Re:Interesting, but not amazing
on
Visualizing RFID
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The subtlety seems to be that they're not plotting an RF field, they're plotting the volume in which the passive tag will respond to an RF field (of a given strength). It's another level of abstraction. Yes, once somebody has come up with the idea then the implementation looks simple enough, but the idea is quite remarkable.
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.
As somebody asked on BBC R4 a couple of days ago, would you say the same thing if the person who had confessed to statutory rape were Senator Polanski the Republican politician, Corporal Polanski serving in Iraq or Father Polanski the Catholic priest?
Why is that modded troll? The guy who worked on the till at my local filling station presented himself in such a way that I had to struggle to suppress my gag reflex. So I tanked up elsewhere. Presentation matters to business.
It's very simple to apply this to the virtual world. You should have two separate avatars.
That would be a breach of the T&Cs of many (most?) virtual worlds. Arguably less professional than wandering around the virtual world as a naked furry.
Any discipline needs to be able to communicate across disciplines. Engineers are quick (and right) to lampoon communications from magagement that are full of obscure and apparently meaningless management-speak. Well, guess what? It works both ways, and the managers (rightly) despise communications from engineers that are full of obscure and apparently meaningless tech-speak. It isn't the responsibility of managers to become engineers in order to understand engineers. It's the responsibility of all concerned to communicate effectively. Each side tends to fail in its own way. Engineers tend to think that they don't need to communicate effectively when they do (see a lot of posts in this thread). Managers tend to think that they are comminicating effectively when they're not.
But ultimately, the decision-makers make the decisions, and if the decision is whether or not you get a paycheck then you have to play by their rules, whether you like it or not.
Yes, it's a minefield. But if (big "if" -- it's for the court to determine) they were contravening US law in the US in order to comply with what a foreign government told them to do then I would expect them to get pretty short shrift. After all, if a foreign government told a US national to assassinate the US President then I think that US national could expect US law to take precedence over what the foreign government told them to do. (NSA: Please read the whole message -- nothing to worry about!)
the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
Yes, that's the reason for doing it. What's important is the ability to do it.
I don't think so. The biggest problem from the fairness pov is that these essays can be written with outside help.
Yes, that is an issue. It will continue to be an issue with coursework throughout their academic life, so maybe it is a fair test?
Maybe have them read an article on an engineering topic on site and summarize the main points. Or have them write a short paper like the ones actually done during the studies.
I think it's important to show the ability to communicate with non-engineers, because in engineering how well we do that is going to be a major factor in our success. I think expecting somebody to show ability to communicate with non-engineers on technical matters would be setting the bar too high. That usually takes years -- decades -- of experience post-university!
Since MIT has now removed the 500 word essay, it seems that it might not be a good way to measure the "drive, ambition, etc.".
I think it's more likely to be because they want to avoid lawsuits.
With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
No they can't. Believe me, they can't. I have to deal with countless engineers who can't string a coherent sentence together. The essay in the article showed a creative approach to the question. The author will almost certainly be a more effective communicator of engineering (and a better advocate for MIT) than somebody who produces a bland essay.
I think the most important argument against the use of subjective measurements like these is that they can be used to pervert the selection system.
Here's my sample essay (in 33 words):
My dad is the CEO of Big Corp and is willing to donate millions to the university I'll be attending. So you see that I'm a very good candidate for MIT.
Arguably, that's precisely the information that the university wants!:-)
The trouble with objective systems is that all the objectivity in the world is precisely no use whatsoever if you are objectively measuring the wrong thing. University entrance tests are necessarily indirect measures; you can't directly measure at that stage how well somebody will do on the course, how much of a mark they will make in their subsequent career, what they will do for the reputation and finances of the university. They are the things that should be objectively measured. If subjective assessments of the candidates are better predictors of those factors than objective assessments, then the university should be making subjective assessments. Subjectivity can be objectively better, but those who major in the sciences and engineering can have difficulty seeing that. The quasi-religious dogma of objectivity has led to countless cases of deterioration in performance (look at the gaming of hospital waiting lists in the UK for example).
I agree that skills other than pure math are important for success in a top engineering school; test for those, but don't put people ahead of others because the say they're motivated.
I don't think that just saying they're motivated would have got them far in the MIT essay test. They had to show actual skill in essay writing.
Or perhaps the tests could be tiered, with linking items/anchoring, and the examinee could choose what level they wanted to take. I don't know of any major tests that do that, though, and having disjoint populations might cause a problem...
