I was referring to nutrients with respect to human dietary needs, that how I interpreted the right half of "fertile/have all of the needed nutrients in approximately the right ratios".
That said, he had plenty of vitamins so maybe some could have been used to augment fertilizer.
Truman already had knowledge of intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Dropping the bombs on two civilian populations was wholly unnecessary.
Japan was **not** prepared to surrender. The militarists thought that by inflicting severe casualties upon the US they could force negotiations, an armistice - a cease fire, not a surrender. They wanted to remain in power, have no limitations on their military size and capability, have no occupation and possibly hold on to some of their conquered territory.
When surrender rumors began military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government, diplomats and politicians who kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Expected by those who wanted to test the bombs. Japan was on the brink of surrender, and it's people were beginning to starve. Despite the propaganda, no country fights to the last man.
The massive civilian suicides on Okinawa in the face of defeat, and the repeated suicidal attacks by the military in the face of defeat and throughout the war, indicate that things were not that simple.
Surrender was only a consideration by *some* diplomats and politicians, and they kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Even the emperor's surrender announcement, which was an absolute game changer, was nearly prevented as military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Your basic premise fails due to its assumption of rational actors. The militarists of imperial japan were inherently irrational. As navy minister Yamamoto tried to argue against the militarists (primary from the army) with respect to war with the US. He tried to argue manpower and industrial production. He told his subordinates that all his facts and figures were dismissed by the militarists as irrelevant, that the "superior fighting spirit" of the japanese soldier will assure ultimate victory. Various assassination attempts were made on Yamamoto for his opposition to alliance with Germany and war with the US. He was actually forced to move his office from town to a battleship. Given the eventual attack on the imperial palace when surrender rumors began to spread it seems little had changed, rational thinking was still not being used. Except for one single person that even the militarists would not oppose, the emperor. Again, surrender was more a lucky fluke of history than any rational working of a government.
As far as Japan and the end of WWII is concerned, we should have forgone the nukes, invaded and if it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths on either side, then so be it.
Actually the invasion was expected to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths on the US side and millions of deaths on the Japanese side (weapons + disease + starvation +...).
I did provide help to a former employer. The employer had experienced prolonged financial distress. I survived numerous rounds of layoffs but #5 or so got me -- I liked the project I was working on, liked my coworkers, was located next door to the university I was attending grad school at and they were paying for it.
Most people found out they were getting layed off that day but received two months severance pay. I actually was told my layoff went into effect in a month so I could finish up some specialized tasks I was working on alone, same two months severance.
I was asked if it would be OK to call if they had any questions. I said yes, and asked if I could keep a copy of my more specialized source code for reference and of course I would respect the company's intellectual property. The VP of engineering said sure and gave me a signed letter authorizing my retention of a personal copy. The VP was an actual engineer, he knew and trusted me.
I had a few short phone calls with former co-workers where I answered some questions in the first six months of my departure.
About a year after my departure I was asked if I would like to return. I did not, I had a new job that I liked.
If there is a decent severance payout or if there is a reasonable chance for re-hire I would suggest offering some help. Even if not if you think the former boss or coworker might make a good future reference, or you might work together again somewhere else -- networking works, don't dismiss it -- you may want to offer some help too.
We also get more sensitive to forgetting the little things as we age. Forgetting what one had for dinner last night at age 20, no big deal. At age 60, oh shit, do I need to see a doctor?
A professor once offered an interesting description of learning. Its selective forgetting, discarding the unimportant things and keeping the important. The trick to learning is telling the two apart. Perhaps last night's meal gets discarded in this sort of selection.
I do the keys thing too, but I've been doing it for many decades. When I was young I got into the habit of touching the pocket where I routinely put my keys and then the pocket with my wallet. In the last decade I've transition to three touches, adding another one for phone. Moments of confusion result when wearing something with cargo pockets and I put the phone there. Hopefully its the breaking of my routine and not age.:-)
Memory can't really be simply broken down into short and long term memory. There's memory of events, memory of how to do certain tasks, memory of people and a few other distinctions.
