Re:Only do your masters on a topic you will use
on
Go For a Masters, Or Not?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I did a Masters in artificial intelligence. I now work (as a physicist) developing MRI machines. But I can still hold a half-sensible conversation about neurons, to the general surprise of the local physiologists. Knowing something about image processing is also useful.
The early scientists had it right - you knew something about all science. Of course science is bigger now, but we're all too specialised. I've never met a scientist disadvantaged by a broad background. Or an engineer. It's good for the imagination.
Re:Only do your masters on a topic you will use
on
Go For a Masters, Or Not?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you learn nothing in your Masters that you can transfer to any other field, then yeah, true. But then it was a pretty poor Masters, wasn't it?
It's amazing - as Gnome and KDE look more like Windows, MS seem to be trying to recreate the old X11 environment where every application had it's own UI.
I'm sure MS tested extensively against OpenOffice to make certain their documents were unreadable. But the basic point still stands - if it is possible to write a compliant ODF document that cannot be read by the majority of other software, we have a problem with the ODF standard itself. An interoperable file format has to interoperate, no?
No surprise that MS has done this. What it does show, however, is that the ODF standard is incomplete. If MS can write out an ODF compliant file that no-one lese can read, ODF has a problem. In an odd sort of a way, MS are doing us a favour here by shaking out the holes. Role on ODF 1.2.
Jeez, were you paid to say that? Office 2007 makes me want to scream. Who thought it was a good idea to take all that user knowledge and make it useless, just for some damn oversize toolbar with a fancy name? I have yet to meet anyone who actually likes it.
If some software house is prepared to write and maintain 80+% of a project, and let me use it for free (GPL/BSD/etc) then they can have my patches. It seems like a fair deal. If that allows the company to employ programmers to keep the project running, that's fair. Look at something like VTK. It's a cool library. Some customers want to pay, to keep their source closed. Okay, I can live with that. But I (who use the software as a means to an end) am happy for anyone to have my mods - it doesn't cost me anything, but the open licence allows me to use it.
As for programmers code being worthless because the company don't charge for the code - I think you need to sit back and think about this. If there was no code, what would the other guys be supporting? Where would the income come from? How the company gets income does not determine where the value is (most mobile phones are free with a contract, but the engineers who design phones/protocols/etc still seem to manage a decent salary).
I have no experience with EMRs, but I am always surprised that this seems to be a big deal. What am I missing here? I have always assumed EMRs are about recording information in a way that other medics can access. It sounds like current offerings are far too restrictive. It reminds me of those hideous electronic job application sites that just don't work if your CV is slightly different to the shape the site programmer imagined. Are the packages just trying to do too much? I was about to jokingly suggest a wiki, but I'm begining to wonder why not...
Maybe that works for your home network, but SSH'ing to 25 or (maybe a lot) more different boxes to repeat the same task is a bit tedious. Hey, doesn't this sound like the kind of automated task a computer might be good at?
Isn't this the whole point of a real open source license, rather than just publishing stuff and saying 'go play'? Either you're spouting misinformation, or the GPL et al are completely worthless...
Why is this such a difficult thing for people to understand?
Because I'm a scientist. Students need to spend time outside of lectures, in the labs. It's where they learn the point of all the stuff taught in lectures - it's where we teach the craft. I enjoy giving my students something to calculate, and then measure - I try to choose something that is really difficult to calculate accurately. Sometimes the 'edge effects' dominate, and it's just quicker/more reliable to measure. A good scientist will spot those, but it only comes with practice. Tracking down the causes of those 'edge effects' takes a lot of years experience. Something you really don't get over the internet.
I'm complaining about the article, not the/. summary. Is it too much to expect that the article itself might name the PI and reference the abstract, rather than link directly to the press release?
Vacuous lack of information? What's this 'scientists in Switzerland' rubbish? We may not be the biggest country, but it would be polite to say which scientists, even where. For anyone that cares, the study was led by Asaid Khateb, a neuropsychologist at Geneva University Hospitals.
Published in the Annals of Nuerology, abstract here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122269076/abstract
My network analysers have touch screens, keypads (on the instrument), mice and keyboards. I hate it. Apart from the fingerprints all over the screens, you always have to move your hands - screen-keypad-screen-mouse-keyboard - it makes simple operations tedious.