Here in the UK the GCSE does that -- that's the set of exams at the end of compulsory schooling (16). It can make the choice of level something of a gamble. My son (who has learning difficulties) got a D in maths, which was the highest score available on the tier he was entered for. His teacher reckons that had he been entered in the next tier he could have got a C, but there's no time to go back and sit the next tier. The funding system demands that he move on to the next set of exams (or leave school) immediately.
Newton was a very shrewd politician and an effective communicator. He also didn't focus all of his energies on science -- he did a lot of very strange work on the occult that his hagiographers tend to gloss over.
Erdos was lucky enough to have a lot of friends who were able to look after him. I agree that the GP was optimistic in suggesting that it would be hard to find one great scientist -- I immediately thought of Erdos too. But one fluke is not a good basis for a complete admissions policy.
If interviewers are dominating the interviews of MIT graduates with technical questions then they're wasting the interview. The MIT coursework and exams did that. All my interviews for senior engineering positions (what you're ultimately aiming for, if you go to MIT) have concentrated on dealing with colleagues and customers, because the interviewers have already known that I can do the technical stuff.
A very important part of a selection system is fairness: it's very hard to objectively measure differences in "Drive, ambition, ideals, character, motivation", so it's better to stick to the skills that can be measured and are relevant to the subject.
I think you'll find that the better universities won't be completely persuaded by a "this is is incredibly important but it's hard to do so we won't bother" argument.
Look at the details of the Challenger disaster, and then try telling us that engineering is all about getting the facts right and that effective communication doesn't matter. In fact, it's a common factor in a lot of disasters -- engineers identified the problem in advance but failed to convince the descision makers.
Slashdot Mirror
The subtlety seems to be that they're not plotting an RF field, they're plotting the volume in which the passive tag will respond to an RF field (of a given strength). It's another level of abstraction. Yes, once somebody has come up with the idea then the implementation looks simple enough, but the idea is quite remarkable.
As an Internet advocate for your obvious lack of a thesaurus, I give you http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/retarded
As somebody who wants to understand what's being read, I five you Wikipedia on Elegant Variation and suggest you burn your thesaurus.
Replying to undo accidental mod.
This must confirm the return of the mainframe!
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.
As somebody asked on BBC R4 a couple of days ago, would you say the same thing if the person who had confessed to statutory rape were Senator Polanski the Republican politician, Corporal Polanski serving in Iraq or Father Polanski the Catholic priest?
Why is that modded troll? The guy who worked on the till at my local filling station presented himself in such a way that I had to struggle to suppress my gag reflex. So I tanked up elsewhere. Presentation matters to business.
It's very simple to apply this to the virtual world. You should have two separate avatars.
That would be a breach of the T&Cs of many (most?) virtual worlds. Arguably less professional than wandering around the virtual world as a naked furry.
Any discipline needs to be able to communicate across disciplines. Engineers are quick (and right) to lampoon communications from magagement that are full of obscure and apparently meaningless management-speak. Well, guess what? It works both ways, and the managers (rightly) despise communications from engineers that are full of obscure and apparently meaningless tech-speak. It isn't the responsibility of managers to become engineers in order to understand engineers. It's the responsibility of all concerned to communicate effectively. Each side tends to fail in its own way. Engineers tend to think that they don't need to communicate effectively when they do (see a lot of posts in this thread). Managers tend to think that they are comminicating effectively when they're not.
But ultimately, the decision-makers make the decisions, and if the decision is whether or not you get a paycheck then you have to play by their rules, whether you like it or not.
The ability to communicate is important, sure, but is writing a fancy, bogus essay about how motivated you are really the best way to measure it?
Writing a bogus essay should get them failed.
Yes, it's a minefield. But if (big "if" -- it's for the court to determine) they were contravening US law in the US in order to comply with what a foreign government told them to do then I would expect them to get pretty short shrift. After all, if a foreign government told a US national to assassinate the US President then I think that US national could expect US law to take precedence over what the foreign government told them to do. (NSA: Please read the whole message -- nothing to worry about!)
the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
Yes, that's the reason for doing it. What's important is the ability to do it.
I don't think so. The biggest problem from the fairness pov is that these essays can be written with outside help.
Yes, that is an issue. It will continue to be an issue with coursework throughout their academic life, so maybe it is a fair test?
Maybe have them read an article on an engineering topic on site and summarize the main points. Or have them write a short paper like the ones actually done during the studies.