I have a memory problem where sometimes I forget what it was I set out to do for a little while, but if I wait and do nothing for a little while, it will come back to me.
The problems with memory depend on the specific illness. The illness of my family member primarily interfered with recent memories migrating to long term. For example the loss of a conversation and a plan from a day or two ago. Hence the characterization of the problem as short term memory loss. Existing long term memory was not affected by the illness, just the formation of new long term memories. One could have perfectly normal conversations and recollections so long as one went back 5 or more years, and seriously, these could get very detailed and technical. I'm not a medical professional, apologies for the imprecise terminology.
" But they are not necessarily lost due to memory issues."
I doubt that, your old memories are no more stable than theirs and without constant re-inforcement (short term memory repetition) you'll lose them too. It gets more like Dotty here (watch till end)
I watched a close family member that I knew all my life. Long term was not affected by the illness, only short term. I was not being figurative, memories from 5 years earlier and 50 years earlier were intact. I had extended conversations related to work and family that went back to the 1940s and 50s. Only yesterday's memories were gone.
Depends on what you mean by losing some steps in the process. If they change due to hardware or software upgrades sure. But they are not necessarily lost due to memory issues. In my family member's case the problems were entirely short term. Anything in long term was rock solid. 5 years ago or 50 years ago it was all there. But a conversation from yesterday, gone. Of course someone with a different illness could lose both short and long term.
Perhaps a series of devices that can autostart an app would be useful. The hardware might get an upgrade if necessary but the app can remain constant with respect to user interface changes. Turning on and charging would need to be similar, wireless charging might be helpful there.
Walmart went digital in the 1970s. Cash registers on a LAN to the mini in the back. The mini on a WAN to HQ. HQ getting complete register transaction histories from all stores every 15 min. Massive data mining to optimize store inventories for local preferences. Automated store ordering of products from a distribution center (DC), automated DC ordering of products from manufacturers (or transfer from another DC with excess inventory). Walmart pioneered this stuff. Its part of how they crushed the competition.
Walmart computerized their inventory, supply chain, ordering and payments back in the 1970s. This includes automation, inventory at a store gets to a certain level and a shipment order is automatically generated to resupply from a distribution center. Distribution center gets to a certain level and excess is transferred from other distribution centers or a digital purchase order gets sent to the product's manufacturer.
Cash registers were networked to the minicomputer in the store, reporting all transactions. Stores were networked to HQ via satellite and reported sales every 15 minutes. HQ did massive data mining at national, regional, state and local levels. Optimizing store inventory for local tastes. Again, 1970s.
Their data mining was such that recognized patterns were added to the automated supply chain management. For example when hurricanes are forecast pop tart sales spike in florida and the gulf. Their software monitors weather reports and when hurricanes are forecast they automatically ship pop tarts from midwest distribution centers to florida and the gulf.
Amazon followed where Walmart pioneered. Don't be so sure Walmart can not pose a serious threat with respect to logistics and supply chain management.
WalMart and Amazon are fucking retail stores, not tech companies. I'm not trusting them or their "clouds" with my data.
Actually Walmart is a tech company, a pioneer in the field. Technical innovation had much to do with their success. They went digital in the 1970s, automated inventory tracking, electronic purchase orders and payments, data mining on sales, etc. All cash registers were reporting sales to a minicomputer in the back, every fifteen minutes the minicomputer sent the data to headquarters. Headquarters had near real time visibility on product sales and could view this data at various levels from national to regional to state to city to individual stores.
This incredible near real time data is how they got huge multinational corporations to agree to buy into the Walmart digital supply chain, they offered them access to this near real time data for their corporation's products.
They did extensive data mining. Using the behaviors observed to balance inventory between regional distribution centers. Again, automated. Hurricane forecasted for Florida and/or the Gulf. Shipping orders are automatically generated moving pop tarts from mid west distribution centers to Florida and Gulf distribution centers. Their data mining noticed a spike in pop tart sales, among other things, when hurricanes are forecast.
