Business Week: Math Geeks Now Rule The World... | The Huffington Post:
"In some segments of industry, yes, absolutely, the premise seems kind of dumb of course the information age demands mathematical know-how and certainly many math types are needed to sustain the electronic age, what seems to rule the world though, is LACK OF IMAGINATION, great math is useless when the game is rigged and goods and resources are artificially manipulated. We then calculate how to deceive.
We need more visionaries, more creators-our sciences seem paralyzed by careerism and conformity, few dare to rock the boat for fear of derailing their livelihoods. Math IS extremely important but it's meaningless if all we do is maintain the status quo.
Posted by: issak on January 16, 2006 at 05:00pm "
----------
As a card carrying mathematician and computer geek I can tell you that we do not rule the world. Generally we run the world on behalf of greedy men – pity. Posted by: DrearyUrbanite on January 16, 2006 at 07:34pm
-----------------------
I have a theory that one of the things that makes the right wing so heedless and incapable of understanding the world around them is innumeracy - mathematical illiteracy. They don't understand probability and large numbers, so they need intelligent design to explain evolution. They can't understand petroleum discovery and demand curves, so they think oil will last forever if we can just drill Alaska. They can't understand computer modeling, so they poo-poo global warming warnings. They can't understand science in general, so they're against it.
My only explanation is that they were frightened as children by New Math, so they've rejected anything having to do with numbers ever since. Posted by: bobmunck on January 16, 2006 at 09:45pm
----------
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025863.php#025863
November 16, 2005 Straight, Inc. Lives Posted by Radley Balko on November 16, 2005
===================
http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/92a2f60.html
video of nasty? stuff above hoax by RR dik4s again
==============
The sports betting site Bodog Sportsbook is taking numbers on this year’s State of the Union Address. Our favorite category:
In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the words, "Space Terrorism"?
Other questions include:
In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the words: Patriot Act? In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the word: Evil?
Politics Betting and Political Bets at Bodog Sportsbook [Bodog]
----------------------
A Wonkette operative forwards us this stand out from the Reuters photo dump. The text sounds plain enough, but fails to mention the president is about to be devoured by a giant court jester:
U.S. President George W. Bush participates in a reconstruction efforts roundtable with small business owners and community leaders while visiting New Orleans January 12, 2006. The president is touring the Gulf Coast region to witness efforts to rebuild the region after Hurricane Katrina destroyed many parts of the area last year.
Editor’s Choice [Reuters]
======================
Remember, Tom DeLay is still out telling everyone that the only thing that brought him down was a meritless indictment from a partisan Democrat. Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request to have that supposedly meritless indictment tossed out.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is made up of nine judges. Each one elected. Each one a Republican.
-- Josh Marshall
=========================
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/01/new_bremer_book_challenges_sec.html
---------------------------------------------
http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/
Price Tag
Did the Iraq War really cost
around $2 trillion as Joseph Stiglitz estimates? Tyler Cowen, who's skeptical of some of the later calculations where they try to tease out the macroeconomic consequences of the war,
says they make a solid case for a $700 billion to $1,000 billion direct cost plus some fairly uncertain macro consequences. Of course, on the one hand this seems like an odd way to think about a question of war and peace.
But on the other hand, the very high direct costs are something that has to be kept in mind when considering the humanitarian benefits of the war. This is a staggerly large sum of money that could have been directed at
much more useful causes if people really felt that a $1 trillion humanitarian initiative was something they wanted to get behind.
(21 comments)
==========[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]][]
http://www.geekpress.com/
Nice overview of the laws regarding the
use of cameras on public property. The short version is that, "If you can see it, you can shoot it", although there are some important subtleties and exceptions that are covered in the article:
-----------------
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htmTrouble is, they aren't always right. If you've got a digital camera and like to shoot in public, it pays to know the real deal.
So I went looking for it. I checked with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and found its Photographers' Guide to Privacy.
The Missouri Bar has a terrific Journalists' Right of Privacy Primer by attorney Mark Sableman.
Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and author of the Legal Handbook for Photographers, has a short but excellent PDF document called The Photographer's Right.
I also had e-mail conversations with both Mssrs. Sableman and Krages (who were both careful to point out that they were only speaking in general terms, and not offering legal advice).
