IT’S a pickle of a paradox: As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off. Why? Because the walls of the proverbial box in which we think are thickening along with our experience.
This so-called curse of knowledge, a phrase used in a 1989 paper in The Journal of Political Economy, means that once you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, it’s hard to imagine not knowing what you do. Your conversations with others in the field are peppered with catch phrases and jargon that are foreign to the uninitiated. When it’s time to accomplish a task — open a store, build a house, buy new cash registers, sell insurance — those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation as they barrel along the well-worn path.
In her 2006 book, “Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine — and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It,” Cynthia Barton Rabe proposes bringing in outsiders whom she calls zero-gravity thinkers to keep creativity and innovation on track.
When experts have to slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, she says, “it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems.”
Monday, December 31, 2007
Knots
Call it Murphy's Law of knots: If something can get tangled up, it will. "Anything that's long and flexible seems to somehow end up knotted," says Andrew Belmonte, an applied mathematician at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Now, scientists think they may have found out how and why things find their way into knotty arrangements. By tumbling a string of rope inside a box, biophysicists Dorian Raymer and Douglas Smith have discovered that knots—even complex knots—form surprisingly fast and often. The string first coils up, and then its free ends swivel around the other coils, tracing a random path among them. That essentially makes the coils into a braid, producing knots, the scientists say. The results' relevance may go well beyond explaining the epidemic of tangled venetian blind cords. That's because spontaneous knots seem to be prevalent in nature, especially in biological molecules. For example, knottiness may be crucial to the workings of certain proteins (see "Knots in Proteins"). And knots can randomly form in DNA, hampering duplication or gene expression—so much so that living cells deploy special knot-chopping enzymes.
Topology studies shapes. Specifically, it studies shapes' properties that are not affected by stretching, moving, twisting, or pulling—anything that doesn't break up the object or fuse some of its parts. The proverbial example is that, to a topologist, a coffee mug is the same as a doughnut. In your imagination, you can squash the mug into a doughnut shape, and it will retain the property of having a hole, namely its handle.
A sphere is different. You can stretch a sphere into a stick and bend the stick so its ends touch. But turning that open ring into a doughnut will involve fusing the ends, and that's forbidden.
In topology, a knot is any curved line that closes up on itself, possibly after a circuitous path in three dimensions. A circle is regarded as the "trivial" knot. Two loops are considered to be the same knot if you can turn one into the other by topological manipulation, which in this case means anything that does not break the curve or force it to run through itself.
Topologically, a knotted string is not a real knot, as long as its ends are free. That's because either of the ends can always thread back through any entanglement and undo the knot. An open string, no matter how garbled, is the same as a straight segment. (Mathematicians usually think of strings as being stretchable and infinitesimally thin, so in topology there is no issue of a knot being tight.)
Topologists usually work with two-dimensional drawings of knots called knot projections. From different points of view, the same curve will look different and so will its projections. Topologists' best tools for distinguishing knots are algebraic expressions called knot polynomials. These are sums of multiples of a variable, such as x, raised to different powers. The variable has no meaning per se, and all the information is in the numbers by which it's multiplied. But the x's make it easier to calculate a knot polynomial starting from a knot projection.
Topology studies shapes. Specifically, it studies shapes' properties that are not affected by stretching, moving, twisting, or pulling—anything that doesn't break up the object or fuse some of its parts. The proverbial example is that, to a topologist, a coffee mug is the same as a doughnut. In your imagination, you can squash the mug into a doughnut shape, and it will retain the property of having a hole, namely its handle.
A sphere is different. You can stretch a sphere into a stick and bend the stick so its ends touch. But turning that open ring into a doughnut will involve fusing the ends, and that's forbidden.
In topology, a knot is any curved line that closes up on itself, possibly after a circuitous path in three dimensions. A circle is regarded as the "trivial" knot. Two loops are considered to be the same knot if you can turn one into the other by topological manipulation, which in this case means anything that does not break the curve or force it to run through itself.
Topologically, a knotted string is not a real knot, as long as its ends are free. That's because either of the ends can always thread back through any entanglement and undo the knot. An open string, no matter how garbled, is the same as a straight segment. (Mathematicians usually think of strings as being stretchable and infinitesimally thin, so in topology there is no issue of a knot being tight.)
