On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:28:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Well, they *do* move books from library to library on request. But I've
> looked at the library's catalogue, and there's almost nothing
> interesting in it.

Just browsing the catalogue isn't sufficient; if you're looking for books 
on a topic, ask the staff to help you find them.  That's what they're 
paid to do.

> (I especially love the 1960s-era dumb terminal connected to a
> telex-style user interface that they use for allowing you to access the
> catalogue. Nice to know they're up with modern times...)

I remember an actual card catalogue - you know, with index cards with the 
entries printed on them?  You think what you're seeing isn't helpful, try 
using an actual meatspace card catalogue. :-)

>> But if you get to know the staff at the library, they're often full of
>> useful information.
> 
>  From what I've seen, they're over-worked, under-paid, and very
>  unmotivated.

I think the lack of motivation often comes from not being given 
challenging work.  But the topics you are looking for would be a 
challenge, so get to know them.  You may also find that having someone 
ask them for something interesting/challenging is just what they're 
waiting for - far better than having some tween coming in asking where to 
find the latest Twilight 'novel', which is probably 90% of what they get 
asked about.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And here I was thinking you just like pissing people off. ;-)
>
> I like discussing technical details of design decisions and their
> implication. I can't help it that Wrp takes comments about C personally.
> Quite honestly, it boggles my mind that anyone would get upset at
> someone else talking about the problems with design choices in a
> language designed almost before they were born. It's not like I'm
> criticizing *his* choices.

Well, I don't know. As I've written before, saying "X is flawed" is like 
saying "anybody who chooses X is stupid". There's a logical implication 
there.

Certainly I get pretty hacked off when people tell me that Haskell is a 
stupid, irrelevant language. (Despite several obvious problems that 
Haskell really does have...)

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2011 06:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> When I was working in IT on a daily basis, I would call my wife and try
> to explain a problem I was seeing to her - not that she could help with
> technical advice, but because if I framed it so she could understand it,
> the answer would frequently appear before me.

It's a well known cliché in popular story telling. ;-)

>> I like to pretend that this is the reason that I do this. Obviously, the
>> real reason is that until very recently, I was a sad pathetic loser with
>> no *real* humans to talk to...
>
> Well, I know plenty of people who do just that when they're preparing for
> a presentation as well.  I know several instructors who practice in front
> of a mirror, too.

...which is different from /actually/ not having any human interaction 
in your life. Fortunately, that's one problem I have somehow managed to fix.

>> Fair enough. Although, like I say, I've written plenty of smaller
>> documents, and they've worked out well. It's large documents that end up
>> not working.
>
> So it's time to move from small documents to slightly larger documents,
> rather than to a 300 page book.  So, how do you define a "smaller
> document"?

If it fits in one newsgroup post, it's a "small document". ;-)

>> I think Ode to Joy was about the summit of my violin skills.
>
> Well, that's included in the 9th Symphony (as I'm sure you know). :)

Hell, I can't even remember who *wrote* it! It was a long time ago...

>> I guess mainly it just comes down to extreme pessimism about whether
>> there's any useful documents to be found in the first place.
>
> Then you need to address that as well - instead of starting out with
> despair and the expectation that there's nothing available on the topic
> (after all, if there were nothing useful available on the topic, then
> nobody would get involved in whatever field it is, but as people are
> involved, they must've learned from somewhere, right?), start out with no
> feeling one way or the other.

Oh, I'm sure there are real hard-copy books on the subject. But I doubt 
there's anything useful that's freely available on the Internet.

And even then, I rather suspect that any hard-copy publications would 
assume that you're already an expert in signal processing...

>> Heh, OK.
>>
>> Perhaps not this week though, as (inexplicably) I actually have some
>> work to do. Yeah, I know, imagine that...
>
> I know the feeling, I do as well, but I'm willing to make some time to
> help you with this.  You've got the basic skills, you just need some
> practice and some guidance.

Mmm, OK...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, I don't know. As I've written before, saying "X is flawed" is like 
> saying "anybody who chooses X is stupid". There's a logical implication 
> there.

I disagree. I can certainly say "this aspect could be better" without 
implying that anyone who chooses it hasn't chosen it for the sum total of 
all its features. Just like I can say I think C# is technically a pretty 
good language without implying that Microsoft is a good company, or I can 
say that Ada has a lot of support for programming safely without implying I 
want to use Ada.

"We should find ways to make cars pollute less" doesn't mean "everyone who 
drives is stupid."  "Revolvers jam less than pistols" doesn't mean you can't 
prefer a pistol for other reasons. It just doesn't follow outside fanboyism 
that pointing out a single flaw in a product means you're wrong to choose 
that product, especially in something so complex and non-fungible as 
programming language choice.

> Certainly I get pretty hacked off when people tell me that Haskell is a 
> stupid, irrelevant language. (Despite several obvious problems that 
> Haskell really does have...)

I don't generalize like that, tho.  Many do, but I discuss individual features.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

>>> Oh, the *library* doesn't contain any technical books.
>>
>> You don't live near a university?
>
> Not unless you count the OU, no.

Oh, helpfully, as a graduate, I get free access to my university's library.