Finally, I got some background from the American Law Institute's A Concise Restatement of Torts on the Harvard Law website.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer; in this case I'm a researcher. But lemme tell you: All these sources jibed, which I take to be a good sign. Just don't take this as legal advice; it's one columnist's researched understanding of the law.
If you can see it, you can shoot it
Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits — using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered — but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.
Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film. Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you, and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse. Cool. (For details, see "The Photographer's Right.")
It gets better.
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.
Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.
Chances are you can publish it
Publishing photos has some different restraints, although they're civil, not criminal. Break one of these "rules" and, while you won't go to jail, you could find yourself on the short end of a lawsuit. (Although, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "the subject's remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture.")
Revealing private facts about someone is a no-no. As the American Law Institute put it, "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that A) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and B) is not of legitimate concern to the public."
Here the private property issue comes a bit more into play. Publishing a recognizable photo of someone at an AA meeting could be a problem, even if that meeting is open to the public. (An elected official, perhaps, but not of Joe Citizen.)
You also can find yourself in civil court if you publish a shot that places a person in a false light. That might be more of an issue with the caption than with the photo; running a shot of the mayor and his daughter labeled "Mayor meets with porn star" could land you in hot water. (Assuming his daughter isn't a porn star.)
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
Risk factors
The fact that taking a photo and publishing it are separate things might go against some folks' common sense.
Let's say you're banned by the local mall for taking photos there, but you go back anyway and take more. Now you're trespassing. But unless the photos you take violate someone's expectation of privacy, your taking photos isn't illegal — only being there.
That said, if you're arrested and convicted, a judge might use the fact that you were taking photos to increase the penalty, but shooting on private property isn't a crime in and of itself. As one lawyer told me, "I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already."
There are some other risks to taking and publishing 'problematic' photos. But, as you'll see, they're easy to avoid.
Trespassing is an obvious problem. If you're not supposed to be someplace — you see a sign or you're told by the property owner, for example — you can get arrested. Sure, you might be able to publish the photos you take, but Web access from jail is limited. (Trespassing is almost always a misdemeanor, by the way.)
You might be charged with your state's variation of intrusion — using technology (e.g., a long lens, hidden camera, or parabolic microphone) — to access a place where the subject has an expectation of privacy.
Beyond trespass, the major risks you run are civil, not criminal. You can lose an invasion of privacy lawsuit if your photographs reveal private facts about a person that are offensive and not newsworthy when the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ditto if they place the person in a false light, or inappropriately use the specific person's image for commercial purposes, e.g., stating that the mayor endorses a product by publishing a photo of him using it.
All of this should be good news for amateur and professional shutterbugs. Carry your camera, shoot to your heart's content, and know your rights — and your risks.
Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits -- using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered -- but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.
Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film. Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you, and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse. Cool...
It gets better.
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues -- shooting and publishing -- is important. We'll get to that in a moment...
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.
Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.
The whole thing is worth reading, especially if you have a new digital camera or camera-phone. (Via
Clicked.)
posted by Paul @ 12:03 AM
===============/////////////
///////////////================
Why get a Ph.D.? "Being a graduate student is like becoming all of the Seven Dwarves. In the beginning you're Dopey and Bashful. In the middle, you are usually sick (Sneezy), tired (Sleepy), and irritable (Grumpy). But at the end, they call you Doc, and then you're Happy."- yours truly
The most basic question every Ph.D. student must know the answer to is: "Why the hell am I doing this?"
It's a good question. The hours are long. The pay is low, with minimal benefits. After graduation, Ph.D. salaries are higher than B.S. and M.S. salaries, but the difference doesn't make up for the income lost by staying in school longer. The M.S. has a better "bucks for the time invested" ratio than the Ph.D. does. And in terms of social status, a graduate student doesn't rank very high on the ladder.
If you do not have an acceptable answer to this question, then don't get a Ph.D. I repeat: if you do not have a rock-solid reason for getting the Ph.D., then it is better that you leave with a Master's.
Why? Completing a Ph.D. is a long, hard road with many potholes and washed out bridges along the way. You may run over some land mines and have to stop and turn around and explore other routes. If the goal is important enough to you, then these obstacles will not prevent you from completing your journey. But if you don't know why you are on this road, then you will get discouraged and will probably leave without finishing, having wasted years of your life.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/hitch4.html
--more--
Interpersonal skills "For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth."
- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."