Topologists usually work with two-dimensional drawings of knots called knot projections. From different points of view, the same curve will look different and so will its projections. Topologists' best tools for distinguishing knots are algebraic expressions called knot polynomials. These are sums of multiples of a variable, such as x, raised to different powers. The variable has no meaning per se, and all the information is in the numbers by which it's multiplied. But the x's make it easier to calculate a knot polynomial starting from a knot projection.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Users are always the same
User behavior tends to follow certain patterns regardless of industry. - "Users are always the same."
So what are these user archetypes, and what's the best way to handle them? Here I present five of the most common user types, gleaned from IT pros in the field, and throw in one of the angelic variety for good measure.
1. The Know-It-All
You know this user. He knows a little HTML, and he defragged his hard drive once, so now he thinks he's an engineer who knows more than you. He often refuses to follow policies and instructions and has been known to poke his head in the server room "just to see what you're up to."
Know-It-Alls often insist on doing things their own way. They change options and settings on their computers just because they can, and they have a tendency to connect devices and download software to their computers that IT does not support.
And, predictably, they're arrogant enough to think they can't possibly be wrong about any of this.
How to handle: Get really technical on them to see if they know what I'm talking about, If it's false bravado, they'll catch on pretty quick that they don't know what I'm talking about and have to concede that I do know more than they do.
IT help desk pros have locked down Know-It-Alls' computers so they can't do extensive damage, and still others say empathizing with the Know-It-All actually does the trick. After all, perhaps they're just trying to expand their knowledge. Whatever path you choose, IT managers advise, don't lose your temper -- which can be easier said than done with this type of user.
2. The Know-Nothing
We've all heard the joke about the clueless user who looks in vain for the "any" key when prompted by their computer to "hit any key." Unfortunately, that's no joke. Meet the Know-It-All's polar opposite, the Know-Nothing -- i.e., the person who knows so little about technology he requires handholding for even the simplest tasks.
These novice users demand a lot of attention and often require multiple visits for help, managers say. They're frequently unable to articulate problems on the phone or over e-mail.
Know-Nothings like routine and often appear terrified of change, and once they've learned a program or task, they're hard-pressed to adapt to a new or different way. Also, they get freaked out by things like unfamiliar icons or new tool bars.
How to handle: It's tough for IT pros to put themselves in the position of novice users, partly because you can't assume they have any level of technical proficiency whatever.
-"It's hard for geeks to oversimplify things."
3. Mr. Entitlement
Often heard uttering the phrase, "Do you know who I am?" this particular user type comes in a variety of subspecies. It may be the CEO, who (let's face it) is genuinely entitled, or it may be a peon in marketing who thinks he's entitled simply because you're in customer service and he's, well, not.
The Entitlement twins are always on deadline with a super-important project, which means it's OK (in their minds, at least) to demand your immediate attention, ask you to skirt established procedures or call when you've got one foot out the door on Friday at 6 p.m.
How to handle: Delicately. All offices have politics, and users in a position of importance can make your life difficult until an issue is resolved.
When dealing with a senior executive, it's almost always in your best interest to drop what you're doing to fix a problem, support pros say; it's simply the smartest course given the reality of office hierarchies.
For those users sitting lower on the corporate totem pole, it's sometimes (stress sometimes) prudent to cater to their demands, provided the criticality of the situation is validated by the user's higher-ups.
4. The Finger-Pointer
Finger-Pointers never think (or at least, never admit) that they're in any way to blame for any of their problems -- you are.
When their systems are running slow, they assume that IT must have "done something to the server." Their lost or misplaced documents and forgotten passwords must be the help desk's fault. And yep, their misdirected print jobs and lost e-mail folders are all part of a vast IT conspiracy to mess up their workdays.
You know you've got a Finger-Pointer on your hands when you hear phrases like, "Everything was fine and then my system just blew up. What'd you guys do?"
How to handle: You can't win battles with a Finger-Pointer, so don't try, help desk staffers say. If they're bold enough to insist you're to blame when they know deep down that you're not, there's no way they'll back down in a public arena, or even privately.
Do not get sucked into a you-said, they-said argument with a Finger-Pointer. Try to say something like, 'Yeah, this software stinks.'" gives Finger-Pointers the feeling that they're not singled out, that others users are having trouble with a particular program or task.
5. The Twentysomething Whiz Kid
This person has dozens of freeware applications on his computer, along with three IM clients and a passel of unauthorized open-source software, and he knows how to use a proxy Web site to bypass the company firewall.
