Really? You've surveyed them, asking whether they'd be willing to spend the extra time and effort structuring the information and learning the query system?
Most people won't. If your group will, then they must
A. have a difficult problem that's already using up their time, that the Knowledge Management System solves. Since you don't have a system picked out, it's unlikely this is currently true. Maybe someday though. B. Already use similar procedures for their jobs. Someone who fills out forms all day may be willing to fill out 1 more. Or C. Not be very busy. Busy people don't have time to jump through extra hoops for vaguely-defined benefits, regardless of how high class and professional they are.
People are assholes here now. There is little to no respect for neighbors across the board and from regional city to another the predominant attitude is "fuck you, I don't have to".... Seattle (and surrounding) is incapable of making decisions to save our future - we've been discussing, with nearly zero actual movement, traffic/transit for 40+ years.
So just like everywhere else. Welcome to the 21st century.
What gives people like you the idea that others will do what you want instead of whatever they want? They won't. Why should they? Because you'll do them a favor in return?
You might want to complain about the sun rising in the east next. Asshole sun, never rises in the west, no matter how many times I explain how much smarter that would be...
Just store a bunch of documents somewhere with a search feature that does full text indexing. Or use a simple Wiki system.
Anything more complicated than that and you'll be the only one using it. Other people won't care enough to spend their time entering data into specific fields and learning a query system.
1. There are a lot of people there 2. You get on the news and the President mentions what you did 3. Everyone went to school. It's a familiar place. Shooters probably don't have happy memories of school. 4. Kids don't know how to fight back. Most of the staff are women. It's a gun free zone. If you do it there, you have the maximum relative power over everyone else. 5. When something bad happens at a school, they go on lockdown and all your victims are stuck in the building. When someone shoots up a mall, everyone runs and soon the place is empty of victims and the only people left are threats to you. 6. Politics reigns. There's a good chance the incident will be blamed on someone/something besides the shooter. 7. It worked for the last school shooters, and the ones before that. Shooters are learning. The people who are supposed to protect the schools aren't. 8. Why not? (Seriously. This is a challenge. Come up with a good answer that can't be countered with the grievance mixed with nihilism that US culture has become.)
No other target is so soft or so well known to the shooters. Maybe someone should come up with a realistic security plan someday? You know, after the politicians get done playing it up for political advantage and fundraising.
Even if they had the weapons, everyone at school would have been safe. The school was designated a gun-free zone. I'm pretty sure there's no way they could have gotten the guns past those "gun-free zone" signs.
You also pay 6.2% Social security tax + 1.45% Medicare tax. And your employer matches that -- money your employer pays for your work that you never get and never even see in your gross pay. That's 14.9% total.
You also pay extra for every service and every product you buy because the people who produce them have to charge you extra to pay their tax bill.
Lots of people and organizations don't have enough money for everything they want. They have to prioritize. Maybe test some more cars instead of bullying farmers.
The US can't have any policy agenda on anything. The Wrong People might benefit. Depending on your perspective, The Wrong People have the bad gender, or the bad skin color, or they're too rich, or they're from the bad country, or the bad states, or they have the bad religion, or the bad politics, or the bad associations, or the bad hobbies. Or they're insensitive to people who deserve special consideration. Or someone might make a profit. Or someone might pay less in taxes. Or someone might not get set-asides. Wages might not meet "living wage" standards. An animal might get hurt or stressed out. Someone might spend Too Much on advertising and marketing. Or everyone might not benefit from it equally. Or it might not save the planet fast enough. That's why we can't do it.
This is a science topic and you're arguing against learning from observed history. If you really want to make that argument, you might want to come up with something more persuasive than "what if" and "you never really know".
Seems hard to believe. But even if true (and no one offers any evidence or any supporting arguments at all, just anonymous claims posted on the Internet), what's fun for a very small subset of people isn't necessarily going to be fun for anyone else.
It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.
Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?
Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?
My father was a computer scientist and oceanographer for 40 years and always marveled at the fact that people would pay him to do what he would gladly do for free. He had quite a bit of fun.
People exaggerate. When someone says something like this, it's not literally true.
I still doubt it. But if someone genuinely experiences "joy" doing such work, then I'd suggest that's not a feeling that would be common to a large percentage of people. I'm not sure why everyone should have to do things a specific way because that method might appeal to a small minority. Maybe one-size-fits-all government education isn't really desirable...?