- Isaac Newton
Computer Science majors are not, in general, known for their interpersonal skills. Some of us got into this field because it is easier to understand machines than people. As frustrating as computers can be, they at least behave in a logical manner, while human beings often do not. However, your success in graduate school and beyond depends a great deal upon your ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships with your adviser, your committee, your research and support staff and your fellow students. This does not mean you must become the "life of the party." I am not and never will be a gregarious, extroverted person. But I did make a serious effort to learn and practice interpersonal skills, and those were crucial to my graduate student career and my current industrial research position.
Why should this matter, you may ask? If one is technically brilliant, shouldn't that be all that counts? The answer is no, because the situation is different from your undergraduate days. In both graduate school and in business, you must depend upon and work with other people to achieve your goals To put this in perspective, I have excerpted the following from an article called "Organizations: The Soft and Gushy Side" by Kerry J. Patterson, published in Fall 1991 issue of The Bent:
I first learned of the capricious, human side of organizations some 15 years ago while studying the careers of engineers and scientists. The research design required that I spend eight hours a day in one-on-one interviews. For two hours I'd ask "career" questions of an engineer, chemist, physicist, or applied mathematician -- all of whom worked for a Fortune 500 firm. During these 120 minutes, the subjects talked about the perils of the organizations. Two hours was scarcely enough time to share their stories. All energetically discussed their personal careers. Most had been frustrated with the "soft and gushy" side of organizations. Some had figured out the system and learned to master it. Others had not. As part of the research design, we asked to talk to low, medium, and high performers. This in itself was an interesting exercise. To determine performance rankings, we would place in front of a senior manager the names of the 10-50 people within his or her organization. Each name would be typed neatly in the middle of a three-by-five card. After asking the manager to rank the employees from top to bottom, the managers would then go through a card sort. Typically the executive would sort the names into three or four piles and then resort each pile again. Whatever the strategy, the exercise usually took only minutes. Just like that, the individual in charge of the professionals in question was able to rank, from top to bottom, as many as 50 people. It rarely took more than three minutes and a couple of head scratches and grunts. Three minutes. Although politics may appear ambiguous to those on the receiving end, those at the top were able to judge performance with crystal clarity.
This performance ranking (conducted by individuals not involved in the interviews) was then used as a dependent measure. Those of us conducting the interviews attempted to surface information (independent measures) that would predict the ranking. What about a scientist's career would lead to a top ranking? What trashed a perfectly good career? Surely scientific prowess would have an impact. And it did.
But technological prowess wasn't as predictive as another factor. We discovered that we could tell what performance group the interviewees belonged to within a minute or two by their attitudes toward people and politics. Individuals who were ranked low by their managers spoke of organizational politics as if it were poison. They were exceptionally annoyed by the people side of the business. They frequently stated they would rather be left alone to conduct their research untrammeled by human emotions. They characterized the social side of organizations as "soft and gushy." They sounded like Spock turned bitter.
Top performers, in contrast, found a way to work within the political system. They hadn't exactly embraced politics. They didn't appear like that toothy kid you knew back in college who lived to fight political battles. They didn't come off as glad-handling sales folks. These were professional scientists who were often top ranked in their field. They looked and talked liked scientists. The difference between them and those ranked at the bottom of the totem pole was clear. They had found a way to make peace with organizations, people, and politics. They climbed to the top of their field by mastering both hard things and soft and gushy people.
Engineers and scientists aren't the only ones who find the human side of the organizations to be annoying. As we expanded our research to include professors, accountants, and other professionals, the findings were remarkably similar. All found political machinations to be distasteful. It's just that some had found a way to master the social aspects -- the top performers.
Students usually look down on politics, but politics in its most basic, positive form is simply the art of getting things done. Politics is mostly about who is allowed to do what and who gets the resources (money, people, equipment, etc.) To succeed in your research, you will need resources, both capital and personnel. Interpersonal skills are mandatory for acquiring those resources. If you are incapable of working with certain people or make them mad at you, you will not get those resources and will not complete your research. For example, which group of people did I try my best to avoid offending? Was it my committee? No, because healthy disagreements and negotiations with your adviser and committee are crucial to graduating within a reasonable amount of time. Nor was it my fellow students, because I did not need help from most of them, and most of them did not need me. The critical group was the research and support staff. These include the research faculty and all the various support positions (the system administrators, network administrators, audio-visual experts, electronic services, optical and mechanical engineers, and especially the secretaries). I needed their help to get my research done, but they did not directly need me. Consequently, I made it a priority to establish and maintain good working relationships with them.