He's the Twentysomething Whiz Kid, a cousin to the Know-It-All, except that the Whiz Kid actually does know something about technology. You can engage in technical debates with the Whiz Kid. He has an opinion on whether non-GPL software can be dynamically linked to GPL libraries. In his cubicle, he has a stuffed Tux, the Linux penguin mascot. And he's highly likely to be a gamer, dude.
How to handle: Is it possible to simultaneously embrace Whiz Kids' enthusiasm while keeping a lid on their technological adventures? You should try, managers advise. However cute and capable they may appear, don't allow them to run amok on your network. Left unchecked, they could inadvertently expose the company jewels.
So what are these user archetypes, and what's the best way to handle them? Here I present five of the most common user types, gleaned from IT pros in the field, and throw in one of the angelic variety for good measure.
1. The Know-It-All
You know this user. He knows a little HTML, and he defragged his hard drive once, so now he thinks he's an engineer who knows more than you. He often refuses to follow policies and instructions and has been known to poke his head in the server room "just to see what you're up to."
Know-It-Alls often insist on doing things their own way. They change options and settings on their computers just because they can, and they have a tendency to connect devices and download software to their computers that IT does not support.
And, predictably, they're arrogant enough to think they can't possibly be wrong about any of this.
How to handle: Get really technical on them to see if they know what I'm talking about, If it's false bravado, they'll catch on pretty quick that they don't know what I'm talking about and have to concede that I do know more than they do.
IT help desk pros have locked down Know-It-Alls' computers so they can't do extensive damage, and still others say empathizing with the Know-It-All actually does the trick. After all, perhaps they're just trying to expand their knowledge. Whatever path you choose, IT managers advise, don't lose your temper -- which can be easier said than done with this type of user.
2. The Know-Nothing
We've all heard the joke about the clueless user who looks in vain for the "any" key when prompted by their computer to "hit any key." Unfortunately, that's no joke. Meet the Know-It-All's polar opposite, the Know-Nothing -- i.e., the person who knows so little about technology he requires handholding for even the simplest tasks.
These novice users demand a lot of attention and often require multiple visits for help, managers say. They're frequently unable to articulate problems on the phone or over e-mail.
Know-Nothings like routine and often appear terrified of change, and once they've learned a program or task, they're hard-pressed to adapt to a new or different way. Also, they get freaked out by things like unfamiliar icons or new tool bars.
How to handle: It's tough for IT pros to put themselves in the position of novice users, partly because you can't assume they have any level of technical proficiency whatever.
-"It's hard for geeks to oversimplify things."
3. Mr. Entitlement
Often heard uttering the phrase, "Do you know who I am?" this particular user type comes in a variety of subspecies. It may be the CEO, who (let's face it) is genuinely entitled, or it may be a peon in marketing who thinks he's entitled simply because you're in customer service and he's, well, not.
The Entitlement twins are always on deadline with a super-important project, which means it's OK (in their minds, at least) to demand your immediate attention, ask you to skirt established procedures or call when you've got one foot out the door on Friday at 6 p.m.
How to handle: Delicately. All offices have politics, and users in a position of importance can make your life difficult until an issue is resolved.
When dealing with a senior executive, it's almost always in your best interest to drop what you're doing to fix a problem, support pros say; it's simply the smartest course given the reality of office hierarchies.
For those users sitting lower on the corporate totem pole, it's sometimes (stress sometimes) prudent to cater to their demands, provided the criticality of the situation is validated by the user's higher-ups.
4. The Finger-Pointer
Finger-Pointers never think (or at least, never admit) that they're in any way to blame for any of their problems -- you are.
When their systems are running slow, they assume that IT must have "done something to the server." Their lost or misplaced documents and forgotten passwords must be the help desk's fault. And yep, their misdirected print jobs and lost e-mail folders are all part of a vast IT conspiracy to mess up their workdays.
You know you've got a Finger-Pointer on your hands when you hear phrases like, "Everything was fine and then my system just blew up. What'd you guys do?"
How to handle: You can't win battles with a Finger-Pointer, so don't try, help desk staffers say. If they're bold enough to insist you're to blame when they know deep down that you're not, there's no way they'll back down in a public arena, or even privately.
Do not get sucked into a you-said, they-said argument with a Finger-Pointer. Try to say something like, 'Yeah, this software stinks.'" gives Finger-Pointers the feeling that they're not singled out, that others users are having trouble with a particular program or task.