Shame my university is now located 70 miles away, eh? :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:37:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 02/02/2011 06:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> When I was working in IT on a daily basis, I would call my wife and try
>> to explain a problem I was seeing to her - not that she could help with
>> technical advice, but because if I framed it so she could understand
>> it, the answer would frequently appear before me.
> 
> It's a well known cliché in popular story telling. ;-)

Yes, but it's also true - and it works specifically because when you try 
to forumlate a problem to explain to someone, you think more 
comprehensively about it. :-)

>> Well, I know plenty of people who do just that when they're preparing
>> for a presentation as well.  I know several instructors who practice in
>> front of a mirror, too.
> 
> ...which is different from /actually/ not having any human interaction
> in your life. Fortunately, that's one problem I have somehow managed to
> fix.

Well, we're human out here, too - but I do know what you mean.  There is 
an element in giving presentations where you do need to get practice in 
front of an audience.

It also helps to video record yourself - it can be hard to watch at 
first, but there's nothing that will teach you more about what you're 
doing than watching it yourself.  The presentation/public speaking 
classes I took did that as a matter of course, and I learned a lot about 
the things I was doing wrong - and learned as well that there was a lot I 
was doing *right*, too (which is as important to know).

>> So it's time to move from small documents to slightly larger documents,
>> rather than to a 300 page book.  So, how do you define a "smaller
>> document"?
> 
> If it fits in one newsgroup post, it's a "small document". ;-)

So a few pages. :-)

>>> I think Ode to Joy was about the summit of my violin skills.
>>
>> Well, that's included in the 9th Symphony (as I'm sure you know). :)
> 
> Hell, I can't even remember who *wrote* it! It was a long time ago...

Well, I think the tune is "traditional", and Beethoven used it.  That 
wasn't entirely uncommon for many composers.  For example, in Berliz' 
Symphonie Fantastique, he makes heavy use of the Dies Irae, especially in 
the final movement.  Mozart used it as well in his last Mass IIRC.

>> Then you need to address that as well - instead of starting out with
>> despair and the expectation that there's nothing available on the topic
>> (after all, if there were nothing useful available on the topic, then
>> nobody would get involved in whatever field it is, but as people are
>> involved, they must've learned from somewhere, right?), start out with
>> no feeling one way or the other.
> 
> Oh, I'm sure there are real hard-copy books on the subject. But I doubt
> there's anything useful that's freely available on the Internet.

Then off to the library with you.  But seriously, you might find more 
information online as well, even though you see to think there's not a 
lot available freely on the 'net on the subject.  I'd be willing to bet 
there is.

> And even then, I rather suspect that any hard-copy publications would
> assume that you're already an expert in signal processing...

Depends on what you look for.  If you look for something published by the 
professional society for signal processors, yes.  That's kind like saying 
"well, I could find some information on creating 3D graphics, but ACM 
won't have anything introductory".  Which of course they wouldn't, 
because that's not their audience.

When looking for materials, it's important to look for resources that are 
targeted at your level.  That's part of the filtering that you have to do 
when searching for information on a topic.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Yes, well, given that 98% of everything I write will never be seen by
>>> another pair of eyes, that's not likely to change.
>>
>> It certainly won't be if you don't share it.  Another tip from this book
>> I'm reading is to weekly take some time to create a presentation on a
>> topic - any topic - and share it with someone to get some feedback.
> 
> I can't think of anybody who would be interested in reading something I
> wrote, much less sitting through a presentation. (Besides, I'm much
> better at writing than talking.)

I found your molecular biology thread very interesting, until it got 
derailed with religious bullshit.

Post a reply to this message

>> I can't think of anybody who would be interested in reading something I
>> wrote, much less sitting through a presentation. (Besides, I'm much
>> better at writing than talking.)
>
> I found your molecular biology thread very interesting, until it got
> derailed with religious bullshit.

Yeah, gotta love how Internet conversations almost always veer off into 
something unrelated. Sometimes it's just as interesting. Often it isn't.

Post a reply to this message

>> And even then, I rather suspect that any hard-copy publications would
>> assume that you're already an expert in signal processing...
>
> Depends on what you look for.  If you look for something published by the
> professional society for signal processors, yes.  That's kind like saying
> "well, I could find some information on creating 3D graphics, but ACM
> won't have anything introductory".  Which of course they wouldn't,
> because that's not their audience.
>
> When looking for materials, it's important to look for resources that are
> targeted at your level.  That's part of the filtering that you have to do
> when searching for information on a topic.

Well, there must be people who weren't DSP experts, and are now. Which 
means that materials must exist somewhere. But on the whole, it seems 
unless you pay to go on a training course, you stand no chance of 
actually learning most of this stuff. (And I'm not paying money for 
something that's only a hobby.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:16:10 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Well, there must be people who weren't DSP experts, and are now. Which
> means that materials must exist somewhere. But on the whole, it seems
> unless you pay to go on a training course, you stand no chance of
> actually learning most of this stuff. (And I'm not paying money for
> something that's only a hobby.)

At a quick look, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Digital_signal_processing would be a good starting place for doing some 
word association, then look into the things that are related.

Jim

Post a reply to this message