I like to use the keyboard for most thing, and a mouse is perfect for some. The problem is when an application requires you to continuously mix the two. Do you trust MS not to further complicate this?
...ignoring that the GP was talking about travel to the US...
There is a difference here. It's one of the bonuses of living in Europe. You can actually drive for an hour and end up in a different country with a different language and culture. I'm writing from Switzerland - here you don't even have to leave the country for that.
As an undergrad I did an experiment in my 1st year lab to measure an FID from a basic NMR setup (large electromagnet, wire wound around a test tube for the RF coil, lock-in amp for recording the signal). The experiment was a pig to set up, but somehow I really enjoyed it. I think it was the only experiment in the lab that gave a sense of achievement for actually recording something, and again for figuring out what I had recorded.
As a novelty, and earth's field NMR rig should produce a signal in the audio range. If you can manage to detect a spin echo, you should be able to hear it!
If the system were really defined around a sensible number base, we would all be working in base 12 - divides by 2,3,4 and 6. All we need is to modify the human race with a couple of extra fingers - are you game?
The really good type of programmer he says is lacking will be learning many different languages... ON THEIR OWN. They don't really need the university.
That's an interesting point. My degree is in physics - while it is in principle possible to learn the same amount of physics as is required for a BSc without university, it would be much harder and take much longer. Having teachers introduced me to the right concepts and presented the right questions. Is the same true for CS? I'm sure there is more to programming than learning the syntax, but does programming require a degree?
If it's the book I think it is, it gives a good overview of 'traditional' AI (rules, logic systems, planning) but not really anything about 'soft' approaches like neural nets. I found it rather disappointing.
Read any of the classic Rob Brooks papers. If nothing else, they are certainly inspiring - they always make me want to build robots.
A good friend of mine works as a sysadmin for a large company you know well. He's recently moved here (Switzerland) from the UK, as have I. He has no degree, I have a BSc, an MSc, a PhD, and about 7 years more experience. He earns a bit more than twice what I do. So no, having a degree is not necessary. I'd be jealous, but as a scientist my job is more like a an obsessive hobby I get paid for anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I did a Masters in artificial intelligence. I now work (as a physicist) developing MRI machines. But I can still hold a half-sensible conversation about neurons, to the general surprise of the local physiologists. Knowing something about image processing is also useful. The early scientists had it right - you knew something about all science. Of course science is bigger now, but we're all too specialised. I've never met a scientist disadvantaged by a broad background. Or an engineer. It's good for the imagination.
If you learn nothing in your Masters that you can transfer to any other field, then yeah, true. But then it was a pretty poor Masters, wasn't it?
It's amazing - as Gnome and KDE look more like Windows, MS seem to be trying to recreate the old X11 environment where every application had it's own UI.
I'm sure MS tested extensively against OpenOffice to make certain their documents were unreadable. But the basic point still stands - if it is possible to write a compliant ODF document that cannot be read by the majority of other software, we have a problem with the ODF standard itself. An interoperable file format has to interoperate, no?
No surprise that MS has done this. What it does show, however, is that the ODF standard is incomplete. If MS can write out an ODF compliant file that no-one lese can read, ODF has a problem. In an odd sort of a way, MS are doing us a favour here by shaking out the holes. Role on ODF 1.2.
Jeez, were you paid to say that? Office 2007 makes me want to scream. Who thought it was a good idea to take all that user knowledge and make it useless, just for some damn oversize toolbar with a fancy name? I have yet to meet anyone who actually likes it.
If some software house is prepared to write and maintain 80+% of a project, and let me use it for free (GPL/BSD/etc) then they can have my patches. It seems like a fair deal. If that allows the company to employ programmers to keep the project running, that's fair. Look at something like VTK. It's a cool library. Some customers want to pay, to keep their source closed. Okay, I can live with that. But I (who use the software as a means to an end) am happy for anyone to have my mods - it doesn't cost me anything, but the open licence allows me to use it.
As for programmers code being worthless because the company don't charge for the code - I think you need to sit back and think about this. If there was no code, what would the other guys be supporting? Where would the income come from? How the company gets income does not determine where the value is (most mobile phones are free with a contract, but the engineers who design phones/protocols/etc still seem to manage a decent salary).