5. The Twentysomething Whiz Kid
This person has dozens of freeware applications on his computer, along with three IM clients and a passel of unauthorized open-source software, and he knows how to use a proxy Web site to bypass the company firewall.
He's the Twentysomething Whiz Kid, a cousin to the Know-It-All, except that the Whiz Kid actually does know something about technology. You can engage in technical debates with the Whiz Kid. He has an opinion on whether non-GPL software can be dynamically linked to GPL libraries. In his cubicle, he has a stuffed Tux, the Linux penguin mascot. And he's highly likely to be a gamer, dude.
How to handle: Is it possible to simultaneously embrace Whiz Kids' enthusiasm while keeping a lid on their technological adventures? You should try, managers advise. However cute and capable they may appear, don't allow them to run amok on your network. Left unchecked, they could inadvertently expose the company jewels.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Third Anniversary
Tommorow is my third anniversary of blogging.
Started on October 8th of 2004 !
And still continuing !!
Started on October 8th of 2004 !
And still continuing !!
Political Thoughts - Contd.
>>The shutting of Reliance Retail within 24 hours of its launch in Uttar Pradesh
What is the implication of these types of protests?
It is that the people who live in the neighborhood of the old grocer(who is to be driven out of business by big chain stores) have to continue buying from him, even though a chain store could give them better service at lower prices and thereby let them save money. Thus both the owners of the chain store and the people in the neighborhood are to be penalized - in order to protect the stagnation of the old grocer.
By what right?
If the grocer is unable to compete with the chain store, then, properly, he has no choice but to move elsewhere or go into another line of business or seek employment from the chain store.
What is the implication of these types of protests?
It is that the people who live in the neighborhood of the old grocer(who is to be driven out of business by big chain stores) have to continue buying from him, even though a chain store could give them better service at lower prices and thereby let them save money. Thus both the owners of the chain store and the people in the neighborhood are to be penalized - in order to protect the stagnation of the old grocer.
By what right?
If the grocer is unable to compete with the chain store, then, properly, he has no choice but to move elsewhere or go into another line of business or seek employment from the chain store.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Quotation
SING as if no one is listening
DANCE as if no one is watching
LOVE as you've never loved before
LIVE as if heaven is here on earth
DANCE as if no one is watching
LOVE as you've never loved before
LIVE as if heaven is here on earth
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Quotation
Telling the future by looking at the past assumes that conditions remain constant.
This is like driving a car by looking in the rearview mirror. - Herb Brody
Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open. - Lord Thomas Dewar
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it. - Louis Ferdinand
This is like driving a car by looking in the rearview mirror. - Herb Brody
Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.
Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open. - Lord Thomas Dewar
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it. - Louis Ferdinand
Friday, August 10, 2007
Quotation
Dream - is not what you see in sleep ...
....is the thing which does not let you sleep !!!!
....is the thing which does not let you sleep !!!!
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Hiring Programmers and The High Cost of Low Quality
Why is it so hard to find good programmers?
The simplest reason is when a company finds a good developer they do more to make sure that person is happy which leads to longer tenures. Better salary, more flexible working conditions, good tools, interesting projects, and better perks can often keep a programmer working for you longer.
Another obvious reason is that experts in any field are small in number, so your possible talent pool is limited. This leads managers and HR departments to settle for average or even below average developers. I believe this is the single biggest mistake a technology oriented company can make, regarding developers, just short of not using a good version control system.
We're not talking about customer service representatives or sales people here. Just having a body to fill the seat is not, I repeat not, always a win for the company. Sub-standard programmers drag down the efficiency of your other developers with beginner questions, poor comments/documentation, and bad code that someone else will later be forced to spend time fixing.
Companies need to stop thinking about their developers as cogs in the machine. They are more akin to artists, authors, designers, architects, scientists, or CEOs. Would your HR department rush to find the first person who would willing to take on the role of Chief Scientist, Art Director, or CEO in your company? Of course not, they would spend the time to do a through talent search for just the right candidate, court them, and then compensate them appropriately. They realize that having the wrong person in that seat is much worse than having the seat empty. It is absolutely the same with programming.
Anyone who has been a developer or managed developers can tell you that an expert can accomplish as much as 10 average developers. However, companies typically pay only a 10-20% premium for an expert over the average programmer. Whether or not their title is Lead, Architect, Development Manager, Guru or whatever nomenclature the company uses. I am not saying that if your average developer is paid $50k/year that you should pony up $500k/year for an expert. The employer/employee relationship never works like that, but what employers don't seem to realize is that in the end paying more saves them more.
