Given that the entire physical offspring is constructed from chemical inputs from the mother (save for 1 sperm,) the most parsimonious explanation is that if, during this bootstrapping process, stressor molecules (e.g. adrenaline-type compounds) are encountered, the offspring selectively activates its stress-related systems.
The whole "growing from a cell into a live-birth animal" thing is a really complex process. It's why, for example, given the complete elephant DNA, you *can't* make an elephant: you also need the interaction between the mommy elephant and the developing baby elephant. Growing from 1 cell into a billion cells is not a totally programmed process: there is tons of feedback/decision points based on the interaction between the host parent and the progeny. It's probably accurate to describe the process as "chemical warfare:" the progeny is trying to suck every resource it can out of the mother, and the mother's body is fighting back to avoid dying. Is it really so surprising that the offspring is born with traits that are influenced by the mother's state? The converse would be more surprising.
Numerous studies have observed that desire-to-explore vs desire-to-hide in offspring is affected by the stress of the mother during pregnancy. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a no-brainer, and needs no genetic explanation. It's about the most basic non-genetic survival mechanism you could have: if mom is stressed, get born in keep-your-head-downl mode, else, get born in exploit-the-environment mode.
"Why is that?" has an easy answer: children learn to be afraid of bugs. It is not an innate response.
It's easy to test: 1. have a child 2. repeatedly show child bugs
Child only gets grossed out at around age 5. Investigation done.
My kids are 6 and 4 -- the 6yro hates bugs, the 4yro finds them interesting. In a year or two, the 4yro will hate bugs, and will have learned to associate them with decay, rotting, etc. It's a simple heuristic, nothing more.
Who are "they?" There are a ton of studies showing small children are not afraid of bugs (typically, give child a cup with a big fake bug on it -- little children don't care, bigger ones freak out.)
The article says nothing about DNA "modifications."
When a mommy mouse makes a baby mouse, the baby mouse depends on: 1. The DNA it gets from the mom and dad mice. 2. The chemical/hormonal environment during development in the womb.
The article says point 2 is more important than expected (although there is a lot of folk wisdom that implies it, so it may be more that scientists dismissed/ignored/couldn't test a fairly obvious hypothesis.)
No DNA modification/Lamarkian inheritance is going on: beyond raw DNA, happy mommy mice give birth to happy baby mice, etc.
Governments differ from schools in a few important ways:
1. The userbase doesn't turn over every 4 years, so you can invest more in training. 2. You pay the users, not vice versa, so you can tell them what to do. 3. Underpants. 4. Govt employees want solutions, undergrads want mail and porn.
Exactly. Trying a global migration to OSS, or anything else, is doomed to failure. I saw a similar thing in a crazy "lets get rid of Linux" effort at a big bank: doomed to failure because a few groups really wanted Linux as the compute farm OS. One size does not fit all.
The best thing to do is find bottlenecks that are tying the users to a specific OS - IE only webpages, mail servers, print services, weird apps, etc. Spend your effort prying these loose. Fight pointless mandates (you must use XYZ software to do random task ABC.) Get support in place for other OSes: if your helpdesk thinks in terms of MS software only, you are screwed - get them used to MacOS, Linux, etc. Then let the users do what they want: they'll be happier, and you'll see a lot more software diversity, which will in turn encourage more infrastructure openness.
Two excellent analogies. I've been looking at corporations (in the broad sense) for 30 years, and it took me a long time to realize that you might as well ignore what people say about how they organize, and just look at what the organization actually is. That tells you almost everything you need to know.
I went and RTFA. Given 130+ ATMs in 50 cities, definitely looks like the sell-it model, not a massive criminal organization: very high fan-out (50 cities) and low leaf count (about 3 ATMs per second level node.) That shape is never seen in ongoing organized businesses - they should have a much more uniform hierarchical structure (e.g. 50 cities = 2500 ATMs.)
It was probably structured like a lot of the stolen credit-card number sites: a high-reputation user announces an opportunity, then many other users pay up-front to participate. At the given time, the critical info is released to all, and it's then every man for himself trying to grab as much money as possible.
You don't get great work out of great people by issuing demands. You explain the situation (priorities, politics, history) as best you can, and let them find a way to contribute. Make yourself accessible for immediate feedback, support, and discussion, and you're off and running.
Oh, and pay oodles of money to the people who excel.
3 or 4? We hope for ratios more in the 10-50 range. One really good hire can completely replace a 20 person dev team that is not delivering.
