Intelligence is potential, or aptitude, or how long it takes to acquire skill. One can be less intelligent but more skilled, by dint of greater application, spending more time on the problem. All of the examples you gave are around people who developed skill in one area but not another, which is completely irrelevant and orthogonal to intelligence.
Intelligence measures how quickly someone will acquire a skill if they invest themselves in doing so.
instead of studying drugs only prior to approval, drug efficacy, should, as a matter of course be studied all the time (even long after it is approved.) Do you want a sample of a few hundred people? or a few million? Information about who (in an anonymized way) is getting what combinations of drugs should be raw data for regulators, and researchers to mine. Big Pharma should contribute to the cost of the monitoring. One has to test for basic lack of danger to get into the market, fine, but keep testing afterward... phase V surveillance should be much more universal and rigourous, and not left upto vendors.
There is also the issue of "off-label" prescriptions. If such prescriptions really are helpful, then long term comprehensive surveillance should demonstrate an effect, and make it easier to add a recommendation. If people want to know what drug combinations are being prescribed together, in order to prioritize which grouping to study.
I have four or five of these... got some for lots of people.
I think there might be some firmware blobs required, but it's open source enough for me. To play with, it needs to be cheap enough to break without heartbreak, and it needs a community, and pi has all that, and third party hardware packages also. It runs plain vanilla debian, and so dead easy to work with, build your projects in python. Latest generation gets you wifi & bluetooth built in, so a lot of options for control and i/o.
They are talking about training disadvantaged inner city youth to become coders. The idea is to make home-grown cheap labour to replace the foreign cheap labour, getting them off welfare, and having them help pay taxes. It's a good idea, but it means competition from poor people for what used to be high paying jobs. The idea is to make "coding" be a job for people with High School, or at most a trade school education, and avoid the expensive university investment, so the kids can afford to work for less.
It makes sense, it's just not good news for people hoping for a good income from such work. The rich started the war with off-shoring, and now they are recruiting the poor to make them allies in crushing the middle class. I'm not even remotely a communist, but in this case, the shoe kinda fits, you know?
The worst time to plan a project is at the beginning. You have zero information. You don't know if your goals are reasonable/achievable/desirable. You don't know if you will need to "pivot", you don't much of anything. The way to minimize project and time risk is to know a lot before you commit to a deliverable. Too often, when people talk about "project" and they focus on cost or schedule, it drives all out all exploration, and you end up on a death march towards goals set when you knew nothing.
Most PM methodologies encourage up-front planning, which is hard work and next to useless. Plan a little bit, do a little bit, see how things are going, rinse, lather, repeat. Many projects start out with grandiose goals, when no-one can say anything sensible. It's fine to make a grand plan, but figure out a small step that will increase knowledge about validity of the grand plan, and hopefully be independently useful. Plan that small step. Do that. One small step at a time, you make progress.
PM sorely tempts people into becoming schedule box-tickers, and tsk, tskers. The mortal enemy of PM's is usually "risk", it's all about mitigating or eliminating risks. When you eliminate risk, you eliminate opportunities. If you get obsessed with risk, it crushes exploration, and prevents you from learning what you actually should be doing. When you put too much detail in the plan, people become slaves to decisions made when you knew less.
Ideally, a PM methodology should understand that things go in phases, and when you learn methodologies, you hear about how they ought to be used, but often the hierarchy thinks that by controlling budgets and schedules they are "managing", but all they are managing is "budgets" and "schedules", which doesn't necessarily achieve any business goals.
The PM methodology that seemed closest to encouraging this sort of iteration is PRINCE II*, with it's explicit staging, and explicit re-appraisal at each stage. Start with a stage that involves exploring assumptions, and validating them, perhaps fleshing out the business case, and sharpening the objectives. So you go through the first stage, and you look at what you know and does the eventual goal still look reasonable? yes? ok: Plan next stage (not whole project, just one stage at a time.)
