PhD s from Convolution Integral Thread

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

On 1/2/2010 1:43 PM, Fred Marshall 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

I agree with what you've written here.   I think the thing I've found 
the most annoying in my career was when there was a culture in place (or 
just a management point of view) that somebody with a PhD was more 
authoritative than somebody with your listed 1-3 skillset, for no other 
reason than they had a PhD.  Likewise, somebody with a long history of 
skills 1-3 often struggle for career advancement against a far less 
skilled PhD, for no other reason than the degree status.  It doesn't 
always happen, but it does with enough frequency to give a lot of people 
disdain for those conditions.

I've seen a lot of projects steered wrong because of that, too. 
Sometimes the result is ultimate failure of the project (e.g., IMHO, 
UWB), sometimes the result is just a big increase in the project 
schedule compared to what it could have been.

-- 
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On Jan 3, 9:43=A0am, Fred Marshall <fmarshallx@remove_the_xacm.org>
wrote:
> It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the
> posts. =A0So, 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. =A0They were still helpful when we needed a
> strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue. =A0But, in general, =
I
> didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or
> government labs. =A0There'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. =A0The
> consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the
> solution works. =A0Working together they may come up with a lasting
> solution....
>
> Fred

What about problems that have not been solved to date? Can your
average Joe engineer solve them or does it require some advanced
knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow. eg pre-Widrow and co there
was no LMS,adaptive filters etc. Would an engineer in industry have
had time to sit down and work all that out on his own or in a group?
Doubt it. Maybe in a research lab environment for IBM or Bell labs but
most companies are interested in one thing only - making money! That's
why they are in business. Scholarly activity for its own sake is the
domain of the University. Then again occasionally a company does
discover something new - happens a lot in Japan. The knowledge will
disseminate eventually but it's a secret for a long time - or it's
patented so nowbody else can use it. I spent a long time working in a
company with a very experienced engineer who told me every day how
rubbish academics were and that they knew virtually nothing of any
real use that wasn't in a text book. I eventually managed to squeeze
out of him some great stuff indeed but it was a struggle. He was tight
fisted when it came to knowledge. he considered it all bellonged to
him since he had discovered it! It was his property and not to leave
the company. Contrast this with a Uni.
Yes companies are great but they exist but for one reason - to make
money. Now remember that next time you discover something new.


Hardy

On 1/2/2010 4:35 PM, HardySpicer wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:43 am, Fred Marshall<fmarshallx@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? Can your
> average Joe engineer solve them or does it require some advanced
> knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow. eg pre-Widrow and co there
> was no LMS,adaptive filters etc. Would an engineer in industry have
> had time to sit down and work all that out on his own or in a group?
> Doubt it.

Uhh, I've worked in some pretty (comparatively) small companies where we 
did just exactly that sort of thing, and I've worked with a lot of 
people in some other comparatively small companies that also did that 
sort of work.  I don't think it's as rare as you suggest.

> Maybe in a research lab environment for IBM or Bell labs but
> most companies are interested in one thing only - making money! That's
> why they are in business.

And a company that makes technical products that can get a performance 
(and therefore marketing) advantage from research do tend to do that 
sort of research, because they'll get a competitive advantage that'll 
sell more product, gain market share, etc., etc.  Your notion that only 
big companies do that seems odd to me, if I understand you correctly.

The main difference is that small companies don't have the motivation 
(and often can't afford the overhead) associated with publishing such 
things, so they tend not to.

> Scholarly activity for its own sake is the
> domain of the University. Then again occasionally a company does
> discover something new - happens a lot in Japan. The knowledge will
> disseminate eventually but it's a secret for a long time - or it's
> patented so nowbody else can use it. I spent a long time working in a
> company with a very experienced engineer who told me every day how
> rubbish academics were and that they knew virtually nothing of any
> real use that wasn't in a text book. I eventually managed to squeeze
> out of him some great stuff indeed but it was a struggle. He was tight
> fisted when it came to knowledge. he considered it all bellonged to
> him since he had discovered it! It was his property and not to leave
> the company. Contrast this with a Uni.
> Yes companies are great but they exist but for one reason - to make
> money. Now remember that next time you discover something new.

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.

-- 
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On Jan 3, 12:50=A0pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:

> So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. =A0 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.
> =A0 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

On Jan 2, 8:45=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:50=A0pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. =A0 Much, if not mo=
st,
> > academic research is funded by companies interested in the research are=
a
> > because, guess what, they can use it to make products that make money.
> > =A0 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.

I think a lot of thinkers start off thinking this way, before, say,
the age of 25, until they discover the Rent Monster, and realize that
they need to change their point of view as a matter of survival.
Unfortunately, many of them make the tragic mistake of presuming that
their breakthroughs alone will leaven their financial burdens, and act
accordingly, neglecting their very bodies in blind pursuit of some
kind of monetary prize associated somehow with the breakthroughs.

Achimedes is said to have bathed so little, others forcibly carried
him to the bath.

