Instead, the US abandons industrial policy, and therefore industrial strategy. And watches China ascend at our expense. Though the top US capitalists have already invested in China's industries, so China's gain is their gain, while they've divested from US liabilities, so our expense is not theirs.
It's not a zero-sum game. Both the Chinese and the Americans can benefit from trading with each other. Presumably that's why they do.
I would have thought software managers had experience with software design? I don't know the stats, but for software especially, it seems so obvious you need a guy who's tried it before. The more technical something gets, the more you'd think an experienced boss is necessary. But I suppose people see software as a sort of plumbing (not a dig on plumbers) that you can just ask for, and the monkeys will fix it. That's the way it's been in some of the firms I worked for. They basically don't understand the value.
I've always found it strange that the NHS seems to love having "managers" who aren't doctors or nurses. Where else would you find someone in charge who's never done the job? Head teachers used to be teachers, football managers used to be players, heads of sales used to be salesmen, but a guy who runs a hospital isn't a doctor? How did this come about?
The only other example I can think of is MBAs thinking they can manage ANYTHING.
A lot of work that used to require physical presence can now be done remotely. Not necessarily from home, but from computers at an office that doesn't have to be located at the site where the machine is. So offices move to where the people are rather than making people move to where the materials are. So you don't have to move groceries for those people as far either. Facetime, remote, telepresence will take over travel per capita as tech improves.
Some of the stuff you're talking about can indeed be done remotely, but there's always a need for actual face-to-face meetings. People still go to conferences instead of just posting on a website, deals are still struck with a handshake (requiring a long flight) rather than just exchanging emails/videochat. There's certain things about doing business that are hard to turn into a stream of bits, chiefly the attainment of trust. People are reluctant to trust someone they haven't met, even if all the relevant information and legal framework are present. Perhaps it's some kind of evolutionary throwback...
According to this, no official IQ score has been found for him, although his SAT has been correlated to something in the 120s. I'd question this indirect kind of scoring though.
Where's your source for his measured IQ? You might be able to change the Wikipedia article.
You can make sounds on a computer without making a robot? It's cool as a technical project, but what's the value in having it actually playing in a band when you can just have a recording of whatever sound you want?
As a professor who deals with this daily, I can tell you my opinion. I teach honors freshman chemistry with 60-80 students in my class. In the last 4 years I haven't had a single student who uses a laptop in class get an 'A' grade in my class. Most of them have ended up underperforming on tests, and then blaming my teaching for their failure to work up to their potential. This is anecdotal, but by the time I get to a few hundred students, it starts to look statistical. In an interesting real statistical development, we did a study in our large GE physical science class about the use of technology. We teach 8 section of the class each semester with identical homework and tests in all sections. We compared performance on tests between sections with teachers that pre-published powerpoint slides and teachers that didn't. Students statistically significantly worse in the sections where they had access to the powerpoint slides. When I poll my students they all tell me how much of an advantage it would be to have them, but it turns out that what they think will help them is not what will help them. We have passed our research on to the business school which requires students to have laptops, and faculty to pre-publish slides (because that is how the business world works) but they aren't interested in knowing.
Dude, they're business school students. They're not meant to be learning stuff!
People used to goof off by doodling on a piece of paper, or play poker in the back of the lecture hall. Or fall asleep.
Laptops can be simply another way to do something other than pay attention to the prof, or people can use them to take notes. Why not just let young adults decide for themselves?
You're at fault if you know the guy is gonna shoot up the school, just as you're at fault if you knew the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews. Sure, it's not your fault they want to go and kill people, but you could prevent it by not releasing the critical information. (There's some interesting ethical dilemmas if you tweak the conditions a bit, but let's take the simplest case.)
Interesting, but unless the "phases" are real, ie they reflect something important in and of themselves, you end up just having a bunch of dummy variables that explain everything and nothing at the same time. Perhaps the phases need to be endogenous to the model? Otherwise, you're switching models when the old one fails, which isn't great for claiming predictive power.