How common are "great breakthroughs"? Does it really make sense to pretend every kid is going to make "great breakthroughs"? If you really want to encourage more "great breakthroughs", you're going to have to stop treating the 1 in 1000 kid as just another member of the herd.
Whenever we had to do anything in school that was supposed to be "fun", I wished I'd skipped school that day. I could have used the time to do something I actually liked doing, but instead we spent hours learning something we could have learned in a few minutes. And it wasn't fun.
Fun and a sense of "discovery" aren't really possible in a highly structured school environment. You can't do anything but follow the instructions. How is that fun? What did I discover other than the fact that science experiments sometime work and sometimes don't?
I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun". Rewarding and interesting maybe. But probably very, very rarely "fun".
Perhaps that's the real problem: the people who say science is "fun" are grossly overselling it. Kids aren't having fun in science class because it's just not genuinely fun.
They don't actually have to read the paperwork, just store it. Then when someone in power decides you're an enemy, they pull out 10000 pages of paperwork filed over the years, scan it for some technical mistake or misinterpretation of some rule that was clarified after the paperwork was filed, and issue huge fines or get a warrant for your arrest. Witch hunt declared a success, political enemies punished, media cheers, totalitarian faction on Slashdot claims it's a victory for "justice". Number of non-elite, non-political-insider people actually helped: zero.
Stupid regulations applied to your industry... bad. Stupid regulations applied to someone else's industry... SENSIBLE. Of course those other guys in that other industry that we don't understand need to be regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You've surveyed them, asking whether they'd be willing to spend the extra time and effort structuring the information and learning the query system?
Most people won't. If your group will, then they must
A. have a difficult problem that's already using up their time, that the Knowledge Management System solves. Since you don't have a system picked out, it's unlikely this is currently true. Maybe someday though.
B. Already use similar procedures for their jobs. Someone who fills out forms all day may be willing to fill out 1 more. Or
C. Not be very busy. Busy people don't have time to jump through extra hoops for vaguely-defined benefits, regardless of how high class and professional they are.
People are assholes here now. There is little to no respect for neighbors across the board and from regional city to another the predominant attitude is "fuck you, I don't have to". ... Seattle (and surrounding) is incapable of making decisions to save our future - we've been discussing, with nearly zero actual movement, traffic/transit for 40+ years.
So just like everywhere else. Welcome to the 21st century.
What gives people like you the idea that others will do what you want instead of whatever they want? They won't. Why should they? Because you'll do them a favor in return?
You might want to complain about the sun rising in the east next. Asshole sun, never rises in the west, no matter how many times I explain how much smarter that would be...
Theoretically. In actual reality, seeking a legal remedy is very expensive and is reserved for extreme problems.
The real leverage is the money you're going to pay them next year. Or not pay them.
Just store a bunch of documents somewhere with a search feature that does full text indexing. Or use a simple Wiki system.
Anything more complicated than that and you'll be the only one using it. Other people won't care enough to spend their time entering data into specific fields and learning a query system.
How many whines about too many tech jobs ruining Seattle for the workin' man do we need to see?
Every town without a tech boom wishes they had your problems.
"Gun free zone" means there's not even a weapon locked in a safe in the office, or in a staff member's car in the parking lot. It's a soft target.
But yeah, if you don't care about mass shootings, a "no weapons" policy makes some superficial sense.
1. There are a lot of people there
2. You get on the news and the President mentions what you did
3. Everyone went to school. It's a familiar place. Shooters probably don't have happy memories of school.
4. Kids don't know how to fight back. Most of the staff are women. It's a gun free zone. If you do it there, you have the maximum relative power over everyone else.
5. When something bad happens at a school, they go on lockdown and all your victims are stuck in the building. When someone shoots up a mall, everyone runs and soon the place is empty of victims and the only people left are threats to you.
6. Politics reigns. There's a good chance the incident will be blamed on someone/something besides the shooter.
7. It worked for the last school shooters, and the ones before that. Shooters are learning. The people who are supposed to protect the schools aren't.
8. Why not? (Seriously. This is a challenge. Come up with a good answer that can't be countered with the grievance mixed with nihilism that US culture has become.)
No other target is so soft or so well known to the shooters. Maybe someone should come up with a realistic security plan someday? You know, after the politicians get done playing it up for political advantage and fundraising.
Even if they had the weapons, everyone at school would have been safe. The school was designated a gun-free zone. I'm pretty sure there's no way they could have gotten the guns past those "gun-free zone" signs.
