Reply by The Grand Janitor●August 29, 20062006-08-29
I agreed. I learnt a lot by reading Prof. Morgan's books and papers.
People in the field could make perfect sense of the ad. ICSI is also a
great place for students and researchers.
Because of this thread discussion though, a lot of interested people
will simply be discouraged. They also see a distorted picture of Prof.
Morgan and ICSI. What a pity.
-a
PARTICLEREDDY wrote:
> Hey everybody,
> kindly stop this fighting with words. Ad is
> posted, we all saw it, the way its present is ok to Some AND no Ok to
> Some. Some project is started by morgan, He is capable of doing that
> project and so also with someother international researchers. Why say
> it is wastage of tax payer's money. Need not right he (morgan) may
> succeed....
>
> leave it Guys, thats all.why referring dictionaries and bibiliographies
> to further expand the ad to involved in fight.
>
> Hope all you people stop this.
Reply by Scott Seidman●August 28, 20062006-08-28
Tony Robinson <tony@shrek.cantabResearch.com> wrote in
news:87bqq7s52c.fsf@shrek.cantabResearch.com:
> There's certainly a lot of cynicism and distrust here, I'm sure that
> this is unfounded with respect to this job ad.
>
>
Reminds me of the guys always parodied in "The Simpsons" who enjoy nothing
more than to find inconsistencies in scifi series, and point them out to
the authors.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Reply by fizteh89●August 28, 20062006-08-28
Those folks are only capable of raising money from "sponsors" (read:
government agencies wasting taxpayer's money on meaningless
"research" conducted at those institutions).
Getting your "research" project funded and coming up with some real
breakthrough are two completely different things: in most cases there
is no connection between the two, or worse - a negative correlation.
I am thoroughly disgusted with all of this by now...
PARTICLEREDDY wrote:
> Hey everybody,
> kindly stop this fighting with words. Ad is
> posted, we all saw it, the way its present is ok to Some AND no Ok to
> Some. Some project is started by morgan, He is capable of doing that
> project and so also with someother international researchers. Why say
> it is wastage of tax payer's money. Need not right he (morgan) may
> succeed....
>
> leave it Guys, thats all.why referring dictionaries and bibiliographies
> to further expand the ad to involved in fight.
>
> Hope all you people stop this.
Reply by PARTICLEREDDY●August 28, 20062006-08-28
Hey everybody,
kindly stop this fighting with words. Ad is
posted, we all saw it, the way its present is ok to Some AND no Ok to
Some. Some project is started by morgan, He is capable of doing that
project and so also with someother international researchers. Why say
it is wastage of tax payer's money. Need not right he (morgan) may
succeed....
leave it Guys, thats all.why referring dictionaries and bibiliographies
to further expand the ad to involved in fight.
Hope all you people stop this.
Reply by Peter K.●August 27, 20062006-08-27
John Herman wrote:
> Probably written by a manager or a bean counter.
>
> Picking out the difference between, say, balm and bomb, with reasonable
> reliability is way beyond reasonable.
ET, Fern herm!
Ciao,
Peter K.
Reply by John Herman●August 27, 20062006-08-27
Probably written by a manager or a bean counter.
Picking out the difference between, say, balm and bomb, with reasonable
reliability is way beyond reasonable.
In article <1156476732.745451.24060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "Rune
Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>dave_gelbart@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) invites
>> applications for a postdoctoral Fellow position in acoustic event
>> detection. The Fellow will be working with Nelson Morgan, along with
>> international colleagues, in the area of the detection of one
>> particular target word and/or sound in the background of all other
>> possible words or any other realistic sounds. The applicant is expected
>> to have strong capabilities in signal processing. Familiarity with
>> speech algorithms per se is a plus but is not absolutely required.
>
>This has to be a hoax.
>
>While I have heard this sort of statement privately from reputedly
>skilled people in the past, I never believed -- and still don't -- I
>should see this expressed so unequivocally in a signed official
>document issued by a presumably competent R&D organization:
>
>"...detection of detection of one particular target word and/or sound
>in the background of ***all***other***possible*** words or any other
>realistic sounds."
>
>They don't actually expect competent people to apply, do they?
>
>Anyone with infitesimal knowledge of applied DSP would know about
>that ghost that haunts any data processing project: Ambiguity.
>
>Assuming such a project does exist, no skilled professional would
>apply. Such a person would know that this is sort of project is a
>one-way street into oblivion. One or two inexperienced yougsters
>might apply, but that wouldn't matter since they would fall short of
>stated qualifications.
>
>Nah, the ad is a hoax.
>
>Rune
>
Reply by Jerry Avins●August 27, 20062006-08-27
John Fry wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> Nevertheless, I distinguish between "all x is not y" and "not all x
>> is y", and "I only want one cup of coffee" and I want only one cup
>> of coffee". It's a national shame that most scholars don't.
>
> Quantifier scope depends on context. That's how language works. No
> shame in that.
Indeed so, but the context I had in mind when I wrote might not be the
one you had when you read. If there is a way to reduce the statement's
dependence on context and I don't take advantage of it, shame on me.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Richard Owlett●August 27, 20062006-08-27
Richard Owlett wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>> morgan wrote:
>>
>>> My colleague Dave Gelbart kindly posted this apparently controversial
>>> ad for me, and Tony Robinson has stuck up for me; but it's probably a
>>> good idea for me to interject a few things myself.
>>
>>
>> [-- snip --]
>>
>> Morgan,
>>
>> Your post certainly gives a somewhat different impression of your
>> group than the ad did.
