Prev: Inverting bits
Next: ifft after modifying a signal
From: Michael Plante on 4 Jan 2010 17:01
>On Jan 4, 12:51=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Hello Dmitry Tores,
>>
>> Why don't you go by full name theese days?
>>
>> fatalist wrote:
>> > On Jan 4, 12:05 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>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!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>- Show quoted text -
>>
>> > "free" as in "speech" or as in "beer" ?
>>
>> > There is nothing "free" as in "beer" in this world
>>
>> "Free speech" is a legal term which means that you are allowed to
>> criticize the government in prescribed way and if nobody listens to
you.
>> Don't know how this is relevant to home-brew software and other
>> business/non-business activities.
>>
>> > "free" is just a popular slogan for slashbot/techdirt-reading punks
>> > and open-source junkies
>>
>> VLV
>
>stupident questions you ask, dude
>

Fatalist is referring to this (or some derivative work thereof) :

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


From: HardySpicer on 4 Jan 2010 22:53
On Jan 5, 7:12 am, fatalist <simfid...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:45 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 12:50 pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does.   Much, if not most,
> > > academic research is funded by companies interested in the research area
> > > because, guess what, they can use it to make products that make money..
> > >   I don't see a problem here.
>
> > Not always, scholarly pursuit is just the pursuit of knowledge for its
> > own sake. The money motivation factor need not play a role at all.
> > Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity or
> > Newton when he discovered the laws of motion?
> > I do agree however that many Universities are now greedy bastards and
> > are in many respects becoming like companies.
>
> > Hardy
>
> "Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity ?"
>
> Let me guess...
> Being completely unemployable in his field (physics) and working as a
> *third-rate* patent clerk to pay the bills, it is very easy to assume
> what Einstein had in mind when publishing his papers - getting a
> permanent and well-paying position in physics (which he eventually
> obtained - 4 years after his "Annus Mirabilis")
>
> How old are you, kiddo ?

None of your business old man. What is your point? There are plenty of
people who solve problems just for that sake of it and to extend
knowledge. (even though they may well be mistaken that they have done
anything original). What is wrong with that?
Not everybody has financial motivations. Look at open-source software.
Many people put much of their spare time into creating software that
others use without as much as an acknowledgement. Not everybody is
out to make a fast buck.


Hardy
From: Le Chaud Lapin on 5 Jan 2010 01:00
On Jan 4, 9:53 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:12 am, fatalist <simfid...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> None of your business old man. What is your point? There are plenty of
> people who solve problems just for that sake of it and to extend
> knowledge. (even though they may well be mistaken that they have done
> anything original). What is wrong with that?
> Not everybody has financial motivations. Look at open-source software.
> Many people put much of their spare time into creating software that
> others use without as much as an acknowledgement.  Not everybody is
> out to make a fast buck.

I would argue that the vast majority of people who (really) enjoy
solving problems do it for no other reason than that they enjoy it.

I have observed while reading biographies of great scientists and
engineers that, whenever such people create an institution where they
can do what they love, solve problems, there is a tendency for people
not like them, with ulterior motives, to encroach upon them.

I often ruminate on possible questions that an interviewer might ask a
potential researcher to detect whether that individual is
fundamentally-motivated to do research, or is driven by another
ulterior motive. The idea is to find a set of discriminating questions
that are more or less effective, a kind of decision engine.

One of questions might pertain to the minimum salary that the
researcher would accept in exchange for total freedom to Hunt For The
Solution. As it would happen, the overwhelming majority of great
thinkers have been horrible at commanding compensation relative to the
problems that they solve.

The interview with correct answers might go something like:

Q: "What is the least annual salary you will accept for this position
in exchange for total liberty to Hunt The Solution?
A: "Uh...let's see..I have to pay my rent, my car note, my food,
personal items, my granma's bills, some travel...maybe have enough to
take my wife to dinner a few times a month...vacation... oh, I have a
dog...X should be enough." [X = sum(items aforementioned)]

Q:"If, after 7 years of laborious thinking, you one day had an
epiphany, a kind of divine revelation of a potential solution to your
hardest research problem, but the vaguesness of the revelation made it
fleeting, vacillating within and without of reach, requiring sustained
focus to pin it down, and just then, you saw on the news that an
atomic explosion had just occured near you, what would you do? Let it
go for later or keep thinking?
A: "How big is the blast radius?"

Q:"If you had choice of marrying the supermodel of your choice, to
make little superbabies with her, and by the grace of God, were
guaranteed exquisite bliss with her for all your years, would you
accept that in exchange for surrendering your laboratory?"
A: "Supermodels are nice, but nah...I don't think I could do that."

Q: If you saw the digits, "000 001 010 011 100 101 110.." on seven
respective stones in the desert, and you had the opportunity to wager
your life against what is written on the missing 8th stone for $1US
million, and you could ask only one question before choosing or opt
out, would you take the bet, and if so, what question would you ask?
A: "I would first ask if it is a trick question, and if the answer is
no, I would take the bet and choose the obvious answer."

Q: "If you had a choice between receiving the Noble Prize for 10 years
of hard labor in a field not of your nature, or remain anonymous and
find breakthroughs in your own field, with no one ever discovering
you, which would you prefer?
A: "Well, it depends on whether some one would try to take credit for
my ideas. If not, then no, I would not mind remaining anoymous, for
all eternity even."

Q: "If you woke up one day and discovered that everyone on earth had
left to another planet and abandoned you to die here alone, how would
you spend your remaining days? Would you commit suicide?"
A: "Oh, heck no! Hmm..not sure what I would do..I guess I would walk
around a lot....maybe learn how to cure infections in case I got
sick...it would suck to die from something so trivial...after that I
guess...I guess I would do more research, maybe switch to astronomy?"