At the same time, (and not having seen all the Trek material) their research seems to be quite breezy and exciting. Not many problems getting research grants, lab time, sucking up to the right editors, not a whole lot of frustration with other people publishing before you.
This is a bit like saying "unless you have a big frame, you'll never be able to lift X sized weights." Or "If you ain't tall, you ain't gonna play (basket)ball".
I suppose in the extreme, this is the case. If the population you're looking for really requires extreme IQs, there's only a few people who will have that. But there's a lot of research positions out there, and I doubt you need such an extreme IQ as 150 to be a contender. So actually, I'd think there's lots of people who could do these research jobs, but for one reason or other decide it isn't worth it for them.
I'd bet most people have been in a school and a hospital, and met at least one lawyer. Have they ever had the least bit of resemblance to 90210, ER, or LA Law? I'm in finance, and every time I watch anything that's meant to depict it, it's so ridiculously off target I can't watch it. I'll bet the rest of you have jobs that are similarly unrealistically depicted on TV.
I suppose I worded it badly, but in essence, what is the meaning of "a simplified version" of "everything"? There isn't a specific aspect of "everything" that seems natural to simplify, given the scope of the project. "Atoms as pool balls" makes sense for certain contexts. There doesn't seem to be a context for this simulator.
While computers have a traceable abstraction hierarchy from transistors and up, is that really the best way to teach stuff? The point of each abstraction is (partly) to hide the underlying layer. Aren't we better off starting at the top, and diving down as we become more curious? While you're right that building your own abstraction is necessary for programming, wouldn't you say the students ought to have a look at how others have built the underlying layers in the first place?
Does VBA count as a form of Basic? From experience, a frightening amount of the world's financial institutions use it to trade huge sums of money. Go around a trading desk at your average firm, and you find everyone has a load of spaghetti code that they copied/modified themselves.
While I agree OO is useful, it seems you need to have an awful lot explained to you (classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc...) before you can actually start doing anything. And if you don't have stuff explained, you'll wonder what the heck you're looking at when you run into a new keyword. However, it can be hard to grasp what the concepts mean without something concrete to look at. It's a bit of a Catch-22.
Suppose you start the simulator, and it veers off. You'll want some kind of corrector mechanism, no? So you get some feedback from the real world. The trouble is, if you don't have a plausible model of how "eveything" works, you end up having to correct an awful lot.
Also, isn't the only way to calculate something so complex as "everything on Earth" to uhm, have an Earth to run? And isn't the point of modelling to look at a small part of the whole, to abstract the bits you're interested in? I wonder if this project is going to be tell us anything other than "there's a lot of complexity of there, dude".
So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities? What is it to you? Are you offended by this? If God is as useless as you claim to be, then of what harm is his belief? Presumably, he is a competent scientist and would produce the same output regardless whether you agree to his beliefs or not. We who believe in God (I'm a muslim microbiologist) thank God for allowing us the opportunity to become what we are, to achieve what we have set out in life. In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will", but this free will is limited by events out of our control. A child may inherit genes that confer him the abilities of a mathematical genius for example, but if he was born say in the Gaza Strip, then such potential will probably never be reached. As such, when good things happens to us, we thank God, when bad things happens, we ask for his protection and we say "insyallah" (God Willing) when we plan for the future.
I don't think it's great attributing credit where it's not due. If someone has put in a lot of hard work trying to discover something, shouldn't they get the credit? By giving credit to another guy, you deviate from rewarding good behaviour (and punishing bad).
Also, all this fatalism isn't great either. If all the groundwork is done by God, you're hardly responsible for much. It gives people an excuse to say "oh, he didn't give me talent" or "oh, I was born on the Gaza Strip" and then not put in the effort to get to better places.
Basically, I'm saying if you credit God for a bunch of stuff, it absolves people of responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, tell us what the lessons are! Bullet points?
Instead, the US abandons industrial policy, and therefore industrial strategy. And watches China ascend at our expense. Though the top US capitalists have already invested in China's industries, so China's gain is their gain, while they've divested from US liabilities, so our expense is not theirs.