I am elderly and have been programming computers on a daily basis since I was 19 years old. I would like something I can live with for when my memory starts to fail.
Start now, don't wait. Get new devices, get upgrades, etc while things are normal but keep in mind that one day things will get "locked in" so look to longevity of equipment, maybe have spares or things that family members will be able to find spares for (get same model device from eBay etc).
You have to be very open to changing daily habits (ex. check meds and refrigerator, call someone to checkin and share med/fridge state, wear that medical alert device).
You can *not* blow these new habits off thinking "I'm still OK, I don't need to do this yet". You will probably not be aware of passing the point where your memory is such that you cannot form new habits.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are OK because you can remember detailed things from 50 years ago. Long term and short term memory are two very different things, the later can fail while the former is still perfectly functional.
Elderly and technology do not mix. Especially someone with a failing memory.
No, its not technology. Its something different, something new, something that was not familiar before the short term memory loss. Things in long term memory are just fine, including technology. You just have to introduce new tech before the short term loss.
Sadly I've experience this as well. With failing short term memory you can't really change habits, learn a new tool, etc. Its too late. Such things have to occur before short term memory becomes too bad.
In my situation we'd have intelligent conversations (yes, long term memory was rock solid) about things to do differently, we'd agree, but by the next day it was all forgotten. Various devices like medical alerts and such would sit on the dresser gathering dust. You can't get the new device added to the routine. When short term memory was still OK we had the device but the family member blew it off, "I'm OK, I don't need that yet". And that opinion gets locked in and the device remains on the dresser unused years later when it is needed.
You have to get the elderly family member to change habits and use a new tool before short term memory degrades. You have to explain the preceding, that new habits need to get wired in while still relatively healthy. Keep in mind that you will be severely limited with respect to upgrading the device. A replacement needs to be substantially similar in look and usage.
The NRA and their fanatical followers totally ignored those important concepts when the 1st smart gun was being sold in the US. Protests? Death threats? intimidation? Read about what happened after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...">the Armatix iP1 was offered in the US. Its a step backwards for the cause of gun safety.
False. From the NRA's website: "The NRA doesn’t oppose the development of “smart” guns, nor the ability of Americans to voluntarily acquire them. However, NRA opposes any law prohibiting Americans from acquiring or possessing firearms that don’t possess “smart” gun technology."
Your link shows that the controversy was sparked by a state proposing that all guns sold be equipped with such technology.
Actually as a UC student I attended classes supporting a student entrepreneurship contest. A representative of the UC IP department attended and explained the program to us and emphasized its support of and discounts to small local startups.
So you have to win a contest to be considered? Did he actually discuss the process, the forms, the reviews, the requirements for actually being eligible of getting any of that "support and discounts" and the chances of getting any? NO? I wonder why...
No you did not have to win. The competition was just one of various venues where the people from the UC IP department reached out to students in order to explain the services they provided. Yes, they provided an overview of the program and the process. Yes, they provided a packet that went into greater detail about the program and process. There was a CD-ROM with the current list of IP available from UC. Yes, they made it clear their services were available to us after graduation when we were working in industry, regardless of the nature of our companies.
The UC IP program gives such companies a break on licensing fees, as they also do for local companies.
Oh, so after already paying tax money to support this bloated bureaucracy, and dedicated "monitization" staff, a few companies get a "break" from paying extra for the results of tech research that they've already paid for? How... terribly kind.
Small companies. Local companies. Again, you mentioned Bernie Sanders, and last night he specifically talked about treating small and medium sized businesses differently than large companies.
Also, again, no tax money is spent on this UC IP bureaucracy. It generates revenue far in excess of its costs.
No cronies required.
Clearly, you've never tried to get one of these "discount" licenses from the elites at UC.