>>
>> Language is a funny thing.
>
>
> *YES*
>
>> It is the only means people have to communicate in any elaborate way
>> with each other.
>
>
> Playing "Devil's Advocate", has _anyone_ defined 'language' in THIS
> thread? As "they" say, "the devil is in the details" ;)
>
>> Most people
>> don't read other people's minds, so they can only relate to others
>> through what they hear or read. The choise of words and phrasings
>> tend to have an impression on the listener or reader; people usually
>> have no choise but to take what they hear or write at face value.
>> Anything else would amount to guess work, second-guessing and
>> so on.
>
>
> RUNE, you missed an IMPORTANT *GOTCHA*
> Any reader reads/interprets based on his life history. I had a
> hermeneutics prof who would frequently say "Text without context is
> pretext." Not original with him, but germane.
>
> The prof was emphasizing the author. I think it applys as well to the
> reader.
>
> I got "bit" by this in a thread titled "Time cards and sampling
> theorems". I was trying to understand the math. Most responses dealt
> with whether or not I should peruse the issue.
>
> BTW, and *VERY* OT, management has essentially ASKED me to pursue issue.
> BUT, I still have question re math of situation.
>
> Borrowing from A. Asimov's _Nightfall_, I think I'll be able to pose my
so i cannot type
*OBVIOUSLY that should be
I[as in Issac] Asimov
> question in a neutral form.
>
>
>
>>
>> If you really want to attract new people, use terms that professional
>> generalists can understand. This ad would not be aimed at the
>> arbitrary John Doe, so technical terms in general are permitted.
>>
>> Failing to understand the importance of presice language would
>> lead to a rapid decline of your group. Probably not while you
>> are in charge, but you might risk getting a successor who have
>> not contemplated the lingo he or she hears in the halls, and that
>> acts on the general, roundabout terms as if they were to be taken
>> literally.
>>
>> If -- when -- that happens, all hell breaks loose. Believe me.
>>
>> You built that group. You set the standards. Now you know the risk.
>>
>> Rune
>>
Reply by Richard Owlett●August 27, 20062006-08-27
Rune Allnor wrote:
> morgan wrote:
>
>>My colleague Dave Gelbart kindly posted this apparently controversial
>>ad for me, and Tony Robinson has stuck up for me; but it's probably a
>>good idea for me to interject a few things myself.
>
> [-- snip --]
>
> Morgan,
>
> Your post certainly gives a somewhat different impression of your
> group than the ad did.
>
> Language is a funny thing.
*YES*
> It is the only means people have to communicate in any elaborate way with each other.
Playing "Devil's Advocate", has _anyone_ defined 'language' in THIS
thread? As "they" say, "the devil is in the details" ;)
> Most people
> don't read other people's minds, so they can only relate to others
> through what they hear or read. The choise of words and phrasings
> tend to have an impression on the listener or reader; people usually
> have no choise but to take what they hear or write at face value.
> Anything else would amount to guess work, second-guessing and
> so on.
RUNE, you missed an IMPORTANT *GOTCHA*
Any reader reads/interprets based on his life history. I had a
hermeneutics prof who would frequently say "Text without context is
pretext." Not original with him, but germane.
The prof was emphasizing the author. I think it applys as well to the
reader.
I got "bit" by this in a thread titled "Time cards and sampling
theorems". I was trying to understand the math. Most responses dealt
with whether or not I should peruse the issue.
BTW, and *VERY* OT, management has essentially ASKED me to pursue issue.
BUT, I still have question re math of situation.
Borrowing from A. Asimov's _Nightfall_, I think I'll be able to pose my
question in a neutral form.
>
> If you really want to attract new people, use terms that professional
> generalists can understand. This ad would not be aimed at the
> arbitrary John Doe, so technical terms in general are permitted.
>
> Failing to understand the importance of presice language would
> lead to a rapid decline of your group. Probably not while you
> are in charge, but you might risk getting a successor who have
> not contemplated the lingo he or she hears in the halls, and that
> acts on the general, roundabout terms as if they were to be taken
> literally.
>
> If -- when -- that happens, all hell breaks loose. Believe me.
>
> You built that group. You set the standards. Now you know the risk.
>
> Rune
>
Reply by Rune Allnor●August 27, 20062006-08-27
morgan wrote:
> My colleague Dave Gelbart kindly posted this apparently controversial
> ad for me, and Tony Robinson has stuck up for me; but it's probably a
> good idea for me to interject a few things myself.
[-- snip --]
Morgan,
Your post certainly gives a somewhat different impression of your
group than the ad did.
Language is a funny thing. It is the only means people have to
communicate in any elaborate way with each other. Most people
don't read other people's minds, so they can only relate to others
through what they hear or read. The choise of words and phrasings
tend to have an impression on the listener or reader; people usually
have no choise but to take what they hear or write at face value.
Anything else would amount to guess work, second-guessing and
so on.
If you really want to attract new people, use terms that professional
generalists can understand. This ad would not be aimed at the
arbitrary John Doe, so technical terms in general are permitted.
Failing to understand the importance of presice language would
lead to a rapid decline of your group. Probably not while you
are in charge, but you might risk getting a successor who have
not contemplated the lingo he or she hears in the halls, and that
acts on the general, roundabout terms as if they were to be taken
literally.
If -- when -- that happens, all hell breaks loose. Believe me.
You built that group. You set the standards. Now you know the risk.
Rune