I think it's important to show the ability to communicate with non-engineers, because in engineering how well we do that is going to be a major factor in our success. I think expecting somebody to show ability to communicate with non-engineers on technical matters would be setting the bar too high. That usually takes years -- decades -- of experience post-university!
AFAICS, a US company is suing a US company. Who is going to have to go to "another country that does not recognize our laws"?
A battle between a repressive government and a company that makes repressive software? So there's basically no downside?
Yes there is. Lawyers will profit.
Since MIT has now removed the 500 word essay, it seems that it might not be a good way to measure the "drive, ambition, etc.".
I think it's more likely to be because they want to avoid lawsuits.
With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
No they can't. Believe me, they can't. I have to deal with countless engineers who can't string a coherent sentence together. The essay in the article showed a creative approach to the question. The author will almost certainly be a more effective communicator of engineering (and a better advocate for MIT) than somebody who produces a bland essay.
I think the most important argument against the use of subjective measurements like these is that they can be used to pervert the selection system.
Here's my sample essay (in 33 words): My dad is the CEO of Big Corp and is willing to donate millions to the university I'll be attending. So you see that I'm a very good candidate for MIT.
Arguably, that's precisely the information that the university wants! :-)
The trouble with objective systems is that all the objectivity in the world is precisely no use whatsoever if you are objectively measuring the wrong thing. University entrance tests are necessarily indirect measures; you can't directly measure at that stage how well somebody will do on the course, how much of a mark they will make in their subsequent career, what they will do for the reputation and finances of the university. They are the things that should be objectively measured. If subjective assessments of the candidates are better predictors of those factors than objective assessments, then the university should be making subjective assessments. Subjectivity can be objectively better, but those who major in the sciences and engineering can have difficulty seeing that. The quasi-religious dogma of objectivity has led to countless cases of deterioration in performance (look at the gaming of hospital waiting lists in the UK for example).
I agree that skills other than pure math are important for success in a top engineering school; test for those, but don't put people ahead of others because the say they're motivated.
I don't think that just saying they're motivated would have got them far in the MIT essay test. They had to show actual skill in essay writing.
Or perhaps the tests could be tiered, with linking items/anchoring, and the examinee could choose what level they wanted to take. I don't know of any major tests that do that, though, and having disjoint populations might cause a problem...
Here in the UK the GCSE does that -- that's the set of exams at the end of compulsory schooling (16). It can make the choice of level something of a gamble. My son (who has learning difficulties) got a D in maths, which was the highest score available on the tier he was entered for. His teacher reckons that had he been entered in the next tier he could have got a C, but there's no time to go back and sit the next tier. The funding system demands that he move on to the next set of exams (or leave school) immediately.
Newton was a very shrewd politician and an effective communicator. He also didn't focus all of his energies on science -- he did a lot of very strange work on the occult that his hagiographers tend to gloss over.
Erdos was lucky enough to have a lot of friends who were able to look after him. I agree that the GP was optimistic in suggesting that it would be hard to find one great scientist -- I immediately thought of Erdos too. But one fluke is not a good basis for a complete admissions policy.
If interviewers are dominating the interviews of MIT graduates with technical questions then they're wasting the interview. The MIT coursework and exams did that. All my interviews for senior engineering positions (what you're ultimately aiming for, if you go to MIT) have concentrated on dealing with colleagues and customers, because the interviewers have already known that I can do the technical stuff.
So you end up with the best bullshitters winning.
Welcome to real life.
A very important part of a selection system is fairness: it's very hard to objectively measure differences in "Drive, ambition, ideals, character, motivation", so it's better to stick to the skills that can be measured and are relevant to the subject.
I think you'll find that the better universities won't be completely persuaded by a "this is is incredibly important but it's hard to do so we won't bother" argument.
Look at the details of the Challenger disaster, and then try telling us that engineering is all about getting the facts right and that effective communication doesn't matter. In fact, it's a common factor in a lot of disasters -- engineers identified the problem in advance but failed to convince the descision makers.
Bloggers != blaggers.
And professional sock-puppets can have coverage of "expenses" written into their contracts.
Except that without the programmers they won't know how much, if anything, they are owed.
Note: IANAL, nor am I a merkin.
You're not a pubic wig for women?
There must be some subtle joke in there that I am completely missing...
It sounds like a perfectly credible statement of fact to me.
What are the drawbacks?
Well, I'm going to have to relax my "anything with a pulse" criterion...