Actually as a UC student I attended classes supporting a student entrepreneurship contest. A representative of the UC IP department attended and explained the program to us and emphasized its support of and discounts to small local startups.
UC has a dedicated staff to handle the patent paperwork. There is no great burden placed on the researchers. The department that does all the patent paperwork, licensing, defense, etc generates a lot of revenue; it does not add to expenses. Revenue that is applied to statewide funding of UC, slows increases in student tuition, and provides various on-campus and off job opportunities while a student. And again, ordinary researchers, professors and students, directly benefit from their work being commercialized. Its quite erroneous to characterize the UC IP system as one where only the wealthy benefit.
Note that Bernie specifically supports small and medium sized companies. The UC IP program gives such companies a break on licensing fees, as they also do for local companies. No cronies required.
Yes ballooning administration is a problem, and the various vanity projects they lean towards, but that problem is independent of the UC IP program.
The invention was a result of research, funded by the public, so the public should own the patent. It should be under an MIT or BSD-style license in the public domain.
That makes more sense for federally funded projects than state funded. If state funded there would be free rides from the other states, in addition to the international free rides both federal and state funded projects would have.
FWIW the University of California system has a "discriminator" licensing scheme where smaller and local organizations get lower fees. Giving back to the California public in the sense of jobs but also in the sense that the fees help pay for the statewide university system (50% of fee revenue, 25% to team's department(s), 25% to team). It ends up being a virtuous circle in that the state gets more research dollars than it would have in a purely taxpayer funded system.
Also the University of California's BSD license was covering copyrighted IP not patented IP. Two very different things.
Wisconsin-Madison is a state-supported school. I realize these days it's considered okay to double- and triple-dip into taxpayers pockets, but this system where schools get to have tax money for research, and then patent the results for profit, is completely wrong. As a citizen, it means I'm paying for the research, then paying AGAIN to have any access to it. Based on state-granted monopoly. At best, any revenue derived from these university patents should go back into the general fund, not for the (unencumbered) sole use of the school.
Don't know about Wisconsin but for the University of California (UC) system the the IP licensing helps pay for the university system in general, i.e. avoids a dip into taxpayer pockets. 50% of the revenue goes to fund the statewide UC system in general, 25% goes to the department(s) of the team members, and 25% goes to the team. The licensing basically funds much research, its a virtuous circle providing more research dollars than would have been available in a purely taxpayer funded system.
On the licensing side it is a "discriminatory" system, smaller and local organizations get much lower fees than multinational conglomerates operating outside of California. So California residents also benefit by the promotion of jobs in California.
Your assumption that state residents are inherently harmed by such IP licensing practices is mistaken.
Teach them how to do basic home maintenance, budget management, interview skills, and professionalism as a requirement of graduating. You'll make a world of difference and they'll use all of it.
I think that is basically how things were in my grandparent's days. There was no 1 year of math required for HS graduation. There was 4 years of math required, college prep track or not. If not college bound the math classes were vocational, personal finance and banking, budgeting, practical (ex. area of floor, walls to calculate carpet, paint needed for a room), etc. When I was in HS I applied for a part-time job at a local hardware store. They gave me a math test. When I turned it into the manager I asked if this was a joke. He said sadly no, you wouldn't believe how many people apply for a job at a hardware store who can't even add two fractions let alone calculate area.
Learning to code is like taking an electronics class, i.e. its like an elective "shop" or "lab" class not like a core subject such as math.
This is just the latest and greatest "magic bullet" that is going to "fix" the educational system. It will fail. The solution is to spend more time on core subjects like math and reading and science so that students who have any sort of interest or curiosity about electronics or coding or robotics will be better prepared to be introduced to those specialties.
Its not that different from the 80s "magic bullet" of an Apple II with Turtle Graphics. Sure, it was great for those with any interest or curiosity about coding but not so much for anyone forced to do the coding. It did not "fix" education.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to nutrients with respect to human dietary needs, that how I interpreted the right half of "fertile/have all of the needed nutrients in approximately the right ratios".
