Prev: Inverting bits
Next: ifft after modifying a signal
From: Greg Berchin on 3 Jan 2010 21:25
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:25:04 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer <gyansorova(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>To me, all knowledge should be freely available and disseminated (if
>from a Uni at least - a company has other motives).
>BTW - is that not what we do here on this NG - it is free so why do
>people do it? Don't you industry guys want to make a quick buck out of
>it?

Yes, of course. But as someone who has had more than a few inventions die in
the filing cabinets of former employers (most of which no longer even exist), I
feel qualified to say that it is ASTONISHINGLY difficult to make a buck out of
even unique knowledge. The next best thing is to at least receive some
acknowledgement for it, even if there is no financial reward.

Also, not to be too paternalistic about it, but this is difficult material and
it's nice to be able to help. I wished for such assistance when I was learning
the material (which continues to this day).

Greg
From: Eric Jacobsen on 3 Jan 2010 21:59
On 1/3/2010 5:25 PM, HardySpicer wrote:
> On Jan 4, 7:28 am, Fred Marshall<fmarshallx(a)remove_the_xacm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Scholarly pursuit *can* be just the pursuit of knowledge for its own
>> sake - but I would not limit it to that.
>>
>> Fred
>
> Neither would I but it is the best sort by far. No self interest other
> than the betterment of mankind and to a certain extent the self.
> That's what Unis are supposed to be about but the message is forgotten
> in such times when they are run by accountants.
> To me, all knowledge should be freely available and disseminated (if
> from a Uni at least - a company has other motives).
> BTW - is that not what we do here on this NG - it is free so why do
> people do it? Don't you industry guys want to make a quick buck out of
> it?
>
> Hardy

I still learn a lot here. It's also not a bad way to get some idea of
the sorts of things people are working on and doing, which is nice to be
use as a benchmark of whether I'm keeping up with the times or not.

Also, it's a good place for feedback on one's own ideas. It's not
unusual to provide some response to a question and then have somebody
else say, "There's a better way to do it, try this way...", or, "No,
that's not quite right because..." and that's beneficial to me to
improve my own understanding of things as well.

So I don't mind contributing when I can because I often get some benefit
from it and this place is a good resource for me, too.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com
From: HardySpicer on 4 Jan 2010 00:05
On Jan 4, 3:59 pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
> On 1/3/2010 5:25 PM, HardySpicer wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 7:28 am, Fred Marshall<fmarshallx(a)remove_the_xacm.org>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Scholarly pursuit *can* be just the pursuit of knowledge for its own
> >> sake - but I would not limit it to that.
>
> >> Fred
>
> > Neither would I but it is the best sort by far. No self interest other
> > than the betterment of mankind and to a certain extent the self.
> > That's what Unis are supposed to be about but the message is forgotten
> > in such times when they are run by accountants.
> > To me, all knowledge should be freely available and disseminated (if
> > from a Uni at least - a company has other motives).
> > BTW - is that not what we do here on this NG - it is free so why do
> > people do it? Don't you industry guys want to make a quick buck out of
> > it?
>
> > Hardy
>
> I still learn a lot here.  It's also not a bad way to get some idea of
> the sorts of things people are working on and doing, which is nice to be
> use as a benchmark of whether I'm keeping up with the times or not.
>
> Also, it's a good place for feedback on one's own ideas.  It's not
> unusual to provide some response to a question and then have somebody
> else say, "There's a better way to do it, try this way...", or, "No,
> that's not quite right because..." and that's beneficial to me to
> improve my own understanding of things as well.
>
> So I don't mind contributing when I can because I often get some benefit
> from it and this place is a good resource for me, too.
>
> --
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms
> Abineau Communicationshttp://www.abineau.com

Yes I agree and that is exactly why all Scientific and engineering
knowledge should be free - including journals. Don't get me started on
journals though..theiving bastards!
From: Rune Allnor on 4 Jan 2010 03:39
On 3 Jan, 00:35, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:43 am, Fred Marshall <fmarshallx(a)remove_the_xacm.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the
> > posts.  So, if this is redundant then .. OK:
>
> > 1) Folks with common sense and experience are invaluable.
> > 2) Folks with an ability to focus on the real issue are invaluable.
> > 3) Folks who can figure something out quickly and put what they know to
> > use are invaluable.
>
> > So, if in the process of earning a degree a person becomes a "quick
> > study" (thus the search / research part) and are able to convey the crux
> > of what they know or have quickly learned to everyone else (thus the
> > thesis and defense) then they might be really good to have around - as
> > long as they meet (1) and (2) at the same time.
>
> > I have known folks who weren't really great at (1) and (2) or even (3)
> > who had advanced degrees.  They were still helpful when we needed a
> > strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue.  But, in general, I
> > didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or
> > government labs.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's partly an
> > environmental emphasis.
>
> > What's the difference between a plant manager and a consultant?
>
> > If something goes wrong in the plant, the manager may know what to do
> > about it but maybe not why it happened or why the solution works.  The
> > consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the
> > solution works.  Working together they may come up with a lasting
> > solution....
>
> > Fred
>
> What about problems that have not been solved to date?

If a problem has not been solved yet, there are several
possible reasons:

1) Irrelevance. No one cares if the problem is solved or not.
2) Feasability. The problem is relevant, but no solution can
be found.
3) No one have yet discovered that off-beat approach
exploiting those half-mad properties of that arcane
theorem yet.

> Can your
> average Joe engineer solve them or does it require some advanced
> knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow.

Your premise is wrong. You argue from the POV that all
problems are relevant, that all problems are solvable,
and that any solution waits to be discovered.

There are plenty of irrelevant problems that have
been fiercly debated. Apparently, it was a extremely
important to church clerics some 1500 yeras ago to
find out how many angels could fit on the tip of a
needle.

Similarly, there are problems that just have no known
solutions, like NP complete problems like the travelling
salesman. Then there are the proved unsolvable problems,
like the algebraic solving of polynomials of degree 5.

The only way to actually solve a problem these days, is
to *first* investigate the problem domain, and *then*
bring in the tools and tricks to try and test to see
if they work.

The PhD degree has nothing at all to do with any of that.

Rune
From: Rune Allnor on 4 Jan 2010 03:48
On 3 Jan, 16:37, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote:

> There are probably more fundamental reasons, but I think these are the
> main ones.

Eh... you forgot *the* main reason: Publications are a
pre-requisite for applying for public funds. An application
where none of the applicants have already published on the
subject is a waste of paper.

At least in the EU a lot of funds are distributed through
programmes intended for stimulating the cooperation between
industry and academia. It's a serious chess game to get
an application together:

- The activity must fit within some programme of research
- Industrial as well as academic institutions must be
represented in the application
- Partners must fit various criteria, like geography,
distributions of male / female personnel, marketshares
of commercial partners
- The taste /de jour/ regarding type of work (experimental /
numerical / industrial / academic) must be satisfied

and so on.

But there is no need to try and participate unless you already
have a couple of publications out that more or less precisely
match the problem stated in the governing research programme.

So essentially, people write application where they for all
practical purposes state that they have already done what
they apply for 5 years worth of funding to do.

> Note that many of these have nothing to do with the quality
> of the research,

Agreed.

> and in most cases the research itself is a secondary
> reason for publication.

Most certainly true.

Rune
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Inverting bits
Next: ifft after modifying a signal