It's not a zero-sum game. Both the Chinese and the Americans can benefit from trading with each other. Presumably that's why they do.
I would have thought software managers had experience with software design? I don't know the stats, but for software especially, it seems so obvious you need a guy who's tried it before. The more technical something gets, the more you'd think an experienced boss is necessary. But I suppose people see software as a sort of plumbing (not a dig on plumbers) that you can just ask for, and the monkeys will fix it. That's the way it's been in some of the firms I worked for. They basically don't understand the value.
I've always found it strange that the NHS seems to love having "managers" who aren't doctors or nurses. Where else would you find someone in charge who's never done the job? Head teachers used to be teachers, football managers used to be players, heads of sales used to be salesmen, but a guy who runs a hospital isn't a doctor? How did this come about?
The only other example I can think of is MBAs thinking they can manage ANYTHING.
Are you sure this won't simply create a different game?
A lot of work that used to require physical presence can now be done remotely. Not necessarily from home, but from computers at an office that doesn't have to be located at the site where the machine is. So offices move to where the people are rather than making people move to where the materials are. So you don't have to move groceries for those people as far either. Facetime, remote, telepresence will take over travel per capita as tech improves.
Some of the stuff you're talking about can indeed be done remotely, but there's always a need for actual face-to-face meetings. People still go to conferences instead of just posting on a website, deals are still struck with a handshake (requiring a long flight) rather than just exchanging emails/videochat. There's certain things about doing business that are hard to turn into a stream of bits, chiefly the attainment of trust. People are reluctant to trust someone they haven't met, even if all the relevant information and legal framework are present. Perhaps it's some kind of evolutionary throwback...
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
That will buy old Bill a lawsuit from Mars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(chocolate)
Ever heard this phrase?
"Do as I say, not as I do"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush
According to this, no official IQ score has been found for him, although his SAT has been correlated to something in the 120s. I'd question this indirect kind of scoring though.
Where's your source for his measured IQ? You might be able to change the Wikipedia article.
You can make sounds on a computer without making a robot? It's cool as a technical project, but what's the value in having it actually playing in a band when you can just have a recording of whatever sound you want?
Think I'll whoosh myself...
As a professor who deals with this daily, I can tell you my opinion. I teach honors freshman chemistry with 60-80 students in my class. In the last 4 years I haven't had a single student who uses a laptop in class get an 'A' grade in my class. Most of them have ended up underperforming on tests, and then blaming my teaching for their failure to work up to their potential. This is anecdotal, but by the time I get to a few hundred students, it starts to look statistical. In an interesting real statistical development, we did a study in our large GE physical science class about the use of technology. We teach 8 section of the class each semester with identical homework and tests in all sections. We compared performance on tests between sections with teachers that pre-published powerpoint slides and teachers that didn't. Students statistically significantly worse in the sections where they had access to the powerpoint slides. When I poll my students they all tell me how much of an advantage it would be to have them, but it turns out that what they think will help them is not what will help them. We have passed our research on to the business school which requires students to have laptops, and faculty to pre-publish slides (because that is how the business world works) but they aren't interested in knowing.
Dude, they're business school students. They're not meant to be learning stuff!
So if Amazon is the only plausible outlet for a bunch of niche interests, are they morally obliged to sell those lines? Isn't it up to them?
Having said that, I don't see how they benefit from from cutting out anything, and the whole exercise seems a bit pointless to me.
People used to goof off by doodling on a piece of paper, or play poker in the back of the lecture hall. Or fall asleep.
Laptops can be simply another way to do something other than pay attention to the prof, or people can use them to take notes. Why not just let young adults decide for themselves?
You can be neither evil, nor stupid, and get into a car accident where you are to blame.
You're at fault if you know the guy is gonna shoot up the school, just as you're at fault if you knew the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews. Sure, it's not your fault they want to go and kill people, but you could prevent it by not releasing the critical information. (There's some interesting ethical dilemmas if you tweak the conditions a bit, but let's take the simplest case.)