I have no experience with EMRs, but I am always surprised that this seems to be a big deal. What am I missing here? I have always assumed EMRs are about recording information in a way that other medics can access. It sounds like current offerings are far too restrictive. It reminds me of those hideous electronic job application sites that just don't work if your CV is slightly different to the shape the site programmer imagined. Are the packages just trying to do too much? I was about to jokingly suggest a wiki, but I'm begining to wonder why not...
Maybe that works for your home network, but SSH'ing to 25 or (maybe a lot) more different boxes to repeat the same task is a bit tedious. Hey, doesn't this sound like the kind of automated task a computer might be good at?
Tell that to the dinosaurs
Isn't this the whole point of a real open source license, rather than just publishing stuff and saying 'go play'? Either you're spouting misinformation, or the GPL et al are completely worthless...
It's like watching the whole SCO thing again, but this time it's a nation rather than a company. Where's Darl - he's my favourite baddy...
Why is this such a difficult thing for people to understand?
Because I'm a scientist. Students need to spend time outside of lectures, in the labs. It's where they learn the point of all the stuff taught in lectures - it's where we teach the craft. I enjoy giving my students something to calculate, and then measure - I try to choose something that is really difficult to calculate accurately. Sometimes the 'edge effects' dominate, and it's just quicker/more reliable to measure. A good scientist will spot those, but it only comes with practice. Tracking down the causes of those 'edge effects' takes a lot of years experience. Something you really don't get over the internet.
I thought "integrated solution" was business speak for "cobbled together"? You mean there's a difference?
I'm complaining about the article, not the /. summary. Is it too much to expect that the article itself might name the PI and reference the abstract, rather than link directly to the press release?
Vacuous lack of information? What's this 'scientists in Switzerland' rubbish? We may not be the biggest country, but it would be polite to say which scientists, even where. For anyone that cares, the study was led by Asaid Khateb, a neuropsychologist at Geneva University Hospitals. Published in the Annals of Nuerology, abstract here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122269076/abstract
My network analysers have touch screens, keypads (on the instrument), mice and keyboards. I hate it. Apart from the fingerprints all over the screens, you always have to move your hands - screen-keypad-screen-mouse-keyboard - it makes simple operations tedious.
I like to use the keyboard for most thing, and a mouse is perfect for some. The problem is when an application requires you to continuously mix the two. Do you trust MS not to further complicate this?
...ignoring that the GP was talking about travel to the US... There is a difference here. It's one of the bonuses of living in Europe. You can actually drive for an hour and end up in a different country with a different language and culture. I'm writing from Switzerland - here you don't even have to leave the country for that.
As an undergrad I did an experiment in my 1st year lab to measure an FID from a basic NMR setup (large electromagnet, wire wound around a test tube for the RF coil, lock-in amp for recording the signal). The experiment was a pig to set up, but somehow I really enjoyed it. I think it was the only experiment in the lab that gave a sense of achievement for actually recording something, and again for figuring out what I had recorded. As a novelty, and earth's field NMR rig should produce a signal in the audio range. If you can manage to detect a spin echo, you should be able to hear it!
...and if you find that a bit busy and bloated, use fluxbox (fluxbuntu if you must)...
If the system were really defined around a sensible number base, we would all be working in base 12 - divides by 2,3,4 and 6. All we need is to modify the human race with a couple of extra fingers - are you game?
The really good type of programmer he says is lacking will be learning many different languages... ON THEIR OWN. They don't really need the university.
That's an interesting point. My degree is in physics - while it is in principle possible to learn the same amount of physics as is required for a BSc without university, it would be much harder and take much longer. Having teachers introduced me to the right concepts and presented the right questions. Is the same true for CS? I'm sure there is more to programming than learning the syntax, but does programming require a degree?
Thanks for that - I have the first edition. I'll try and find a copy to peak at.
If it's the book I think it is, it gives a good overview of 'traditional' AI (rules, logic systems, planning) but not really anything about 'soft' approaches like neural nets. I found it rather disappointing. Read any of the classic Rob Brooks papers. If nothing else, they are certainly inspiring - they always make me want to build robots.
A good friend of mine works as a sysadmin for a large company you know well. He's recently moved here (Switzerland) from the UK, as have I. He has no degree, I have a BSc, an MSc, a PhD, and about 7 years more experience. He earns a bit more than twice what I do. So no, having a degree is not necessary. I'd be jealous, but as a scientist my job is more like a an obsessive hobby I get paid for anyway.