The ideas in PRINCEII are fundamentally good, but there is a huge risk in that organizations may turn any methodology into a counter-productive, soul crushing, box ticking train wreck. That's actually one of the primary, and most difficult, risks to mitigate.
*yes, biased, I took the course, and got PRINCE II practitioner certified a decade ago. Fwiw, took other courses related to PMBOC, and have seen other methods, lots of waterfalls, so my sample size is at least >1.
I actually was fairly happy to do a presentation with a single dia diagram, and a script that extracted lines starting with a tag, and indicating which layers to include. Stuck that in a Makefile, and when I run it, it gives me a series of.png's.
weird, yes, but actually pretty functional.
I got a better source, the hyundai ionic uses only 200 watt-hours/km. To make one gallon of gasoline, a refinery uses at least 4 Kwh.
So: 4000/200 = 20... meaning the car would go 20 kilometers with the same amount of electricity.
The sources were quoting what the refineries reported they use to refine a gallon of gas, somewhere between four and six kilowatts in addition to any eating of their own dog food. If they weren't making gasoline, that fuel would be available for electric generation, and the difference is even greater. Here's a nerdier link. There are even worse examples, such as getting oil from Alberta's Oil sands, which apparently requires 300 KWh to heat enough material to produce a barrel of crude oil, or about 7 Kwh per gallon of crude, which gets you less than half that after refining. so then we are talking about 14 Kwh to get the oil sand into crude, then another 7 Kwh to refine it, and then add in the transportation.
It depends on whether the same grid refines oil to make gasoline. Switching to Electric might reduce total electrical needs because refining a gallon of gas, in addition to other inputs, requires between four and six kilowatts. And EV like the hyundai ionic uses less than 300 watts/km. so that corresponds to perhaps as much as 20 kilometers, and a small three wheel EV to go further still.
Robert Llewellyn's Volt for Oil puts it nicely. Original sources for this information is the Oil companies themselves in various regulatory filings.
While I agree it isn't a typical conversation starter, in reviewing literature of gender differences, evidence from such studies is completely relevant. What's the problem?
It's as if you couldn't mention *daemons* because some believers consider it prohibited speech.
People have to stop and check *their* prejudice when they read, and ensure that *they* are not interpreting far beyond what was written into a completely different meaning. That's the only way to build a *manifesto* out of what is essentially a literature review.
that blog post isn't even smoke, much less fire.
That it blew up like it did... wow. just wow.
While your point is well taken, and we can't know the whole story, we don't know what else he did that may argue that Google did the the right thing here. But: You haven't read the guy's article. It is a review of scientific literature of gender differences. It explains the current state of knowledge about that subject from empirical peer reviewed sources, and suggests that policy could be informed from data. That's it.
The most he does is make suggestions about how to improve processes to make diversity easier to accomplish. Contrary to what Google's HR,PR,CIO are saying, it isn't sexist or hateful at all. We don't know what happenned, but expressing *his own set of biases*, if that's the real reason, is not in that document. He also doesn't argue to *set* policy, but offers suggestions for improving it. Well, how else can policy evolve? There isn't an intolerant word in the entire piece.
While we cannot know the whole story, from what we have, the firing certainly looks unjust, and that the intolerant ones were those who complained loudly and slanderously enough to justify it.
For our security, one can go buy passwords from HP for 40$ each. They'll be encased in boxes about 6" x 6" x 10", and printed on plastic cards in case you ever need to log into your printer during a downpour. You'll be able to obtain HP-Certified passwords, produced using premium random string generation systems to be able to access your printers. They last six months, then they expire and you need to buy another in order to get your printer working again.
yes. obviously. that such an exemption only increases the excuses for data collection "we need to know who people are in order not to spy on them!" It's just unbelievable that they are that stupid. It's a useless thing to ask... If they are going to ask for something it should be something about greater transparency, more oversight of the collection, watching the watchers is the only thing that might be helpful, if you are going to have watchers.