You also pay 6.2% Social security tax + 1.45% Medicare tax. And your employer matches that -- money your employer pays for your work that you never get and never even see in your gross pay. That's 14.9% total.
You also pay extra for every service and every product you buy because the people who produce them have to charge you extra to pay their tax bill.
Lots of people and organizations don't have enough money for everything they want. They have to prioritize. Maybe test some more cars instead of bullying farmers.
The US can't have any policy agenda on anything. The Wrong People might benefit. Depending on your perspective, The Wrong People have the bad gender, or the bad skin color, or they're too rich, or they're from the bad country, or the bad states, or they have the bad religion, or the bad politics, or the bad associations, or the bad hobbies. Or they're insensitive to people who deserve special consideration. Or someone might make a profit. Or someone might pay less in taxes. Or someone might not get set-asides. Wages might not meet "living wage" standards. An animal might get hurt or stressed out. Someone might spend Too Much on advertising and marketing. Or everyone might not benefit from it equally. Or it might not save the planet fast enough. That's why we can't do it.
This is a science topic and you're arguing against learning from observed history. If you really want to make that argument, you might want to come up with something more persuasive than "what if" and "you never really know".
Seems hard to believe. But even if true (and no one offers any evidence or any supporting arguments at all, just anonymous claims posted on the Internet), what's fun for a very small subset of people isn't necessarily going to be fun for anyone else.
It's actually a lot easier to bullshit people who think they are smart. Look at the anti-vaccination movement and Chipotle's anti-GMO noise for examples.
Because they can vote? Because if even two of them can find their way out of the door they've outvoted the one with a clue?
Why should the "science" crowd be given political power over their neighbors? Has that worked out well historically? Any reasoning behind this at all, or do you just want more political power over people, regardless of the benefits to anyone besides yourself?
Let's address the real issue and stop trying to give participation trophies.
As long at we don't replace them with trophies for following instructions and agreeing with whatever authority figures say.
Nope. Is there some reason you can't communicate your point in a couple of clear sentences?
My father was a computer scientist and oceanographer for 40 years and always marveled at the fact that people would pay him to do what he would gladly do for free. He had quite a bit of fun.
People exaggerate. When someone says something like this, it's not literally true.
just as important is getting the other 999 kids to understand why science and its applications are wothwhile
Why? How do you measure "important"?
we wouldn't have to watch Asian countries stride boldly into the future without us.
Pretty sure "the future" is available to everyone, so it's really not clear what you're trying to say.
These are just platitudes we're all supposed to mindlessly agree with, right?
I still doubt it. But if someone genuinely experiences "joy" doing such work, then I'd suggest that's not a feeling that would be common to a large percentage of people. I'm not sure why everyone should have to do things a specific way because that method might appeal to a small minority. Maybe one-size-fits-all government education isn't really desirable...?
How common are "great breakthroughs"? Does it really make sense to pretend every kid is going to make "great breakthroughs"? If you really want to encourage more "great breakthroughs", you're going to have to stop treating the 1 in 1000 kid as just another member of the herd.
Whenever we had to do anything in school that was supposed to be "fun", I wished I'd skipped school that day. I could have used the time to do something I actually liked doing, but instead we spent hours learning something we could have learned in a few minutes. And it wasn't fun.
Fun and a sense of "discovery" aren't really possible in a highly structured school environment. You can't do anything but follow the instructions. How is that fun? What did I discover other than the fact that science experiments sometime work and sometimes don't?
I doubt professional scientists think their work is "fun". Rewarding and interesting maybe. But probably very, very rarely "fun".
Perhaps that's the real problem: the people who say science is "fun" are grossly overselling it. Kids aren't having fun in science class because it's just not genuinely fun.
"I posted my photos in public and now I'm outraged that they're being looked at by people I don't know."
They don't actually have to read the paperwork, just store it. Then when someone in power decides you're an enemy, they pull out 10000 pages of paperwork filed over the years, scan it for some technical mistake or misinterpretation of some rule that was clarified after the paperwork was filed, and issue huge fines or get a warrant for your arrest. Witch hunt declared a success, political enemies punished, media cheers, totalitarian faction on Slashdot claims it's a victory for "justice". Number of non-elite, non-political-insider people actually helped: zero.
Stupid regulations applied to your industry ... bad. Stupid regulations applied to someone else's industry ... SENSIBLE. Of course those other guys in that other industry that we don't understand need to be regulated.