What is an expert programmer?
Experience is key, but not necessarily in ways you might imagine. Time in the saddle, with a particular language is not as important as diversity of experience. Someone who has worked in several disparate industries, a generalist, is often a much better developer than one who has spent years in the same industry. There are exceptions to this, but in general I have found this to be the case.
Experts use better tools and care deeply about their craft. They aren't assembling bits on an assembly line, they are crafting a unique product to solve a unique problem. Experts are lazy, they work smarter rather than harder. Experts prefer the easiest solution that gets the job done. Experts aren't interested in creating complex solutions simply to have the complexity, that misguided egoism is the territory of more junior developers. They often get it right the first try and almost always on the second one.
The simplest reason is when a company finds a good developer they do more to make sure that person is happy which leads to longer tenures. Better salary, more flexible working conditions, good tools, interesting projects, and better perks can often keep a programmer working for you longer.
Another obvious reason is that experts in any field are small in number, so your possible talent pool is limited. This leads managers and HR departments to settle for average or even below average developers. I believe this is the single biggest mistake a technology oriented company can make, regarding developers, just short of not using a good version control system.
We're not talking about customer service representatives or sales people here. Just having a body to fill the seat is not, I repeat not, always a win for the company. Sub-standard programmers drag down the efficiency of your other developers with beginner questions, poor comments/documentation, and bad code that someone else will later be forced to spend time fixing.
Companies need to stop thinking about their developers as cogs in the machine. They are more akin to artists, authors, designers, architects, scientists, or CEOs. Would your HR department rush to find the first person who would willing to take on the role of Chief Scientist, Art Director, or CEO in your company? Of course not, they would spend the time to do a through talent search for just the right candidate, court them, and then compensate them appropriately. They realize that having the wrong person in that seat is much worse than having the seat empty. It is absolutely the same with programming.
Anyone who has been a developer or managed developers can tell you that an expert can accomplish as much as 10 average developers. However, companies typically pay only a 10-20% premium for an expert over the average programmer. Whether or not their title is Lead, Architect, Development Manager, Guru or whatever nomenclature the company uses. I am not saying that if your average developer is paid $50k/year that you should pony up $500k/year for an expert. The employer/employee relationship never works like that, but what employers don't seem to realize is that in the end paying more saves them more.
What is an expert programmer?
Experience is key, but not necessarily in ways you might imagine. Time in the saddle, with a particular language is not as important as diversity of experience. Someone who has worked in several disparate industries, a generalist, is often a much better developer than one who has spent years in the same industry. There are exceptions to this, but in general I have found this to be the case.
Experts use better tools and care deeply about their craft. They aren't assembling bits on an assembly line, they are crafting a unique product to solve a unique problem. Experts are lazy, they work smarter rather than harder. Experts prefer the easiest solution that gets the job done. Experts aren't interested in creating complex solutions simply to have the complexity, that misguided egoism is the territory of more junior developers. They often get it right the first try and almost always on the second one.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Quotation
If you cant convince them, confuse them :)))
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference !!
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference !!
Desirable Difficulty
If students don't test themselves when they read a chapter, they can easily think they know the material when they don't. When you test yourself as you study, you may feel like you're making it harder on yourself, but on the test, you will do much better. This can be termed 'desirable difficulty'. If you want to learn something well, when you're reading, stop and think about what you've read, and test yourself; you learn by testing yourself. If you make it more difficult for yourself while you study, you feel like you're doing worse, but you're learning more..
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A Controversial Quote
To be happy with a man you must understand him a lot and love him a little....
To be happy with a woman you must love her a lot and not try to understand her at all....
To be happy with a woman you must love her a lot and not try to understand her at all....
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
10 mistakes to avoid in software development
Forrester Research published this week a report listing 10 mistakes that send software development projects off track.