Machiavelli, in his letter to Lorenzo di Medici, makes a pious request
for sponsorship, not necessarily in exchange for "The Prince", but as
a gesture of appreciation, since he was poor, and "The Prince" would
obviously have some benefit to Medici.

Heaviside was served with numerous warrants for not paying his heating
bill.

Einstein could have used a few more socks and other basic items.

> Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity or

At first, relativity, then later, prize money to be gained from the
Nobel Prize that he expected to win so that he would have enough for
himself and his ex-wife.

> Newton when he discovered the laws of motion?

Probably: rent. If his biographies are any indication, he was
notoriously neglectful of things other people consider necessary for
survival.

> I do agree however that many Universities are now greedy bastards and
> are in many respects becoming like companies.

Yes, the trend is certainly headed this way. I am begining to think
that this trend is inevitable, an artifact of class struggle.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jan 2, 6:35 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:43 am, Fred Marshall <fmarshallx@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? Can your
> average Joe engineer

it is not a dichotomy between "average Joe" and "Dr Joe".

> solve them or does it require some advanced
> knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow. eg pre-Widrow and co there
> was no LMS,adaptive filters etc. Would an engineer in industry have
> had time to sit down and work all that out on his own or in a group?
> Doubt it.

oh, i don't agree with that at all.  the main thing about the basic
LMS is the *insight* to see it.  it's not particularly complicated.
Joe Schmoe might have figgered it out before Dr. Widrow.  but it
didn't turn out that way (as far as we know).  some of us in the
industry can do math, have whiteboards or paper, and have a few
moments to write and contemplate equations.  if someone (without a
PhD) were paying attention at all during undergrad comms and dsp (and
the required engineering math courses), he/she has the tools to figure
out how an LMS filter works and the insight could have fallen upon him/
her before Widrow.

> Maybe in a research lab environment for IBM or Bell labs but
> most companies are interested in one thing only - making money! That's
> why they are in business. Scholarly activity for its own sake is the
> domain of the University. Then again occasionally a company does
> discover something new - happens a lot in Japan. The knowledge will
> disseminate eventually but it's a secret for a long time - or it's
> patented so nobody else can use it. I spent a long time working in a
> company with a very experienced engineer who told me every day how
> rubbish academics were and that they knew virtually nothing of any
> real use that wasn't in a text book. I eventually managed to squeeze
> out of him some great stuff indeed but it was a struggle. He was tight
> fisted when it came to knowledge. he considered it all belonged to
> him since he had discovered it!

it's unenlightened, but true.  problem is, if you keep it secret
someone else might stumble upon the same knowledge, patent it, and if
you cannot show your prior use of it, you might have to give it up,
even if you thought of it first.  in my case, this is one reason why
the simple knowledge in this: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=969581
was published (my only IEEE pub).  there were other reasons.

> It was his property and not to leave
> the company. Contrast this with a Uni.
> Yes companies are great but they exist but for one reason - to make
> money. Now remember that next time you discover something new.

sometimes more deferred self-interest interests companies.  the Bell
System was not a university and they published a lot of shit.  what
good did that do for the company?

On Jan 2, 9:45&#4294967295;pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do agree however that many Universities are now greedy bastards and
> are in many respects becoming like companies.

i just want to make clear that i am not anti-PhD nor do i disrespect
the credential in the ideal.  i just think that, since ca. 1970, *way*
too many PhDs have been awarded and that, in and of itself, the
authority implied in the credential has been diluted.  coupled with
this is an observation that non-prestigious schools that exist
primarily for teaching engineers do their students no good by reducing
their applicant pool and hiring only PhDs to teach.

i have met PhDs that i did not respect on a scholarly level (i truly
wondered how they got their PhD), but also some that i respect a great
deal.  i have nothing against the credential or those who hold it as a
class.  i am elitist enough to recognize the need for credentials.
but i do not believe that only PhDs can be scholars or discover
knowledge or transmit knowledge (or get paid for discovering and
transmitting knowledge).  i guess i feel the same about PhDs as i do
about elected politicians or about high-ranking executives.

r b-j

On Jan 3, 5:01&#4294967295;pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:45&#4294967295;pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 12:50&#4294967295;pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. &#4294967295; 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.
> > > &#4294967295; 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.
>
> I think a lot of thinkers start off thinking this way, before, say,
> the age of 25, until they discover the Rent Monster, and realize that
> they need to change their point of view as a matter of survival.
> Unfortunately, many of them make the tragic mistake of presuming that
> their breakthroughs alone will leaven their financial burdens, and act
> accordingly, neglecting their very bodies in blind pursuit of some
> kind of monetary prize associated somehow with the breakthroughs.
>
> Achimedes is said to have bathed so little, others forcibly carried
> him to the bath.
>
> Machiavelli, in his letter to Lorenzo di Medici, makes a pious request
> for sponsorship, not necessarily in exchange for "The Prince", but as
> a gesture of appreciation, since he was poor, and "The Prince" would
> obviously have some benefit to Medici.
>
> Heaviside was served with numerous warrants for not paying his heating
> bill.
>
> Einstein could have used a few more socks and other basic items.
>
> > Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity or
>
> At first, relativity, then later, prize money to be gained from the
> Nobel Prize that he expected to win so that he would have enough for
> himself and his ex-wife.
>
Actually I remember see a TV program on this and you are historically
correct!
There must be easier ways of making money than going for the Nobel
prize! My old Prof said to me that he enjoyed his work so much that to
him it was like doing crossword puzzles. he said he would do it even
if he wasn't paid. I think once you are comfortable - own your house
and have some form of income (pension?)  then maybe you can start to
fill the world with your free knowledge. I do get annoyed at industry
people who complain that the knowledge in books is crap and that they
only have the real way to do it but under no circumstances would ever
publish it!