That said, he had plenty of vitamins so maybe some could have been used to augment fertilizer.
Truman already had knowledge of intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Dropping the bombs on two civilian populations was wholly unnecessary.
Japan was **not** prepared to surrender. The militarists thought that by inflicting severe casualties upon the US they could force negotiations, an armistice - a cease fire, not a surrender. They wanted to remain in power, have no limitations on their military size and capability, have no occupation and possibly hold on to some of their conquered territory.
When surrender rumors began military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government, diplomats and politicians who kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Expected by those who wanted to test the bombs. Japan was on the brink of surrender, and it's people were beginning to starve. Despite the propaganda, no country fights to the last man.
The massive civilian suicides on Okinawa in the face of defeat, and the repeated suicidal attacks by the military in the face of defeat and throughout the war, indicate that things were not that simple.
Surrender was only a consideration by *some* diplomats and politicians, and they kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Even the emperor's surrender announcement, which was an absolute game changer, was nearly prevented as military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Your basic premise fails due to its assumption of rational actors. The militarists of imperial japan were inherently irrational. As navy minister Yamamoto tried to argue against the militarists (primary from the army) with respect to war with the US. He tried to argue manpower and industrial production. He told his subordinates that all his facts and figures were dismissed by the militarists as irrelevant, that the "superior fighting spirit" of the japanese soldier will assure ultimate victory. Various assassination attempts were made on Yamamoto for his opposition to alliance with Germany and war with the US. He was actually forced to move his office from town to a battleship. Given the eventual attack on the imperial palace when surrender rumors began to spread it seems little had changed, rational thinking was still not being used. Except for one single person that even the militarists would not oppose, the emperor. Again, surrender was more a lucky fluke of history than any rational working of a government.
As far as Japan and the end of WWII is concerned, we should have forgone the nukes, invaded and if it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths on either side, then so be it.
Actually the invasion was expected to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths on the US side and millions of deaths on the Japanese side (weapons + disease + starvation + ...).
Nutrient deficiency would not be a problem. He had plenty of vitamin tablets. IIRC the potatoes were simply calories.
:-)
And I'm going with the idea that the regolith was processed to remove perchlorate off screen, didn't need to bother viewers with those details.
I did provide help to a former employer. The employer had experienced prolonged financial distress. I survived numerous rounds of layoffs but #5 or so got me -- I liked the project I was working on, liked my coworkers, was located next door to the university I was attending grad school at and they were paying for it.
Most people found out they were getting layed off that day but received two months severance pay. I actually was told my layoff went into effect in a month so I could finish up some specialized tasks I was working on alone, same two months severance.
I was asked if it would be OK to call if they had any questions. I said yes, and asked if I could keep a copy of my more specialized source code for reference and of course I would respect the company's intellectual property. The VP of engineering said sure and gave me a signed letter authorizing my retention of a personal copy. The VP was an actual engineer, he knew and trusted me.
I had a few short phone calls with former co-workers where I answered some questions in the first six months of my departure.
About a year after my departure I was asked if I would like to return. I did not, I had a new job that I liked.
If there is a decent severance payout or if there is a reasonable chance for re-hire I would suggest offering some help. Even if not if you think the former boss or coworker might make a good future reference, or you might work together again somewhere else -- networking works, don't dismiss it -- you may want to offer some help too.
What makes you think government issued toilet paper is any better today? :-)
We also get more sensitive to forgetting the little things as we age. Forgetting what one had for dinner last night at age 20, no big deal. At age 60, oh shit, do I need to see a doctor?
:-)
A professor once offered an interesting description of learning. Its selective forgetting, discarding the unimportant things and keeping the important. The trick to learning is telling the two apart. Perhaps last night's meal gets discarded in this sort of selection.
I do the keys thing too, but I've been doing it for many decades. When I was young I got into the habit of touching the pocket where I routinely put my keys and then the pocket with my wallet. In the last decade I've transition to three touches, adding another one for phone. Moments of confusion result when wearing something with cargo pockets and I put the phone there. Hopefully its the breaking of my routine and not age.