They clearly do not understand how these technologies work. How do they expect to be excluded from mass surveillance? In the words of Edward Snowden, "Security is a binary state" if they are collecting metadata on everyone, for example, there isn't going to be a tag on particular phone numbers to to say "this is a politico", either they are gathering for everyone or no-one. The only way to implement this is to gather all the info, and then annotate it with metadata about all the numbers that belong to politicos, you end up keeping a list of all their phone numbers, social media accounts, etc... so that you can remember that you aren't allowed to look at them. All such identities need to be registered with the government some how, so that they can be excluded. In reality, all the information will still be collected and indexed as that will be the only way to be able to use the information if the PM ever provides permission. In other words, on top of the data being collected, it will also be tagged as especially interesting.
I don't think this achieves what the people proposing the amendment intend. They're being stupid.
I expect that thought occurred to these folks, and there are planning multiple peering points distributed across the globe.
The more downlinks, the less bandwidth is needed in the sky. Like cells, where the usage is high, you place more land stations.
"2/3rds of the satellites will always be over water and have their bandwidth utterly wasted. "
Internet on vessels sucks. Buoys at sea observing weather, all those unmanned vehicles need to provide camera feeds to operators in Topeka.
upside of global warming? Ships can now take a shortcut from asia to Europe by the Canadian North... where there is little to no civilisation and very limited weather info available. Think Titanic... yes, ships in ice-prone waters... Above 75 degrees north, geo-stationary is below the horizon, so good luck with that.
The choice today is iridium, which is tech designed 30 years ago, lofted 20 years ago, and good only for telemetry (really, really slow.) More choice (and especially more bandwidth) would be really helpful.
The issue isn't government vs. private, it's an issue of monopolies/oligopoly. In a lot of cases, government services have no "competition" because, frankly, there is no money to be made. competition is good, it brings focus.
When a public service fails, and there are private alternatives, it is compared to them and eventually de-funded.
When a private oligopoly fails, or is wasteful, what happens? "We'll just raise prices"...
The energy content in the fuel is irrelevant unless it can be harnessed to perform useful work.
If you want to dig a 6 foot hole, using a nuclear weapon will work, there will just some energy wasted.
Similarly, since 85% of the energy in gasoline is turned into heat, it isn't helping. At 15% efficiency that is typical of internal combustion engines, you are down to about 5 kwh actually used to move the car, versus an electric motor which is over 90% efficiency. If you add that ICE has no regenerative braking, no means of storing kinetic energy for re-use, you have a further disadvantage for ICE.
There isn't any additional net electricity. It takes more than 4 KWh to refine a gallon of gasoline. 4 is the lowest number you will hear. Some say 6, some say 8 if they add more elements in the chain than just refining. An average car will go further on the 4KWh than the gallon of gas. So the more electric cars we have the less electricity we will be using.
best explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...http://www.autoblog.com/2011/1...
Canadians don't hate you, and we have lots of oil, but our oil is more expensive (tar sands and offshore), so you don't have to pay people that hate you... just more to friends. We were in Afghanistan, helped in Libya, and we're in Iraq now... but Friendship/Alliances are not worth anything apparently. Heck you don't even pay us 'world price'...
It would make it a lot easier if you would have approved keystone.
It seems pointless to have two tilting wings. tail sitters are kind of inconvenient when there are people on-board, in something like an Osprey but un-manned? probably a lot lighter to replace the wing tilting with landing legs like a SpaceX booster, a really long nose wheel that pushes the whole plane into a vertical position, a lot less moving
parts, and the ones that move deal with a lot less strength and mass. Stick the camera in a bulb under the tail instead of the nose, and you can hover with it just the same, as with the tilt wing... doesnt matter much because these things spend most of their time orbiting anyways.
you could get away with just a little thrust vectoring, and completely fixed engines.