Hardy

On 1/2/2010 10:39 PM, HardySpicer wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:01 pm, Le Chaud Lapin<jaibudu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 8:45 pm, HardySpicer<gyansor...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 12:50 pm, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@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.
>> I think a lot of thinkers start off thinking this way, before, say,
>> the age of 25, until they discover the Rent Monster, and realize that
>> they need to change their point of view as a matter of survival.
>> Unfortunately, many of them make the tragic mistake of presuming that
>> their breakthroughs alone will leaven their financial burdens, and act
>> accordingly, neglecting their very bodies in blind pursuit of some
>> kind of monetary prize associated somehow with the breakthroughs.
>>
>> Achimedes is said to have bathed so little, others forcibly carried
>> him to the bath.
>>
>> Machiavelli, in his letter to Lorenzo di Medici, makes a pious request
>> for sponsorship, not necessarily in exchange for "The Prince", but as
>> a gesture of appreciation, since he was poor, and "The Prince" would
>> obviously have some benefit to Medici.
>>
>> Heaviside was served with numerous warrants for not paying his heating
>> bill.
>>
>> Einstein could have used a few more socks and other basic items.
>>
>>> Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity or
>> At first, relativity, then later, prize money to be gained from the
>> Nobel Prize that he expected to win so that he would have enough for
>> himself and his ex-wife.
>>
> Actually I remember see a TV program on this and you are historically
> correct!
> There must be easier ways of making money than going for the Nobel
> prize! My old Prof said to me that he enjoyed his work so much that to
> him it was like doing crossword puzzles. he said he would do it even
> if he wasn't paid. I think once you are comfortable - own your house
> and have some form of income (pension?)  then maybe you can start to
> fill the world with your free knowledge. I do get annoyed at industry
> people who complain that the knowledge in books is crap and that they
> only have the real way to do it but under no circumstances would ever
> publish it!
>
>
> Hardy

In my view there are a few common motivations for publication:

1. Career pressure from management. Usually this happens in an academic 
environment, but some commercial labs are like this when they need to be 
able to point to something to justify their existence.

2. An invention has been patented and it makes sense to let the industry 
know what it is and who owns it.  This can potentially lead to licensing 
revenue.  Alamouti's paper on Space-Time coding comes to mind here as 
one example.

3. The research was funded by a source that requests publication of the 
results.  This can happen with government, commercial or private funding 
sources.

4. A company with a monopoly or an image problem may seek to elevate 
their status by sharing some research. (e.g., the old Bell Labs).

5. A small company may seek to gain publicity or enhance their image (or 
show up on the radar, so to speak) by publishing research results. This 
is a fairly cheap way to get publicity within an industry, and 
facilitate engagement with other researchers.

6. An individual may wish to gain status for a personal career enhancer, 
sometimes to facilitate employment elsewhere.  I've seen this used to 
good effect.

7. Altruism.  While arguably the most noble, I think this is by far the 
least common reason to publish.

There are probably more fundamental reasons, but I think these are the 
main ones.  Note that many of these have nothing to do with the quality 
of the research, and in most cases the research itself is a secondary 
reason for publication.

There are also reasons NOT to publish good research:

1. Trade secrets can be very effective, i.e., keeping something secret 
can often be the best way to protect intellectual property.  Patents are 
only effective if infringement is easy to detect and the infringer has 
enough money to make prosecution worthwhile.

2. Even if a patent is obtained, it is often beneficial to not draw 
attention to it by further publishing details.

3. A company may not be able to afford the diversion of a researcher to 
preparing a publication.  This usually applies to smaller companies.

4. A company may not view the diversion of a researcher to prepare a 
publication to have a worthwhile return on investment.


Overall, I think the nature of the reasons for and against help explain 
why a lot of very good research never gets published and why a lot of 
crappy research does get published.

I think over time I've personally been in environments where 1, 2, 5, 
and 6 of the reasons for and ALL of the reasons against applied (not all 
in the same environment or at the same time).


-- 
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On Jan 2, 6:50&#4294967295;pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:

>
> So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. &#4294967295; 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.
> &#4294967295; I don't see a problem here.
>
> --

Actually, war drives innovation the quickest.  The inner drive of man
to win at war is the strongest drive that man has,  and has provided,
by far, the most innovative thinking in man through out the ages.