Memory can't really be simply broken down into short and long term memory. There's memory of events, memory of how to do certain tasks, memory of people and a few other distinctions. I have a memory problem where sometimes I forget what it was I set out to do for a little while, but if I wait and do nothing for a little while, it will come back to me.
The problems with memory depend on the specific illness. The illness of my family member primarily interfered with recent memories migrating to long term. For example the loss of a conversation and a plan from a day or two ago. Hence the characterization of the problem as short term memory loss. Existing long term memory was not affected by the illness, just the formation of new long term memories. One could have perfectly normal conversations and recollections so long as one went back 5 or more years, and seriously, these could get very detailed and technical. I'm not a medical professional, apologies for the imprecise terminology.
" But they are not necessarily lost due to memory issues."
I doubt that, your old memories are no more stable than theirs and without constant re-inforcement (short term memory repetition) you'll lose them too. It gets more like Dotty here (watch till end)
I watched a close family member that I knew all my life. Long term was not affected by the illness, only short term. I was not being figurative, memories from 5 years earlier and 50 years earlier were intact. I had extended conversations related to work and family that went back to the 1940s and 50s. Only yesterday's memories were gone.
Depends on what you mean by losing some steps in the process. If they change due to hardware or software upgrades sure. But they are not necessarily lost due to memory issues. In my family member's case the problems were entirely short term. Anything in long term was rock solid. 5 years ago or 50 years ago it was all there. But a conversation from yesterday, gone. Of course someone with a different illness could lose both short and long term.
Perhaps a series of devices that can autostart an app would be useful. The hardware might get an upgrade if necessary but the app can remain constant with respect to user interface changes. Turning on and charging would need to be similar, wireless charging might be helpful there.
Walmart went digital in the 1970s. Cash registers on a LAN to the mini in the back. The mini on a WAN to HQ. HQ getting complete register transaction histories from all stores every 15 min. Massive data mining to optimize store inventories for local preferences. Automated store ordering of products from a distribution center (DC), automated DC ordering of products from manufacturers (or transfer from another DC with excess inventory). Walmart pioneered this stuff. Its part of how they crushed the competition.
Walmart computerized their inventory, supply chain, ordering and payments back in the 1970s. This includes automation, inventory at a store gets to a certain level and a shipment order is automatically generated to resupply from a distribution center. Distribution center gets to a certain level and excess is transferred from other distribution centers or a digital purchase order gets sent to the product's manufacturer.
Cash registers were networked to the minicomputer in the store, reporting all transactions. Stores were networked to HQ via satellite and reported sales every 15 minutes. HQ did massive data mining at national, regional, state and local levels. Optimizing store inventory for local tastes. Again, 1970s.
Their data mining was such that recognized patterns were added to the automated supply chain management. For example when hurricanes are forecast pop tart sales spike in florida and the gulf. Their software monitors weather reports and when hurricanes are forecast they automatically ship pop tarts from midwest distribution centers to florida and the gulf.
Amazon followed where Walmart pioneered. Don't be so sure Walmart can not pose a serious threat with respect to logistics and supply chain management.
WalMart and Amazon are fucking retail stores, not tech companies. I'm not trusting them or their "clouds" with my data.
Actually Walmart is a tech company, a pioneer in the field. Technical innovation had much to do with their success. They went digital in the 1970s, automated inventory tracking, electronic purchase orders and payments, data mining on sales, etc. All cash registers were reporting sales to a minicomputer in the back, every fifteen minutes the minicomputer sent the data to headquarters. Headquarters had near real time visibility on product sales and could view this data at various levels from national to regional to state to city to individual stores.
This incredible near real time data is how they got huge multinational corporations to agree to buy into the Walmart digital supply chain, they offered them access to this near real time data for their corporation's products.