Of course, many of the new hires turn out less good that hoped, but that is solvable. Also, you have to keep the bad team around until it's clear its product is inferior. But hey, that's business.
3. Kids emulate their parents, so if the parents read a lot, the kids will tend too, as well.
My kids are 4 and 6, and I pretty much let them do whatever they want media-wise (no X rated, but otherwise, fine.) They mostly make choices we parents approve of.
At one of our compute farms, we actually pipe the waste heat into a local town as a low-cost house-heating solution (think steam-pipes, but lower quality energy.) It works there because even 100 degree hot air is nice to have when the outside temp is 0f.
Yes, temperature gradients are a form of information, but get real guys: they are the bottom of food chain of useful computing tech. A real computer dumps heat as a side-effect of doing useful work - its more efficient to try to recover the heat as energy than to directly use it to compute. Sure, if you have a steam locomotive, it makes sense to add secondary and even tertiary energy-extractors to increase locomotion, but that is a special case: the locomotive is isolated and has big energy needs - this is not the case for computers.
Exactly. Never negotiate for anything based on revenues, gross, etc. The numbers are too open to manipulation.
Do it like standard Wall Street contracts: specific dollar amounts on specific days if you are still employed by the firm. And specific dollar amounts if they fire you at some point (with clauses for you being a clear dick, e.g. fraud.) A good lawyer can get it it all set up easily if the firm is negotiating in good faith. If not, just leave.
Well, the UN is only a joke in that it is more like a local bar than a local police station: it's job is not military activism, it's job is to facilitate talk. Ideally, crazy people announce some deranged plan of theirs, and the rest of the patrons try to talk them down. It's low cost, and the victories are mostly the lack of anything happening.
Cool, so you want to do a fixed rate vs real estate swap? I'm sure no one on Wall St has been looking at those numbers, so there's probably huge amounts of free money for you in this deal.
If, as you say, you are in a secure, inflation resistant position, it might actually make sense for you. Assuming you have capital, a long investment horizon, and a desire to actually own and maintain a huge, great house.
Well, air superiority has been classic doctrine because manned vehicles get massacred if the enemy fighters get to play unimpeded. But, if there are no, or few, manned bomber/recon assets, what does air superiority buy you?
It's a bit like cavalry in the face of automatic weapons: it's fast, lethal, and once controlled the battlefield, but suddenly it's out of a job. Eventually, it reinvents itself as air cav, or tankers, etc, but the new job description is nothing like the old one.
Re:Among insiders this is a well-known phenomenon.
on
The Unmanned Air Force
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for a sane post.
Dogfighting is more an aberrant case than anything else. No air force wants one-on-one dogfights: it's a situation that has become steadily more rare as C&C and doctrine have improved. Common in WW1 (knights of sky, etc,) rarer in WW2 (more multi-plane engagements, but pilots still got lost at times,) Korea, Vietnam (very rare, enough to make news when a dogfight happened.)
Spoken like a true computer scientist. As I said in another post, 100 UAVs vs. 1 F-22 probably wouldn't go as you think. F-22s are so stealthy you wouldn't see them on radar or anything before you'd get visual contact, while they'd see your swarm for 100 nautical miles away. Surely the F-22 couldn't take a lot of UAVs down (although it could take the few it could down from a totally safe distance), but you could throw 1,000 UAVs at a F-22 and it wouldn't scrap it even remotely.
But that isn't a reasonable scenario: fighters exist to destroy energy planes (bombers, recon, or other fighters,) UAVs are bombers/recon. So, the UAVs ignore the fighters and work on their mission: think old WW2 bomber movies of massed, slow planes holding the course onto target in the face of AA and faster, more nimble, fighters.
The equation is more about attrition than anything else, and UAVs will soon hold the edge. Fighter pilots are looking a lot like cavalrymen: highly trained, rather dashing, loved by the girls, but ultimately obsolete.
I don't see your comment as hateful: I've thought a lot about the balance between work and home.
How many hours a day do you really need to devote to your kids? Assuming all their basic needs are taken care of. I figure about two hours a day: chat about their day, and yours; fix a few broken toys; introduce them to an idea or two they hadn't considered before; eat dinner together. The rest of the time, they're soaking up knowledge with playdates, doing art, watching the adults, etc.
I'd love to work 40 hours a week for half the pay. Sadly, most high-end jobs don't work that way: if your deskspace costs six figures, a desire to cut back means relocating to Dallas, cos there are plenty of other people ready to step up to the plate.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the entire physical offspring is constructed from chemical inputs from the mother (save for 1 sperm,) the most parsimonious explanation is that if, during this bootstrapping process, stressor molecules (e.g. adrenaline-type compounds) are encountered, the offspring selectively activates its stress-related systems.