Cultivating interpersonal relationships is mostly about treating people with respect and determining their different working styles. Give credit where credit is due. Acknowledge and thank them for their help. Return favors. Respect their expertise, advice and time. Apologize if you are at fault. Realize that different people work in different ways and are motivated by different things -- the more you understand this diversity, the better you will be able to interact and motivate them to help you. For certain people, offering to buy them dinner or giving them free basketball tickets can work wonders.
A true example: at one point in my research, I needed to make significant modifications to some low-level code in the graphics computer called "Pixel Planes 5." Doing this required expertise that I did not have, but another graduate student named Marc Olano did. How should I tap into Marc's expertise and get my necessary changes done?
The wrong way is to go up to Marc, explain the problem, and get him to make the changes. Marc doesn't need the changes done; I do. Therefore, I should do most of the work. Expecting him to do the work shows disrespect of his time.
What I actually did was to explain the problem to Marc and he sketched out a possible solution. Then I ran off and worked on my own for a few days, trying to implement the solution. I got part of it working, but ended up getting stuck on another part. Only at that point did I go back to Marc and ask him for help. By doing this, I showed that I respected his time and wanted to minimize his burden, thus making him more willing to help me. Months later, when he and Jon Cohen needed my help in setting up a system to demonstrate some of their software, I was more than happy to return the favor.
Interpersonal interaction is a huge subject and goes far beyond my description here. All I can really do in this section is (hopefully) convince you that these skills are vital to your graduate student career and encourage you to learn more if you need to improve these skills. I still have a lot to learn myself. I recommend reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and Type Talk (both listed in the References section) as starting points. The magazine article "How to be a star engineer" (listed in the References) also touches on this subject.
Organizational skills "Failing to plan is planning to fail."Since academia is a type of business, you will have responsibilities that you must uphold. You will be asked to greet and talk with visitors, give demos, show up to meetings, get projects done on time, etc. If you are not well organized, you will have a difficult time meeting those obligations. A technically brilliant student will be greatly hampered if he or she exhibits an "absent minded" personality and develops a reputation for being disorganized.
There are many different time management and organization skills, and you can find many books on those at your local bookstore. This guide is not going to describe them. Find one that works for you and use it. I can highly recommend Stephen Covey's book, listed in the references. But whatever system you pick, just make sure it works for you. I have never found anyone else who uses my filing scheme, but it is effective for me (by minimizing the combined time of putting away and locating a piece of information). All that really matters is whether or not it works.
One metaphor I found useful is the following: Organize your tasks as if you were juggling them. Juggling several balls requires planning and skill. You must grab and toss each ball before it hits the ground. You can only toss one ball at a time, just as you can only work on one task at a time. The order in which you toss the balls is crucial, much as the order of working on tasks often determines whether or not you meet all your deadlines. Finally, once you start a task (grab a ball) you want to get enough done so you can ignore it for a while (throw it high enough in the air so it won't come down for a while). Otherwise you waste too much time in context switches between tasks. Do you see jugglers try to keep each ball at the same height above the ground, frantically touching every ball every second?
Randy Pausch (a professor at CMU) has a set of notes on time management. Three words in his guide summarize the most vital step: Kill your television. He asks you to keep your priorities straight. What is the most important thing to a Ph.D. student? It should be finishing the dissertation, not watching every episode of Friends. That doesn't mean dropping everything else in life, but it does mean knowing what takes priority and allocating time accordingly.
Communications skills "What is written without effort is, in general, read without pleasure."- Samuel Johnson
"Present to inform, not to impress; if you inform, you will impress. "
- Fred Brooks
I am always amazed that articles written about businesses consistently put good communication skills at or near the top of list of skills that employers want to see in people but rarely find. But you know what? It's true!
Communication skills, both written and oral, are vital for making a good impression as a Ph.D. student and as a researcher. At a minimum, you have to defend your dissertation with an oral presentation. But you should also expect to write technical papers and reports, give presentations at conferences, and give demonstrations to groups of visitors. If you can write and speak well, you will earn recognition and distinguish yourself from the other graduate students. This is especially true when giving presentations in front of important visitors or at major conferences.