They did extensive data mining. Using the behaviors observed to balance inventory between regional distribution centers. Again, automated. Hurricane forecasted for Florida and/or the Gulf. Shipping orders are automatically generated moving pop tarts from mid west distribution centers to Florida and Gulf distribution centers. Their data mining noticed a spike in pop tart sales, among other things, when hurricanes are forecast.
I am elderly and have been programming computers on a daily basis since I was 19 years old. I would like something I can live with for when my memory starts to fail.
Start now, don't wait. Get new devices, get upgrades, etc while things are normal but keep in mind that one day things will get "locked in" so look to longevity of equipment, maybe have spares or things that family members will be able to find spares for (get same model device from eBay etc). You have to be very open to changing daily habits (ex. check meds and refrigerator, call someone to checkin and share med/fridge state, wear that medical alert device).
You can *not* blow these new habits off thinking "I'm still OK, I don't need to do this yet". You will probably not be aware of passing the point where your memory is such that you cannot form new habits.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are OK because you can remember detailed things from 50 years ago. Long term and short term memory are two very different things, the later can fail while the former is still perfectly functional.
Elderly and technology do not mix. Especially someone with a failing memory.
No, its not technology. Its something different, something new, something that was not familiar before the short term memory loss. Things in long term memory are just fine, including technology. You just have to introduce new tech before the short term loss.
Sadly I've experience this as well. With failing short term memory you can't really change habits, learn a new tool, etc. Its too late. Such things have to occur before short term memory becomes too bad.
In my situation we'd have intelligent conversations (yes, long term memory was rock solid) about things to do differently, we'd agree, but by the next day it was all forgotten. Various devices like medical alerts and such would sit on the dresser gathering dust. You can't get the new device added to the routine. When short term memory was still OK we had the device but the family member blew it off, "I'm OK, I don't need that yet". And that opinion gets locked in and the device remains on the dresser unused years later when it is needed.
You have to get the elderly family member to change habits and use a new tool before short term memory degrades. You have to explain the preceding, that new habits need to get wired in while still relatively healthy. Keep in mind that you will be severely limited with respect to upgrading the device. A replacement needs to be substantially similar in look and usage.
The NRA and their fanatical followers totally ignored those important concepts when the 1st smart gun was being sold in the US. Protests? Death threats? intimidation? Read about what happened after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...">the Armatix iP1 was offered in the US. Its a step backwards for the cause of gun safety.
False. From the NRA's website: "The NRA doesn’t oppose the development of “smart” guns, nor the ability of Americans to voluntarily acquire them. However, NRA opposes any law prohibiting Americans from acquiring or possessing firearms that don’t possess “smart” gun technology."
Your link shows that the controversy was sparked by a state proposing that all guns sold be equipped with such technology.
Actually as a UC student I attended classes supporting a student entrepreneurship contest. A representative of the UC IP department attended and explained the program to us and emphasized its support of and discounts to small local startups.
So you have to win a contest to be considered? Did he actually discuss the process, the forms, the reviews, the requirements for actually being eligible of getting any of that "support and discounts" and the chances of getting any? NO? I wonder why...
No you did not have to win. The competition was just one of various venues where the people from the UC IP department reached out to students in order to explain the services they provided. Yes, they provided an overview of the program and the process. Yes, they provided a packet that went into greater detail about the program and process. There was a CD-ROM with the current list of IP available from UC. Yes, they made it clear their services were available to us after graduation when we were working in industry, regardless of the nature of our companies.
The UC IP program gives such companies a break on licensing fees, as they also do for local companies.
Oh, so after already paying tax money to support this bloated bureaucracy, and dedicated "monitization" staff, a few companies get a "break" from paying extra for the results of tech research that they've already paid for? How... terribly kind.
Small companies. Local companies. Again, you mentioned Bernie Sanders, and last night he specifically talked about treating small and medium sized businesses differently than large companies.
Also, again, no tax money is spent on this UC IP bureaucracy. It generates revenue far in excess of its costs.
No cronies required.