The whole "growing from a cell into a live-birth animal" thing is a really complex process. It's why, for example, given the complete elephant DNA, you *can't* make an elephant: you also need the interaction between the mommy elephant and the developing baby elephant. Growing from 1 cell into a billion cells is not a totally programmed process: there is tons of feedback/decision points based on the interaction between the host parent and the progeny. It's probably accurate to describe the process as "chemical warfare:" the progeny is trying to suck every resource it can out of the mother, and the mother's body is fighting back to avoid dying. Is it really so surprising that the offspring is born with traits that are influenced by the mother's state? The converse would be more surprising.
Numerous studies have observed that desire-to-explore vs desire-to-hide in offspring is affected by the stress of the mother during pregnancy. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a no-brainer, and needs no genetic explanation. It's about the most basic non-genetic survival mechanism you could have: if mom is stressed, get born in keep-your-head-downl mode, else, get born in exploit-the-environment mode.
"Why is that?" has an easy answer: children learn to be afraid of bugs. It is not an innate response.
It's easy to test:
1. have a child
2. repeatedly show child bugs
Child only gets grossed out at around age 5. Investigation done.
My kids are 6 and 4 -- the 6yro hates bugs, the 4yro finds them interesting. In a year or two, the 4yro will hate bugs, and will have learned to associate them with decay, rotting, etc. It's a simple heuristic, nothing more.
The grandparent post was gibberish about histones.
No one is claiming epigenetics is false. You just don't need to invent a bunch of random ideas to explain what is observed.
Who are "they?" There are a ton of studies showing small children are not afraid of bugs (typically, give child a cup with a big fake bug on it -- little children don't care, bigger ones freak out.)
The article says nothing about DNA "modifications."
When a mommy mouse makes a baby mouse, the baby mouse depends on:
1. The DNA it gets from the mom and dad mice.
2. The chemical/hormonal environment during development in the womb.
The article says point 2 is more important than expected (although there is a lot of folk wisdom that implies it, so it may be more that scientists dismissed/ignored/couldn't test a fairly obvious hypothesis.)
No DNA modification/Lamarkian inheritance is going on: beyond raw DNA, happy mommy mice give birth to happy baby mice, etc.
Governments differ from schools in a few important ways:
1. The userbase doesn't turn over every 4 years, so you can invest more in training.
2. You pay the users, not vice versa, so you can tell them what to do.
3. Underpants.
4. Govt employees want solutions, undergrads want mail and porn.
Exactly. Trying a global migration to OSS, or anything else, is doomed to failure. I saw a similar thing in a crazy "lets get rid of Linux" effort at a big bank: doomed to failure because a few groups really wanted Linux as the compute farm OS. One size does not fit all.
The best thing to do is find bottlenecks that are tying the users to a specific OS - IE only webpages, mail servers, print services, weird apps, etc. Spend your effort prying these loose. Fight pointless mandates (you must use XYZ software to do random task ABC.) Get support in place for other OSes: if your helpdesk thinks in terms of MS software only, you are screwed - get them used to MacOS, Linux, etc. Then let the users do what they want: they'll be happier, and you'll see a lot more software diversity, which will in turn encourage more infrastructure openness.
Two excellent analogies. I've been looking at corporations (in the broad sense) for 30 years, and it took me a long time to realize that you might as well ignore what people say about how they organize, and just look at what the organization actually is. That tells you almost everything you need to know.
I went and RTFA. Given 130+ ATMs in 50 cities, definitely looks like the sell-it model, not a massive criminal organization: very high fan-out (50 cities) and low leaf count (about 3 ATMs per second level node.) That shape is never seen in ongoing organized businesses - they should have a much more uniform hierarchical structure (e.g. 50 cities = 2500 ATMs.)
It was probably structured like a lot of the stolen credit-card number sites: a high-reputation user announces an opportunity, then many other users pay up-front to participate. At the given time, the critical info is released to all, and it's then every man for himself trying to grab as much money as possible.
You don't get great work out of great people by issuing demands. You explain the situation (priorities, politics, history) as best you can, and let them find a way to contribute. Make yourself accessible for immediate feedback, support, and discussion, and you're off and running.
Oh, and pay oodles of money to the people who excel.
3 or 4? We hope for ratios more in the 10-50 range. One really good hire can completely replace a 20 person dev team that is not delivering.