Conversely, if you cannot communicate well, then your career options after graduation will be limited. Professors spend most of their time communicating: teaching, fundraising, guiding graduate students, and documenting their results (through papers, videos, viewgraphs, etc.) In industry, we need people who can communicate well so they can work in teams, learn what businesses and customers need, present their results, raise funds, and transition to leadership roles in projects and personnel management. If you are technically brilliant but are incapable of communicating, then your results will be limited to what you can accomplish alone and your career growth will be limited, both in industry and academia.
Unfortunately, not all graduate students receive training in giving presentations or writing technical documents (which are different from English essays). These are skills that can be learned! Don't worry if giving presentations and writing papers are not something that comes naturally to you. I was not very comfortable giving oral presentations when I started graduate school, so I made a concerted effort to learn how to do so, by taking classes, reading about the subject, and practicing. It's not easy, but it's well worth the investment. If you need practice, try giving informal talks at research luncheons, joining Toastmasters, and studying good speakers to see what they do.
Covering everything about this subject would fill a guide by itself (check out the SIGGRAPH page on preparing and giving presentations), and would probably better done through a videotape than a written document. But here are a few basic points:
- Organization counts. Within the first few paragraphs or first few minutes, tell me why I should read your paper or listen to your talk. Make it clear where we are going and what we have already covered.
- Make the text in your slides large enough so that people sitting in the back can read them. For large presentation halls, this usually means no more than 6-7 lines per slide and 28 point type minimum. You'd be surprised how many experts on visualization (especially tenured professors!) give presentations with unreadable slides.
- Variety retains interest. Vary your pace, tone, and volume. Emphasize the important points. Look around the room. Throw in some video, pictures, or live examples.
- Don't stand in front of the screen and block everyone's view. You'd be surprised how often people do this without realizing it.
- Point out the limitations of your work. That helps your credibility. Similarly, give credit where credit is due.
- Make friends with the A/V crew! Running A/V is a thankless, negative reinforcement job. If everything runs smoothly, well, that's what was supposed to happen so nobody says anything. But if anything goes wrong, the entire audience looks back at the control room. Help the A/V people help you. Always check in early and test the equipment. Tell them what you are going to do in your presentation (e.g. I'm running 3 video segments). Make sure you know how everything works long before you come up to the podium. And thank the A/V crew for their help after you are done!
Confidence is the key to giving a good presentation. And the way to gain confidence is to give good presentations. When you're just starting out, this is a Catch-22. However, once you become good enough, this turns into a positive feedback cycle that can make giving talks a pleasure.
Writing papers and getting them published is vital for Ph.D. students who want to get jobs in research after graduation. Your ability to write well significantly improves the chances that your paper will be accepted. When I was a young graduate student and read a paper that I didn't understand, I thought "Gee, I must be dumb." Today I will read the same paper and think "Boy, this is a lousy paper. The authors did not do a good job explaining and presenting their work." If I am reviewing that paper, such a reaction is enough for me to reject the paper.
Where do you submit your papers? Your professors will help you with this choice, but in general I would suggest shooting for the best conferences or journals where you think it has a reasonable chance of being accepted. It's not much more work to write, submit and present a paper in a highly respected venue than in less respected venues. And if you don't shoot for the top you'll never know if it would have made it. The field of computer graphics is a bit unusual in that the most desirable place to publish is a conference (SIGGRAPH), rather than a journal. Be aware that journals can take years to publish submitted papers; the turn-around time is much faster in a conference.
Finally, don't forget to communicate with your professors and your teammates. Keep your committee appraised of your progress. One thing I do (which few others do) is write short (1 screenfull) status reports, which I religiously e-mailed to my professors and team members on a weekly basis. These serve as an efficient way of keeping everyone up to date on what I'm doing. They are also a good way for me to record my progress. If I need to remember what I got done during a six month period, I have plenty of old status reports that I can read. You'd be amazed how appreciative professors and managers are of this simple practice. I also throw in a different humorous quote at the end of each week's report to reward people for reading it.
When you are working in the lab and you reach a milestone or achieve a result, let people know about it! Bring in your professors and fellow students and show it off! That's a win-win situation. It lets others know that you are making progress and achieving results, and you get valuable feedback and advice.
One word: Legitimization.
(Score:5, Insightful)