Clearly, you've never tried to get one of these "discount" licenses from the elites at UC.
Actually as a UC student I attended classes supporting a student entrepreneurship contest. A representative of the UC IP department attended and explained the program to us and emphasized its support of and discounts to small local startups.
UC has a dedicated staff to handle the patent paperwork. There is no great burden placed on the researchers. The department that does all the patent paperwork, licensing, defense, etc generates a lot of revenue; it does not add to expenses. Revenue that is applied to statewide funding of UC, slows increases in student tuition, and provides various on-campus and off job opportunities while a student. And again, ordinary researchers, professors and students, directly benefit from their work being commercialized. Its quite erroneous to characterize the UC IP system as one where only the wealthy benefit.
Note that Bernie specifically supports small and medium sized companies. The UC IP program gives such companies a break on licensing fees, as they also do for local companies. No cronies required.
Yes ballooning administration is a problem, and the various vanity projects they lean towards, but that problem is independent of the UC IP program.
The invention was a result of research, funded by the public, so the public should own the patent. It should be under an MIT or BSD-style license in the public domain.
That makes more sense for federally funded projects than state funded. If state funded there would be free rides from the other states, in addition to the international free rides both federal and state funded projects would have.
FWIW the University of California system has a "discriminator" licensing scheme where smaller and local organizations get lower fees. Giving back to the California public in the sense of jobs but also in the sense that the fees help pay for the statewide university system (50% of fee revenue, 25% to team's department(s), 25% to team). It ends up being a virtuous circle in that the state gets more research dollars than it would have in a purely taxpayer funded system.
Also the University of California's BSD license was covering copyrighted IP not patented IP. Two very different things.
Wisconsin-Madison is a state-supported school. I realize these days it's considered okay to double- and triple-dip into taxpayers pockets, but this system where schools get to have tax money for research, and then patent the results for profit, is completely wrong. As a citizen, it means I'm paying for the research, then paying AGAIN to have any access to it. Based on state-granted monopoly. At best, any revenue derived from these university patents should go back into the general fund, not for the (unencumbered) sole use of the school.
Don't know about Wisconsin but for the University of California (UC) system the the IP licensing helps pay for the university system in general, i.e. avoids a dip into taxpayer pockets. 50% of the revenue goes to fund the statewide UC system in general, 25% goes to the department(s) of the team members, and 25% goes to the team. The licensing basically funds much research, its a virtuous circle providing more research dollars than would have been available in a purely taxpayer funded system.
On the licensing side it is a "discriminatory" system, smaller and local organizations get much lower fees than multinational conglomerates operating outside of California. So California residents also benefit by the promotion of jobs in California.
Your assumption that state residents are inherently harmed by such IP licensing practices is mistaken.
Teach them how to do basic home maintenance, budget management, interview skills, and professionalism as a requirement of graduating. You'll make a world of difference and they'll use all of it.
I think that is basically how things were in my grandparent's days. There was no 1 year of math required for HS graduation. There was 4 years of math required, college prep track or not. If not college bound the math classes were vocational, personal finance and banking, budgeting, practical (ex. area of floor, walls to calculate carpet, paint needed for a room), etc. When I was in HS I applied for a part-time job at a local hardware store. They gave me a math test. When I turned it into the manager I asked if this was a joke. He said sadly no, you wouldn't believe how many people apply for a job at a hardware store who can't even add two fractions let alone calculate area.
Learning to code is like taking an electronics class, i.e. its like an elective "shop" or "lab" class not like a core subject such as math.
This is just the latest and greatest "magic bullet" that is going to "fix" the educational system. It will fail. The solution is to spend more time on core subjects like math and reading and science so that students who have any sort of interest or curiosity about electronics or coding or robotics will be better prepared to be introduced to those specialties.
Its not that different from the 80s "magic bullet" of an Apple II with Turtle Graphics. Sure, it was great for those with any interest or curiosity about coding but not so much for anyone forced to do the coding. It did not "fix" education.