Of course, many of the new hires turn out less good that hoped, but that is solvable. Also, you have to keep the bad team around until it's clear its product is inferior. But hey, that's business.
That actually seems a rational solution. Nothing like hours of discomfort to convince you the whole plan is a seriously bad idea.
Agreed, though I'd add:
3. Kids emulate their parents, so if the parents read a lot, the kids will tend too, as well.
My kids are 4 and 6, and I pretty much let them do whatever they want media-wise (no X rated, but otherwise, fine.) They mostly make choices we parents approve of.
At one of our compute farms, we actually pipe the waste heat into a local town as a low-cost house-heating solution (think steam-pipes, but lower quality energy.) It works there because even 100 degree hot air is nice to have when the outside temp is 0f.
Yes, temperature gradients are a form of information, but get real guys: they are the bottom of food chain of useful computing tech. A real computer dumps heat as a side-effect of doing useful work - its more efficient to try to recover the heat as energy than to directly use it to compute. Sure, if you have a steam locomotive, it makes sense to add secondary and even tertiary energy-extractors to increase locomotion, but that is a special case: the locomotive is isolated and has big energy needs - this is not the case for computers.
Exactly. Never negotiate for anything based on revenues, gross, etc. The numbers are too open to manipulation.
Do it like standard Wall Street contracts: specific dollar amounts on specific days if you are still employed by the firm. And specific dollar amounts if they fire you at some point (with clauses for you being a clear dick, e.g. fraud.) A good lawyer can get it it all set up easily if the firm is negotiating in good faith. If not, just leave.
Well, the UN is only a joke in that it is more like a local bar than a local police station: it's job is not military activism, it's job is to facilitate talk. Ideally, crazy people announce some deranged plan of theirs, and the rest of the patrons try to talk them down. It's low cost, and the victories are mostly the lack of anything happening.
Cool, so you want to do a fixed rate vs real estate swap? I'm sure no one on Wall St has been looking at those numbers, so there's probably huge amounts of free money for you in this deal.
If, as you say, you are in a secure, inflation resistant position, it might actually make sense for you. Assuming you have capital, a long investment horizon, and a desire to actually own and maintain a huge, great house.
"Buildings?" The word you are searching for is "targets."
Well, air superiority has been classic doctrine because manned vehicles get massacred if the enemy fighters get to play unimpeded. But, if there are no, or few, manned bomber/recon assets, what does air superiority buy you?
It's a bit like cavalry in the face of automatic weapons: it's fast, lethal, and once controlled the battlefield, but suddenly it's out of a job. Eventually, it reinvents itself as air cav, or tankers, etc, but the new job description is nothing like the old one.
Thank you for a sane post.
Dogfighting is more an aberrant case than anything else. No air force wants one-on-one dogfights: it's a situation that has become steadily more rare as C&C and doctrine have improved. Common in WW1 (knights of sky, etc,) rarer in WW2 (more multi-plane engagements, but pilots still got lost at times,) Korea, Vietnam (very rare, enough to make news when a dogfight happened.)
Spoken like a true computer scientist. As I said in another post, 100 UAVs vs. 1 F-22 probably wouldn't go as you think. F-22s are so stealthy you wouldn't see them on radar or anything before you'd get visual contact, while they'd see your swarm for 100 nautical miles away. Surely the F-22 couldn't take a lot of UAVs down (although it could take the few it could down from a totally safe distance), but you could throw 1,000 UAVs at a F-22 and it wouldn't scrap it even remotely.
But that isn't a reasonable scenario: fighters exist to destroy energy planes (bombers, recon, or other fighters,) UAVs are bombers/recon. So, the UAVs ignore the fighters and work on their mission: think old WW2 bomber movies of massed, slow planes holding the course onto target in the face of AA and faster, more nimble, fighters.
The equation is more about attrition than anything else, and UAVs will soon hold the edge. Fighter pilots are looking a lot like cavalrymen: highly trained, rather dashing, loved by the girls, but ultimately obsolete.
I don't see your comment as hateful: I've thought a lot about the balance between work and home.
How many hours a day do you really need to devote to your kids? Assuming all their basic needs are taken care of. I figure about two hours a day: chat about their day, and yours; fix a few broken toys; introduce them to an idea or two they hadn't considered before; eat dinner together. The rest of the time, they're soaking up knowledge with playdates, doing art, watching the adults, etc.
I'd love to work 40 hours a week for half the pay. Sadly, most high-end jobs don't work that way: if your deskspace costs six figures, a desire to cut back means relocating to Dallas, cos there are plenty of other people ready to step up to the plate.