment" text box on the submission page. Which means that he's either too lazy to turn this feature on -- or worse, too lazy to try and correct misspellings and typos that are already clearly marked.
A very interesting video
from the Stainless Steel Rat books. As I recall, in one he and his mentor lay low for a week in a fully-automated McSwiney's, where the customers place orders using screens and the automatic machinery inside cooks the order and drops it out a slot. Periodically someone comes along to empty the cashbox and replenish the supply of food ingredients, but that's the only maintenance the place requires.
It's a good idea, but considering the package-vending machines still aren't reliable, I don't think the technology is there yet. Can you imagine the bad PR if customers drove up to the McDs and the sign on the screen said "not accepting orders at this time" for a day or two before someone realized that the hamburger conveyor belt was jammed?
Spam and anti-virus are good examples of fields where the "solution" is reactive to the problem.
1. Spammers and malicious code writers come up something annoying.
2. Anti-spam and anti-virus software reacts with a method to prevent the annoyance.
3. Spammers and virus writers implment new tactics.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad infinitum
(The "Proft!" step is probably at 1a and 3b, but that's another issue)
It's not that the spammers are "beating" the spam filters, it's that they are using new tactics and it takes a certain amount of reaction time for the filters to be updated to fight the newly evolved threat. This is why spam filters aren't the ultimate solution to spam, though they are a useful stop-gap
It used to be that when I was using Google to search for something generic, I would get a mix of aggregators/link farms and legit sites in the returned results. Usually the legit sites were near the top and had some relevance to what I was looking for, even if I eventually needed to refine the search to find exactly what I was looking for. In cases where I was searching for something specific, like an appliance name and model number, the results were almost all legit sites.
These days, even targeted searches return a high proportion of links to farms. In fact, some search term combinations seem to return ONLY farm links. I know that there's a constant arms race between search engines and SEOs, but at this point it looks like Google is falling behind. This dilution of results is going to be a bigger problem (in my opinion) than the problem of click-fraud. If Google can't fix their search results, they're going to lose ad revenue as people switch to something that returns better results.
While I don't have a "better" solution at the moment (suggestions, anyone?) I'm sure come competitor or up-and-comer will be along to solve the problem.
Sort of an anti-gravity bed.
The effects of gravity are still felt by a sleeper on this "mag-lev" bed, so it doesn't really do anything for your ability to sleep, it just has a cool furniture factor.
When did they move BFE to the States? Or has Idaho moved to the Middle East?
the "magical gyroscopic effect" the GP suggested is no more nonsensical than your "magical spiraling mass of dust"
An actual answer involves the fact that the pre-solar mass was likely spinning (not "spiraling") on the same plane the elliptic. The formation of planets occurred on this same plane for obvious reasons, leaving our current system (minus Pluto) of planets with similar planes.
As for the dark matter question, my understanding is that the theory claims that most dark matter is comprised of WIMPs, particles which don't interact in the same way as the "normal" matter which makes up stars and planets.
How about climbing off your high horse and answering the questions, if you can... or don't you get enough of an ego boost giving an answer as opposed to a put-down?
An employee stock purchase plan (where you buy stocks at a discount if you agree to put money into the plan) is something completely different than options. ESPPs generally offer the stocks at a discount to the current price, or a discount off the average price over some historical period, and once you have signed up for a period, you are obligated to purchase the stocks. Options are, well... optional. They are an offer to sell you a certain amount of stock at a particular (fixed) price. You can choose to exercise the options and purchase the stock or not, in which case you aren't obligated in any way to do anything.
My last employer offered options, and I had a grant that was vested when I left. But the options were underwater (they cost more to exercise than I could get by selling the stock) so I didn't exercise them. I now have a lovely piece of paper that says "Option Grant" at the top, but which means nothing.
Jobs either decided not to exercise options, or the options were withdrawn. In neither case is the they type of class-warefare issue that you imply.
Are you sure it was the chair-throwing incident?
I thought it was actually where the moon was deformed due to the whole "Developers, Developers, Developers" music video
is a spel cheker. Wea kan aford it, sinse we didn't waste mony on colege.
(Beware the grammar ninja)
Silicon Valley to Business Week: Get a grip!
Ok, so there are a number of "Web 2.0" entrepreneurs who aren't in it soley for the money. (Or equally likely, IMO, some entrepreneurs are now standing pat in the hopes of a bigger payday later... but that's another issue).
So what? Back in the "Web 1.0" days there were also a good number of folks who didn't immediately go off the deep end when VC money became available. I was personally involved with two startups just before the dotbomb burst, and both had offers that they turned down because they wanted to keep control. This is nothing new, despite the ridiculous article. (Another hint to BW: don't try for "hip"--you just come off as lame)
And the folks in the story are still definitely a minority, as far as I can tell. There are still lots of folks out there who are trying the old scam of trying to get VCs to give them money based on a business plan and a Flash demo. It's just that now instead of "we'll give it away at a loss, but make it up on volume" there's the "we'll create a 'community' and sell advertising" theme.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Who wouldn't want to advertise to the gullible?
"Install our free screensaver and it will speed up your Internet tubes 200%!!!"
Sure insurance companies do their best not to pay on claims when they can. This is, unfortunately, part of our current uncivil society. For every legitimate claim made against them, there is problably more than one frivolous claim. If you could count on all your customers being honest, this wouldn't be an issue. As a provider of insurance, they have to find the middle ground between two options: pay out on every claim and have premiums that reflect this (read: ridiculously high) or make it impossible to claim and have everyone leave for another insurer.
Those who go with "Fly-by-night Inc" get low rates and a high bar to claims. When I had a big national insurer, I had high premiums but the claims process was never an issue: the customer service was pretty darn good.
Of course, for those interested in a better model, I'd suggest AAA. My wife and I have AAA's auto and home insurance and this month we recieved a "dividend" check of $60. That's the difference between what we paid into the system and what AAA paid out in claims. Our insurance cost is significantly less than what it was with our last insurer, and the claims process is reasonable.