Interesting, but unless the "phases" are real, ie they reflect something important in and of themselves, you end up just having a bunch of dummy variables that explain everything and nothing at the same time. Perhaps the phases need to be endogenous to the model? Otherwise, you're switching models when the old one fails, which isn't great for claiming predictive power.
At the same time, (and not having seen all the Trek material) their research seems to be quite breezy and exciting. Not many problems getting research grants, lab time, sucking up to the right editors, not a whole lot of frustration with other people publishing before you.
This is a bit like saying "unless you have a big frame, you'll never be able to lift X sized weights." Or "If you ain't tall, you ain't gonna play (basket)ball".
I suppose in the extreme, this is the case. If the population you're looking for really requires extreme IQs, there's only a few people who will have that. But there's a lot of research positions out there, and I doubt you need such an extreme IQ as 150 to be a contender. So actually, I'd think there's lots of people who could do these research jobs, but for one reason or other decide it isn't worth it for them.
I'd bet most people have been in a school and a hospital, and met at least one lawyer. Have they ever had the least bit of resemblance to 90210, ER, or LA Law? I'm in finance, and every time I watch anything that's meant to depict it, it's so ridiculously off target I can't watch it. I'll bet the rest of you have jobs that are similarly unrealistically depicted on TV.
I suppose I worded it badly, but in essence, what is the meaning of "a simplified version" of "everything"? There isn't a specific aspect of "everything" that seems natural to simplify, given the scope of the project. "Atoms as pool balls" makes sense for certain contexts. There doesn't seem to be a context for this simulator.
While computers have a traceable abstraction hierarchy from transistors and up, is that really the best way to teach stuff? The point of each abstraction is (partly) to hide the underlying layer. Aren't we better off starting at the top, and diving down as we become more curious? While you're right that building your own abstraction is necessary for programming, wouldn't you say the students ought to have a look at how others have built the underlying layers in the first place?
Does VBA count as a form of Basic? From experience, a frightening amount of the world's financial institutions use it to trade huge sums of money. Go around a trading desk at your average firm, and you find everyone has a load of spaghetti code that they copied/modified themselves.
While I agree OO is useful, it seems you need to have an awful lot explained to you (classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc...) before you can actually start doing anything. And if you don't have stuff explained, you'll wonder what the heck you're looking at when you run into a new keyword. However, it can be hard to grasp what the concepts mean without something concrete to look at. It's a bit of a Catch-22.
Suppose you start the simulator, and it veers off. You'll want some kind of corrector mechanism, no? So you get some feedback from the real world. The trouble is, if you don't have a plausible model of how "eveything" works, you end up having to correct an awful lot.
Also, isn't the only way to calculate something so complex as "everything on Earth" to uhm, have an Earth to run? And isn't the point of modelling to look at a small part of the whole, to abstract the bits you're interested in? I wonder if this project is going to be tell us anything other than "there's a lot of complexity of there, dude".
So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities? What is it to you? Are you offended by this? If God is as useless as you claim to be, then of what harm is his belief? Presumably, he is a competent scientist and would produce the same output regardless whether you agree to his beliefs or not. We who believe in God (I'm a muslim microbiologist) thank God for allowing us the opportunity to become what we are, to achieve what we have set out in life. In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will", but this free will is limited by events out of our control. A child may inherit genes that confer him the abilities of a mathematical genius for example, but if he was born say in the Gaza Strip, then such potential will probably never be reached. As such, when good things happens to us, we thank God, when bad things happens, we ask for his protection and we say "insyallah" (God Willing) when we plan for the future.
I don't think it's great attributing credit where it's not due. If someone has put in a lot of hard work trying to discover something, shouldn't they get the credit? By giving credit to another guy, you deviate from rewarding good behaviour (and punishing bad).
Also, all this fatalism isn't great either. If all the groundwork is done by God, you're hardly responsible for much. It gives people an excuse to say "oh, he didn't give me talent" or "oh, I was born on the Gaza Strip" and then not put in the effort to get to better places.
Basically, I'm saying if you credit God for a bunch of stuff, it absolves people of responsibility.