Mendeley: the reference management software

Posted in Labels: , , | at 14:55

Yesterday, a friend of mine Dmitry Konstantinov told me about Mendeley. His problem was he had got a lot of papers within his computer and needed to handle them efficiently. After digging the Internet, he found Mendeley reference management system. The system allows you to sort papers, extract the title, abstract, authors, and references from textual PDFs, automatically retrieve meta-information about them from services like CiteSeerx, annotate papers and even their paragraphs, tag papers, flag them as read/favourite etc. Full text search across all your library is very convenient too.


The project is based in London, and share some management with Last.fm. Unsurprisingly, they have a social network upon all that. You can share you paper collections, upload your articles, synchronize your library with Mendeley Web. A user has up to 500 Mb space on servers. Now I see, where the idea of SciPeople, Russian scientific network, comes from. I don't know if such networks are the future of science, but they are, however, worth paying attention.

Read Users' Comments (3)

Science vs. Industry

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , | at 21:35

Yesterday I was called by an HR officer from NetCracker, my former employer. She told me they "have a lot of new activities", so now they "fulfil repeated recruiting" and suggested to return to NetCracker. It is really funny, because 1.5 years ago they told me that according to the corporate policy it was impossible to employ somebody who had left the company once. I politely rejected them, but the talk refreshed my memories about previous hesitations.


When I switched the company to Graphics & Media Lab, it was a hard decision. That time I firmly decided to prefer scientific career over industrial. I considered a lot of pros and cons to make the decision. Although they are often personal, I'd like to share my observations with you.

Advantages of research work:
  • When you work as a researcher, you invent something new instead of just coding different stuff. This job is creative, not just constructive.
  • When you work as a programmer, you result is just a code. You don't publish papers, no one knows about your results. Moreover, they are often proprietorial.
  • If you work as an office worker or a manager, you could be paid a lot of money, but you are supposed to work 24x7. It really sucks because you do really annoying paperwork or participate in meetings, but do not produce anything substantial. If you have a lot of money, you have no time or desire to spend them to anything interesting. That's the reason why my roommate Andrey Korolev left Shell.
  • When you work as a scientist, you should not learn all the boring technologies. You can't be a prominent Java programmer without knowing heaps of jXxx libraries, a number of frameworks and without having some useless certificates. Besides, your knowledge could be narrow, they are restricted by your employer's needs.
  • Scientists are mobile: they move from one university to another. Some universities do not prolong contracts with professors, even if they are very cool. For me, it seems boring to live all the life in one place. (Though you could be sent to business trips while you work at some big corporation)
  • If you work at university, you might have a teaching experience of some kind, which is useful for you, if you use it properly.
Advantages of industrial work:
  • The main advantage is a good salary. :) If you are not a complete geek, it does matter. Science is usually funded by grants, which is unstable.
  • Since your employer needs profit, you do something practical. You can be sure that you don't investigate some abstract stuff that will never be applied.
Trust or not, our lab combines advantages of both directions. We usually work on projects ordered by customers who pay for it. Of course, we select only those projects, in which we can get some scientific results. Actually, it is done automatically, because it is not profitable for a customer to pay us for coding. That's how applied science should work, I think.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Hello, world!

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , | at 03:17

Well, I've just started my technical/research blog.


Why?

I already have a personal blog, which is (I hope) used to be read by a number of my friends. In recent time I noticed that I had begun post a lot of technical stuff my friends were not interested in. Also, that blog is in Russian, which limits its audience. So, I preferred not to change the blog policy but create a new blog. It was also Boris Yangel's amazing blog that inspired me to create mine.

Computer blindness?

Well, yes. Folks who know me might already divine that the blog is primarily about computer vision, and they are certainly right. I chose such a fancy name because computer vision is somewhat disappointing. Let me explain.

Do you remember that story when Marvin Minsky at MIT asked his student to teach a computer understand the scene retrieved from a camera during the 1966 summer break? Unsurprisingly, the student failed. Moreover, the general task is far from being solved even now. That days computers were slow, and AI scientists thought that performing logical inference is way more complicated than just scene analysis. Now, we have Prolog and a pile of different verification systems (thanks to the university curriculum -- we used some of them), but a computer is not able to recognize even simple object categories on different classes of images (e.g. relatively robust face detection was done only in early 2000s by Viola and Jones).

Actually, not only Minsky was misled. If you are a vision researcher, when you tell people about your research, they are likely to reply: "Is that all you can? Man, it's simple!" Sure, it is simple for you to figure out that it is a cow on the meadow, not a horse, but try to explain it to computer! It is actually a problem in our lab: when vision guys try to defend a Masters/PhD thesis in front of the committee (which consists of folks who do research in computer hardware, system programming etc), and the committee is usually not impressed by the results, because they think it is not too difficult.

Okay, you've got the point. Computers are blind, and we should cope with that.

Next. Do you know, what's the difference between computer vision of 1980s and modern computer vision? In 80s, they used to solve particular problems, not general ones. They could implement quite a decent vision system that performed its task, but it could not be transferred to another domain. Nowadays, such approach is no more scientific, while it is still good for engineers. Today, computer vision science is about general tasks. It became possible because of extensive using of machine learning methods (a lot of them were developed in '90s). Vision is nothing without learning now. I hope you've got this point too: Vision + Learning = Forever Together. That's why my blog cannot ignore machine learning issues.

What else? Programming language is a tool, but it can be interesting per se. I am about to finish a 5-year university programme in Computer Science, so I have been being taught different language concepts and programming paradigms, and I find it interesting sometimes. That is another possible topic.

Finally,

Subscribe me, read me and comment me. Everybody is welcome! Let it roll!


Read Users' Comments (7)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)