I don't want to be that guy, but this is why you
1. Don't type fast when your command starts with rm -rf;
I typed this slowly:
rm -rf/;
2. Never rm -rf by absolute path at all;
cd/; rm -rf.
3. Never start typing rm -rf at all, but type the rest of the command first and then edit in the rm; and
/<^H><^H>rm -rf ?
how does this help ?
4. Don't use root shells, but sudo, and edit in the sudo last on potentially destructive commands.
sudo rm -rf / ?
sudo/<^H><^H>rm -rf ?
There may be good reason to break one or more of these rules at one time, but never all four.
There is no substitute for just knowing what you are doing, and not doing the bad thing.
I've seen people complicate their lives with incantations, and all it usually does is make it fail in a more complicated way.
Simplicity is easier to remember.
you need for the BIOS to be a read-only thing that can only be written from another computer. Yes, it can be rather inconvenient to have to have a removable BIOS stick, but it would be simple to recover from this by just removing the stick and re-writing it on another machine.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
Having a read-only BIOS is great against hacking also.
It also makes bios upgrades safer. You just have two sticks and always keep your old one as a backup.
Slashdot Mirror
oblig: other OS's are Finnished?
The concept of multiple intelligences has panned out as false. When proper testing is done, all of the *multiple intelligences* turn out to be completely correlated, so they aren't distinct at all. ( George Miller, a prominent cognitive psychologist, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument consisted of "hunch and opinion" and Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein in The Bell Curve (1994) called Gardner's theory "uniquely devoid of psychometric or other quantitative evidence."[51]
instead of studying drugs only prior to approval, drug efficacy, should, as a matter of course be studied all the time (even long after it is approved.) Do you want a sample of a few hundred people? or a few million? Information about who (in an anonymized way) is getting what combinations of drugs should be raw data for regulators, and researchers to mine. Big Pharma should contribute to the cost of the monitoring. One has to test for basic lack of danger to get into the market, fine, but keep testing afterward... phase V surveillance should be much more universal and rigourous, and not left upto vendors. There is also the issue of "off-label" prescriptions. If such prescriptions really are helpful, then long term comprehensive surveillance should demonstrate an effect, and make it easier to add a recommendation. If people want to know what drug combinations are being prescribed together, in order to prioritize which grouping to study.
I have four or five of these... got some for lots of people. I think there might be some firmware blobs required, but it's open source enough for me. To play with, it needs to be cheap enough to break without heartbreak, and it needs a community, and pi has all that, and third party hardware packages also. It runs plain vanilla debian, and so dead easy to work with, build your projects in python. Latest generation gets you wifi & bluetooth built in, so a lot of options for control and i/o.
It makes sense, it's just not good news for people hoping for a good income from such work. The rich started the war with off-shoring, and now they are recruiting the poor to make them allies in crushing the middle class. I'm not even remotely a communist, but in this case, the shoe kinda fits, you know?
Most PM methodologies encourage up-front planning, which is hard work and next to useless. Plan a little bit, do a little bit, see how things are going, rinse, lather, repeat. Many projects start out with grandiose goals, when no-one can say anything sensible. It's fine to make a grand plan, but figure out a small step that will increase knowledge about validity of the grand plan, and hopefully be independently useful. Plan that small step. Do that. One small step at a time, you make progress.
PM sorely tempts people into becoming schedule box-tickers, and tsk, tskers. The mortal enemy of PM's is usually "risk", it's all about mitigating or eliminating risks. When you eliminate risk, you eliminate opportunities. If you get obsessed with risk, it crushes exploration, and prevents you from learning what you actually should be doing. When you put too much detail in the plan, people become slaves to decisions made when you knew less.
Ideally, a PM methodology should understand that things go in phases, and when you learn methodologies, you hear about how they ought to be used, but often the hierarchy thinks that by controlling budgets and schedules they are "managing", but all they are managing is "budgets" and "schedules", which doesn't necessarily achieve any business goals.