A bit socially abnromal, but from the biographies I have been reading,
this is how some of these thinkers think.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
From: Rune Allnor on 5 Jan 2010 01:28
On 5 Jan, 07:00, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue that the vast majority of people who (really) enjoy
> solving problems do it for no other reason than that they enjoy it.

Hmmm... you might also want to make a note how many (at least up to
WWI) were aristocrats, who were financially secured and could do
what they wanted without needing to have an income. *Lord* Kelvin,
*lord* Rayleigh...

> I have observed while reading biographies of great scientists and
> engineers that, whenever such people create an institution where they
> can do what they love, solve problems, there is a tendency for people
> not like them, with ulterior motives, to encroach upon them.
....

I can only remember to have seen one - 1 - indication that
careerists have been credited for achieving something. It was
an interview with the discoverers of the DNA double helix. One
of them was a classical thinker like the type you indicated,
and probably had no choise but to do what he did. Another of
the discoverers said in a TV interview that he had joined the
program / project that found the DNA double helix because he
"needed to find a subject for a carreer, and DNA seemed
interesting."

Of course, the discovery was eventually awarded with a Nobel
Prize. In medicine, no less.

> A bit socially abnromal, but from the biographies I have been reading,
> this is how some of these thinkers think.

Quite a few of these people are on the far side of half-mad.
Remember, 'madness' is as often as not defined as 'non-conformism'.

Rune
From: steveu on 5 Jan 2010 02:04
>On Jan 4, 9:53=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 7:12=A0am, fatalist <simfid...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> None of your business old man. What is your point? There are plenty of
>> people who solve problems just for that sake of it and to extend
>> knowledge. (even though they may well be mistaken that they have done
>> anything original). What is wrong with that?
>> Not everybody has financial motivations. Look at open-source software.
>> Many people put much of their spare time into creating software that
>> others use without as much as an acknowledgement. =A0Not everybody is
>> out to make a fast buck.
>
>I would argue that the vast majority of people who (really) enjoy
>solving problems do it for no other reason than that they enjoy it.
>
>I have observed while reading biographies of great scientists and
>engineers that, whenever such people create an institution where they
>can do what they love, solve problems, there is a tendency for people
>not like them, with ulterior motives, to encroach upon them.
>
>I often ruminate on possible questions that an interviewer might ask a
>potential researcher to detect whether that individual is
>fundamentally-motivated to do research, or is driven by another
>ulterior motive. The idea is to find a set of discriminating questions
>that are more or less effective, a kind of decision engine.
>
>One of questions might pertain to the minimum salary that the
>researcher would accept in exchange for total freedom to Hunt For The
>Solution. As it would happen, the overwhelming majority of great
>thinkers have been horrible at commanding compensation relative to the
>problems that they solve.
>
>The interview with correct answers might go something like:
>
>Q: "What is the least annual salary you will accept for this position
>in exchange for total liberty to Hunt The Solution?
>A: "Uh...let's see..I have to pay my rent, my car note, my food,
>personal items, my granma's bills, some travel...maybe have enough to
>take my wife to dinner a few times a month...vacation... oh, I have a
>dog...X should be enough." [X =3D sum(items aforementioned)]
>
>Q:"If, after 7 years of laborious thinking, you one day had an
>epiphany, a kind of divine revelation of a potential solution to your
>hardest research problem, but the vaguesness of the revelation made it
>fleeting, vacillating within and without of reach, requiring sustained
>focus to pin it down, and just then, you saw on the news that an
>atomic explosion had just occured near you, what would you do? Let it
>go for later or keep thinking?
>A: "How big is the blast radius?"
>
>Q:"If you had choice of marrying the supermodel of your choice, to
>make little superbabies with her, and by the grace of God, were
>guaranteed exquisite bliss with her for all your years, would you
>accept that in exchange for surrendering your laboratory?"
>A: "Supermodels are nice, but nah...I don't think I could do that."
>
>Q: If you saw the digits, "000 001 010 011 100 101 110.." on seven
>respective stones in the desert, and you had the opportunity to wager
>your life against what is written on the missing 8th stone for $1US
>million, and you could ask only one question before choosing or opt
>out, would you take the bet, and if so, what question would you ask?
>A: "I would first ask if it is a trick question, and if the answer is
>no, I would take the bet and choose the obvious answer."
>
>Q: "If you had a choice between receiving the Noble Prize for 10 years
>of hard labor in a field not of your nature, or remain anonymous and
>find breakthroughs in your own field, with no one ever discovering
>you, which would you prefer?
>A: "Well, it depends on whether some one would try to take credit for
>my ideas. If not, then no, I would not mind remaining anoymous, for
>all eternity even."
>
>Q: "If you woke up one day and discovered that everyone on earth had
>left to another planet and abandoned you to die here alone, how would
>you spend your remaining days? Would you commit suicide?"
>A: "Oh, heck no! Hmm..not sure what I would do..I guess I would walk
>around a lot....maybe learn how to cure infections in case I got
>sick...it would suck to die from something so trivial...after that I
>guess...I guess I would do more research, maybe switch to astronomy?"
>
>A bit socially abnromal, but from the biographies I have been reading,
>this is how some of these thinkers think.

How much do biographies reflect reality? I suspect these descriptions of
people reflect the biographer's preconceptions far more than reality. As
Oscar Wilde so wisely noted "Our one duty to history is to rewrite it" :-)

Steve

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