The 10 mistakes that put projects at risk of failure include:
*** Never committing to project success.
*** Freezing the schedule and budget before a project is sufficiently understood.
*** Overscoping a solution.
*** Circumventing the application development organization altogether.
*** Underestimating the complexity of a problem.
*** Being stingy with subject-matter experts, in which their participation is not sufficient.
*** Choosing the wrong project leadership.
*** Distrusting managers who have had tasks delegated to them.
*** Jumping into development without enough research.
*** Suppressing bad news, in which dialogue is insufficient.
The 10 mistakes that put projects at risk of failure include:
*** Never committing to project success.
*** Freezing the schedule and budget before a project is sufficiently understood.
*** Overscoping a solution.
*** Circumventing the application development organization altogether.
*** Underestimating the complexity of a problem.
*** Being stingy with subject-matter experts, in which their participation is not sufficient.
*** Choosing the wrong project leadership.
*** Distrusting managers who have had tasks delegated to them.
*** Jumping into development without enough research.
*** Suppressing bad news, in which dialogue is insufficient.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Swarm Intelligence
Ants aren't smart. Ant colonies are. A colony can solve problems unthinkable for individual ants, such as finding the shortest path to the best food source, allocating workers to different tasks, or defending a territory from neighbors. As individuals, ants might be tiny dummies, but as colonies they respond quickly and effectively to their environment. They do it with something called swarm intelligence.
One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all—at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing.
Ants communicate by touch and smell. When one ant bumps into another, it sniffs with its antennae to find out if the other belongs to the same nest and where it has been working. (Ants that work outside the nest smell different from those that stay inside.) Before they leave the nest each day, foragers normally wait for early morning patrollers to return. As patrollers enter the nest, they touch antennae briefly with foragers.
"When a forager has contact with a patroller, it's a stimulus for the forager to go out," Gordon says. "But the forager needs several contacts no more than ten seconds apart before it will go out."
That's how swarm intelligence works: simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. No ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do. Some ant species may go about this with more sophistication than others. (Temnothorax albipennis, for example, can rate the quality of a potential nest site using multiple criteria.) But the bottom line, says Iain Couzin, a biologist at Oxford and Princeton Universities, is that no leadership is required. "Even complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions," he says.
Inspired by the elegance of this idea, Marco Dorigo, a computer scientist at the Université Libre in Brussels, used his knowledge of ant behavior in 1991 to create mathematical procedures for solving particularly complex human problems, such as routing trucks, scheduling airlines, or guiding military robots.
One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all—at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing.
Ants communicate by touch and smell. When one ant bumps into another, it sniffs with its antennae to find out if the other belongs to the same nest and where it has been working. (Ants that work outside the nest smell different from those that stay inside.) Before they leave the nest each day, foragers normally wait for early morning patrollers to return. As patrollers enter the nest, they touch antennae briefly with foragers.
"When a forager has contact with a patroller, it's a stimulus for the forager to go out," Gordon says. "But the forager needs several contacts no more than ten seconds apart before it will go out."
That's how swarm intelligence works: simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. No ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do. Some ant species may go about this with more sophistication than others. (Temnothorax albipennis, for example, can rate the quality of a potential nest site using multiple criteria.) But the bottom line, says Iain Couzin, a biologist at Oxford and Princeton Universities, is that no leadership is required. "Even complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions," he says.
Inspired by the elegance of this idea, Marco Dorigo, a computer scientist at the Université Libre in Brussels, used his knowledge of ant behavior in 1991 to create mathematical procedures for solving particularly complex human problems, such as routing trucks, scheduling airlines, or guiding military robots.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Entrancing concepts - Selfish Gene
The Selfish Gene is a very popular and somewhat controversial book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976.
It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a provocative way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy.
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.
A crude analogy can be found in the old saw about a chicken being just an egg's way of making more eggs. In a similar inversion, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" or survival machines, with genes as the "replicators" that create these organisms as a means of acquiring resources and copying themselves. At the level of organisms, we can see genes as being for some feature that might benefit the organism, but at the level of genes, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves.
It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a provocative way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy.
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.
A crude analogy can be found in the old saw about a chicken being just an egg's way of making more eggs. In a similar inversion, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" or survival machines, with genes as the "replicators" that create these organisms as a means of acquiring resources and copying themselves. At the level of organisms, we can see genes as being for some feature that might benefit the organism, but at the level of genes, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Take a break
Took one day leave and visited my house at Aluva. Completed the tasks at home and spend some valuable time with my mother.
My old colleagues at Infopark had arranged a one day trip (Kumarakom boat cruise). Spend one day with them. Had lots of fun. I was black out due to overdose of alcohol - so a part of the entertainment was not accessible for me :(
Had a religous gettogether at my wife's house. After attending the same, we left for Trivandrum.
Three days finished as if it was a dream. Waiting for the next travel.
My old colleagues at Infopark had arranged a one day trip (Kumarakom boat cruise). Spend one day with them. Had lots of fun. I was black out due to overdose of alcohol - so a part of the entertainment was not accessible for me :(
Had a religous gettogether at my wife's house. After attending the same, we left for Trivandrum.