The PM methodology that seemed closest to encouraging this sort of iteration is PRINCE II*, with it's explicit staging, and explicit re-appraisal at each stage. Start with a stage that involves exploring assumptions, and validating them, perhaps fleshing out the business case, and sharpening the objectives. So you go through the first stage, and you look at what you know and does the eventual goal still look reasonable? yes? ok: Plan next stage (not whole project, just one stage at a time.)
The ideas in PRINCEII are fundamentally good, but there is a huge risk in that organizations may turn any methodology into a counter-productive, soul crushing, box ticking train wreck. That's actually one of the primary, and most difficult, risks to mitigate.
*yes, biased, I took the course, and got PRINCE II practitioner certified a decade ago. Fwiw, took other courses related to PMBOC, and have seen other methods, lots of waterfalls, so my sample size is at least >1.
I actually was fairly happy to do a presentation with a single dia diagram, and a script that extracted lines starting with a tag, and indicating which layers to include. Stuck that in a Makefile, and when I run it, it gives me a series of .png's.
weird, yes, but actually pretty functional.
I got a better source, the hyundai ionic uses only 200 watt-hours/km. To make one gallon of gasoline, a refinery uses at least 4 Kwh. So: 4000/200 = 20 ... meaning the car would go 20 kilometers with the same amount of electricity.
The sources were quoting what the refineries reported they use to refine a gallon of gas, somewhere between four and six kilowatts in addition to any eating of their own dog food. If they weren't making gasoline, that fuel would be available for electric generation, and the difference is even greater. Here's a nerdier link. There are even worse examples, such as getting oil from Alberta's Oil sands, which apparently requires 300 KWh to heat enough material to produce a barrel of crude oil, or about 7 Kwh per gallon of crude, which gets you less than half that after refining. so then we are talking about 14 Kwh to get the oil sand into crude, then another 7 Kwh to refine it, and then add in the transportation.
It depends on whether the same grid refines oil to make gasoline. Switching to Electric might reduce total electrical needs because refining a gallon of gas, in addition to other inputs, requires between four and six kilowatts. And EV like the hyundai ionic uses less than 300 watts/km. so that corresponds to perhaps as much as 20 kilometers, and a small three wheel EV to go further still. Robert Llewellyn's Volt for Oil puts it nicely. Original sources for this information is the Oil companies themselves in various regulatory filings.
People have to stop and check *their* prejudice when they read, and ensure that *they* are not interpreting far beyond what was written into a completely different meaning. That's the only way to build a *manifesto* out of what is essentially a literature review.
that blog post isn't even smoke, much less fire. That it blew up like it did... wow. just wow.
The most he does is make suggestions about how to improve processes to make diversity easier to accomplish. Contrary to what Google's HR,PR,CIO are saying, it isn't sexist or hateful at all. We don't know what happenned, but expressing *his own set of biases*, if that's the real reason, is not in that document. He also doesn't argue to *set* policy, but offers suggestions for improving it. Well, how else can policy evolve? There isn't an intolerant word in the entire piece.
While we cannot know the whole story, from what we have, the firing certainly looks unjust, and that the intolerant ones were those who complained loudly and slanderously enough to justify it.
In Manna, It actually started with the burger flippers' managers... and the franchisees...
For our security, one can go buy passwords from HP for 40$ each. They'll be encased in boxes about 6" x 6" x 10", and printed on plastic cards in case you ever need to log into your printer during a downpour. You'll be able to obtain HP-Certified passwords, produced using premium random string generation systems to be able to access your printers. They last six months, then they expire and you need to buy another in order to get your printer working again.
yes. obviously. that such an exemption only increases the excuses for data collection "we need to know who people are in order not to spy on them!" It's just unbelievable that they are that stupid. It's a useless thing to ask... If they are going to ask for something it should be something about greater transparency, more oversight of the collection, watching the watchers is the only thing that might be helpful, if you are going to have watchers.
I don't think this achieves what the people proposing the amendment intend. They're being stupid.
I expect that thought occurred to these folks, and there are planning multiple peering points distributed across the globe. The more downlinks, the less bandwidth is needed in the sky. Like cells, where the usage is high, you place more land stations.
"2/3rds of the satellites will always be over water and have their bandwidth utterly wasted. " Internet on vessels sucks. Buoys at sea observing weather, all those unmanned vehicles need to provide camera feeds to operators in Topeka. upside of global warming? Ships can now take a shortcut from asia to Europe by the Canadian North... where there is little to no civilisation and very limited weather info available. Think Titanic... yes, ships in ice-prone waters... Above 75 degrees north, geo-stationary is below the horizon, so good luck with that. The choice today is iridium, which is tech designed 30 years ago, lofted 20 years ago, and good only for telemetry (really, really slow.) More choice (and especially more bandwidth) would be really helpful.
When a public service fails, and there are private alternatives, it is compared to them and eventually de-funded.
When a private oligopoly fails, or is wasteful, what happens? "We'll just raise prices" ...
Hello PSTN & Cable Co's. I
Similarly, since 85% of the energy in gasoline is turned into heat, it isn't helping. At 15% efficiency that is typical of internal combustion engines, you are down to about 5 kwh actually used to move the car, versus an electric motor which is over 90% efficiency. If you add that ICE has no regenerative braking, no means of storing kinetic energy for re-use, you have a further disadvantage for ICE.
There isn't any additional net electricity. It takes more than 4 KWh to refine a gallon of gasoline. 4 is the lowest number you will hear. Some say 6, some say 8 if they add more elements in the chain than just refining. An average car will go further on the 4KWh than the gallon of gas. So the more electric cars we have the less electricity we will be using. best explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.autoblog.com/2011/1...
Canadians don't hate you, and we have lots of oil, but our oil is more expensive (tar sands and offshore), so you don't have to pay people that hate you... just more to friends. We were in Afghanistan, helped in Libya, and we're in Iraq now... but Friendship/Alliances are not worth anything apparently. Heck you don't even pay us 'world price'... It would make it a lot easier if you would have approved keystone.
It seems pointless to have two tilting wings. tail sitters are kind of inconvenient when there are people on-board, in something like an Osprey but un-manned? probably a lot lighter to replace the wing tilting with landing legs like a SpaceX booster, a really long nose wheel that pushes the whole plane into a vertical position, a lot less moving parts, and the ones that move deal with a lot less strength and mass. Stick the camera in a bulb under the tail instead of the nose, and you can hover with it just the same, as with the tilt wing... doesnt matter much because these things spend most of their time orbiting anyways. you could get away with just a little thrust vectoring, and completely fixed engines.
I don't want to be that guy, but this is why you 1. Don't type fast when your command starts with rm -rf;
I typed this slowly: rm -rf /;
2. Never rm -rf by absolute path at all;
cd /; rm -rf .
3. Never start typing rm -rf at all, but type the rest of the command first and then edit in the rm; and
/<^H><^H>rm -rf ? how does this help ?
4. Don't use root shells, but sudo, and edit in the sudo last on potentially destructive commands.
sudo rm -rf / ? sudo /<^H><^H>rm -rf ?
There may be good reason to break one or more of these rules at one time, but never all four.
There is no substitute for just knowing what you are doing, and not doing the bad thing. I've seen people complicate their lives with incantations, and all it usually does is make it fail in a more complicated way. Simplicity is easier to remember.
you need for the BIOS to be a read-only thing that can only be written from another computer. Yes, it can be rather inconvenient to have to have a removable BIOS stick, but it would be simple to recover from this by just removing the stick and re-writing it on another machine. http://www.pcworld.com/article... Having a read-only BIOS is great against hacking also. It also makes bios upgrades safer. You just have two sticks and always keep your old one as a backup.