Three days finished as if it was a dream. Waiting for the next travel.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Tips Of the Day
A blind boy sat on the steps of a building with a hat by his feet. He held up a sign which said: " I am blind, please help ." There were only a few coins in the hat.
A man was walking by. He took a few coins from his pocket and dropped them into the hat. He then took the sign, turned it around, and wrote some words. He put the sign back so that everyone who walked by would see the new words. Soon the hat began to fill up. A lot more people were giving money to the blind boy. That afternoon the man who had changed the sign came to see how things were.
The boy recognized his footsteps and asked, "Were you the one who changed my sign this morning? What did you write?" The man said, "I only wrote the truth. I said what you said but in a different way."
What he had written was: "Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it."
Do you think the first sign and the second sign were saying the same thing?
Of course both signs told people the boy was blind. But the first sign simply told people to help by putting some money in the hat. The second sign told people that they were able to enjoy the beauty of the day, but the boy could not enjoy it because he was blind.
The first sign simply said the boy was blind. The second sign told people they were so lucky that they were not blind.
Should we be surprised that the second sign was more effective?
Moral
The first is: Be creative. Be innovative.
Think differently.
THERE IS ALWAYS A BETTER WAY!
The second is:
Be thankful for what you have.
Someone else has less.Help where you can.
Keep Smiling.
Note: Life is too short to regret for what u have lost. Be happy with what u have got.
A man was walking by. He took a few coins from his pocket and dropped them into the hat. He then took the sign, turned it around, and wrote some words. He put the sign back so that everyone who walked by would see the new words. Soon the hat began to fill up. A lot more people were giving money to the blind boy. That afternoon the man who had changed the sign came to see how things were.
The boy recognized his footsteps and asked, "Were you the one who changed my sign this morning? What did you write?" The man said, "I only wrote the truth. I said what you said but in a different way."
What he had written was: "Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it."
Do you think the first sign and the second sign were saying the same thing?
Of course both signs told people the boy was blind. But the first sign simply told people to help by putting some money in the hat. The second sign told people that they were able to enjoy the beauty of the day, but the boy could not enjoy it because he was blind.
The first sign simply said the boy was blind. The second sign told people they were so lucky that they were not blind.
Should we be surprised that the second sign was more effective?
Moral
The first is: Be creative. Be innovative.
Think differently.
THERE IS ALWAYS A BETTER WAY!
The second is:
Be thankful for what you have.
Someone else has less.Help where you can.
Keep Smiling.
Note: Life is too short to regret for what u have lost. Be happy with what u have got.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tips of the Day
The greatest handicap - Fear
The best day - Today
Hardest thing to do - To begin
Easiest thing to do - Finding faults
Most useless asset - PrideMost useful asset - Humility
Most disagreeable person - The complainer
Great need - Common sense
Meanest feeling - Regret at another's success
Best gift - Forgiveness
The hardest & most painful to accept - Defeat
The greatest knowledge - Experience
The greatest thing - LOVE
The greatest success in the world - PEACE OF MIND
The best day - Today
Hardest thing to do - To begin
Easiest thing to do - Finding faults
Most useless asset - PrideMost useful asset - Humility
Most disagreeable person - The complainer
Great need - Common sense
Meanest feeling - Regret at another's success
Best gift - Forgiveness
The hardest & most painful to accept - Defeat
The greatest knowledge - Experience
The greatest thing - LOVE
The greatest success in the world - PEACE OF MIND
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Books & Authors
Got reference to writer John Grisham from Krishnettan's orkut community..Searched abt the author and got the details from wikipedia..
John Ray Grisham Jr. (born February 8, 1955) is a former politician, retired attorney, American novelist and author best known for his works of modern legal drama.
A Time to Kill is the name of a legal suspense thriller authored by John Grisham in 1989. I've seen the movie.
The Firm is a 1991 legal thriller and the second novel by John Grisham. It was his first widely recognized piece of work, and in 1993, was made into a film starring Tom Cruise. Need to find a vcd of this..
John Ray Grisham Jr. (born February 8, 1955) is a former politician, retired attorney, American novelist and author best known for his works of modern legal drama.
A Time to Kill is the name of a legal suspense thriller authored by John Grisham in 1989. I've seen the movie.
The Firm is a 1991 legal thriller and the second novel by John Grisham. It was his first widely recognized piece of work, and in 1993, was made into a film starring Tom Cruise. Need to find a vcd of this..
Power & Corruption
Power tends to currupt;
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Best Places To Work In IT
Computerworld's annual summary of the best places to work in IT lists companies that excel in five areas of employment: career development, retention, benefits, diversity, and training.
According to the scorecard, the top five retention methods are: competitive benefits; competitive salaries; work/life balance; flexible work hours; and tuition reimbursement.
The top three are Quicken Loans, University of Miami, and Sharp HealthCare.
According to the scorecard, the top five retention methods are: competitive benefits; competitive salaries; work/life balance; flexible work hours; and tuition reimbursement.
The top three are Quicken Loans, University of Miami, and Sharp HealthCare.
Something personal
Attended a small seminar taken by my colleague - Joseph Thomas about blogging. It was a really nice and inspiring session. I was full of energy to restart blogging, but as usual, this was set aside due to other high priority tasks.
This weekend I stayed at Trivandrum itself. Because Sumy was having job till noon on Saturday - so leaving for Aluva on Saturday afternoon is not worth the time/money spend. Saturday we took Fr. Alexander to our rented house and had it blessed by him. We visited both aunties during weekend.
Now government have reinforced the helmet rule.. What a pure waste..Why do government force such things on people? When there are lot of other high priority things pending that are to be taken care of?
This weekend I stayed at Trivandrum itself. Because Sumy was having job till noon on Saturday - so leaving for Aluva on Saturday afternoon is not worth the time/money spend. Saturday we took Fr. Alexander to our rented house and had it blessed by him. We visited both aunties during weekend.
Now government have reinforced the helmet rule.. What a pure waste..Why do government force such things on people? When there are lot of other high priority things pending that are to be taken care of?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Some thought tips
TRUST:
TRUST is a very important factor for all relationships. When trust is broken, it is the end of the relationship. Lack of trust leads to suspicion, suspicion generates anger, anger causes enmity and enmity may result in separation.
PERFECT RELATIONSHIPS?? :
A person visited the government matchmaker for marriage, SDU, and requested "I am looking for a spouse. Please help me to find a suitable one." The SDU officer said, "Your requirements, please." "Oh, good looking, polite, humorous, sporty, knowledgeable and good in singing and dancing. Willing to accompany me the whole day at home during my leisure hour, if I don't go out. Telling me interesting stories when I need companion for conversation and be silent when I want to rest." The officer listened carefully and replied, "I understand you need television."
PERSONAL PERCEPTION :
You can never have everyone praise you, nor will everyone condemn you. Never in the past, not at present, and never will be in the future. Thus, do not be too bothered by others words if our conscience is clear.
TRUST is a very important factor for all relationships. When trust is broken, it is the end of the relationship. Lack of trust leads to suspicion, suspicion generates anger, anger causes enmity and enmity may result in separation.
PERFECT RELATIONSHIPS?? :
A person visited the government matchmaker for marriage, SDU, and requested "I am looking for a spouse. Please help me to find a suitable one." The SDU officer said, "Your requirements, please." "Oh, good looking, polite, humorous, sporty, knowledgeable and good in singing and dancing. Willing to accompany me the whole day at home during my leisure hour, if I don't go out. Telling me interesting stories when I need companion for conversation and be silent when I want to rest." The officer listened carefully and replied, "I understand you need television."
PERSONAL PERCEPTION :
You can never have everyone praise you, nor will everyone condemn you. Never in the past, not at present, and never will be in the future. Thus, do not be too bothered by others words if our conscience is clear.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Milestones
A number of events occured in life, since I last posted the blog.............
I purchased a new house, and have shifted to that house with my family on January.............
I got offer letter from Envestnet on 9 March...........
My betrothal was on 16 April......
I joined Envestnet on 17 April..............
My marriage was on 2 May.............
My wife -
Sumy Thomas,
Thottunkal,
Vyttila.
She is an accountant at JRG securities, Kaloor.
Till now, everything is fine... I hope future will also be like this....
I purchased a new house, and have shifted to that house with my family on January.............
I got offer letter from Envestnet on 9 March...........
My betrothal was on 16 April......
I joined Envestnet on 17 April..............
My marriage was on 2 May.............
My wife -
Sumy Thomas,
Thottunkal,
Vyttila.
She is an accountant at JRG securities, Kaloor.
Till now, everything is fine... I hope future will also be like this....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)