So long as it's not Bill Gates backing high tech in the classroom, entrepreneurs peddling MOOCs, or for-profit schools trying to help defund public schools, I'll be interested in watching. But I have to assume that at least one of those concepts will be highlighted simply because the TED community loves them SO MUCH!
"Hey! Lectures in the CLOUD!" - "OMG! We found the solution!" "Private schools for everyone!" - "OMG! We're 2 years from Star Trek now!" "Every student gets a Microsoft Slate!" - "OMG! They'll never be tempted to goof off, I know it!"
I really hope the show goes something like this: (1) We've continually tried to find an answer to make the education of our youth easier, cheaper, and standardized... and have failed every time. (2) We need more teachers. We need them to feel safe enough to commit to a life of education. We need to treat them well. (3) Home life matters. Where the home life is bad, we need more genuine counselors, mentors, and role models. (4) We need to separate research universities, general ed. colleges, and trade schools while keeping them all at the same level of importance.
Look, crowdsourcing in a tragedy is a phenomenon, not an expectation. If it were an expectation, law enforcement agencies would release all the information they have on crimes (sans names, etc.) and allow "the crowd" to solve the problem.
But they don't. They don't want your help. They only want to be *seen* as being open to public input because the vast majority of public input is utter crap. They also don't want to be seen as incapable of doing their own jobs.
So crowdsourcing was never part of the equation. It was never given the job @ Boston. It was never facilitated. There are no expectations of success when no one asks for your help and thus there is no failure.
Waaah! Someone capitulate! I can't stand not being thoroughly entertained! Help! Help! I'm moderately uninterested! Why isn't someone doing something?! I've made a post on a community-moderated article response forum! Gah! I'm so angry I may talk to someone on a phone! A PHONE!
Grow up, kid. And if you're not a kid, just chill out. This site has a ton of people contributing a ton of stories and a few times out of the year, the employees (which you don't directly pay), throw out a gag. Not all jokes are funny. Some jokes that are generally funny, you won't enjoy. This is one of them. Get over it.
You've made yourself out to be an over-entitled ass and, seriously, maybe 3 people care that you "don't even feel like clicking on the link" but significantly more people are annoyed by the diaper-rash fit you're throwing.
You're not making friends. You're not influencing people. You're becoming a meme.
The 7 year old case of Jammie Thomas, a single-mother, who was fined...
Re:Google just fell prey to a common phenomenon
on
When Google Got Flu Wrong
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, that's kinda the goal. When it comes to the expenditure of time and money, if you don't come in with a Chicken Little, people are just going to ignore you. With the Chicken Little, you get people to fall in line and the effects of major epidemics or problems are mitigated.
Slashdot-friendly example: Today, people will say that the Y2K issue was completely blown out of proportion. Airplanes didn't fall out of the sky, bank accounts were there on Jan 1, 2000, and everything was just fine. Of course, that ignores the teams of coders working in even-then-archaic coding languages to adapt old software to work beyond their expected lifespan. Who knows what Y2K would have been had we just done nothing, but we're all better off with the purse-string-holders getting concerned.
It's an investigative document, not a declaration of capability. Someone asked the question, "If we found an American terrorist who we know to be planning imminent action on the US, can we kill him?" and this white paper is the exploratory response.
It's the same as if your boss asked, "What would the costs of outsourcing business processes A-B and what are the expected benefits?" and then you responded with a 16-page report.
"In the circumstances here, the interests on both sides would be weighty... An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is "uniquely compelling."...No private interest is more substantial. As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of war," ''the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process.. . is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant.
"But, ''the realities of combat" render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces...
"In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level official of the US Gov't has determined the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Also, try to remember the SOURCE of the commentary. Reason.com is one of those very partisan places (though not as bad as the Free Republic) that produces and distributes highly questionable material with the intent of "stirring up the base".
No. The current status of renewable energy (geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) can in no way support our current consumption habits.
Can a more widely implemented renewable energy/less-polluting energy infrastructure support a society that uses less energy? Likely. Or some of us are going to have to die to make room for the bigger consumers lest we all die.
The plan?
(1) Assume all fossil-fuel-burning energy plants will shut down in 50 years. (2) Begin plans to install the most regionally appropriate renewable energy power plants to support those areas. (3) Calculate the energy shortfalls and make plans to supplement with the most reasonable nuclear options (insert arguments about recycling waste, using thorium, etc.) (4) Select a demo site, implement, learn, discuss, implement better.
Entrepreneurs achieve greater innovation because they take many risks. They fail a great deal of the time, too, so they have to know how to externalize risk or game the system so that risk is not felt as directly. "Screwed up? Write it off and try something else!"
Managers, on the other hand, are typically *in* the system with genuine and figurative audits coming from up the ladder, their employees, and their colleagues. In management, risk has less reward potential while steady (bearish) gains are better for the long-term health of one's employment. "Screwed up? Better hope your performance review isn't crapped out."
I had no idea there were schools in which 100% of the populations had access to sufficiently capable computers with broadband access! I can't wait to see how well the kids on free lunch respond to this amazing new standard!
(Ego, Politics) How concerned are you with others' perception of you and your actions?
(Self-Confidence, Protection) How do you handle stress passed down from the higher rungs on the ladder? Do you pass it down the hierarchy or do you act to shield your employees from stress they don't genuinely need?
(Field Sgt. vs. Desk Jockey) How important is it for a manager to be capable of replacing her/his employees in absence of the employee? Are you willing to fill-in for your employees to the best of your capability?
(Career "Management Track" vs. Genuine Leader) What do you see as the "perks" of being a manager vs. being the managed? What are the burdens? You have 3 employees in your division and you are told that the office is letting most people go early for the holidays. However, each division must "hold the fort" with at least one person. How do you decide who stays?
(Ethics) Have you ever been required to compromise your integrity by a supervisor or manager? How did you feel?
(Authenticity) What makes you uncomfortable in the work environment? (Clothing, language, discussion topics, etc.)
(Humor and Creativity) Cake or pie? When and why?
(Confidence in Team) On a scale of 1-10 (10 being frequent), how much do you micromanage? When would you prefer to be most involved in lower-level decision? When would you like to see your employees take charge?
Some tech actually erodes employment. There's no question about there. In fact, nearly any kind of system that decreases human input or actions has the specific INTENT of incurring savings through reduced human employment and increased process precision:
Some tech on the other hand creates employment need. This tech usually involved the addition of a product or service to a market.
--Cellular Telephones --New websites that offer services in new niches --Etc.
The problem comes when business, entrepreneurs, and economic theory suggests that the first grouping is more important than the second. With that scenario, tech has a net-negative effect on employment.
The question then arises, "What do we do when the machines are capable of doing our work?". The answer is simple, but not easy: move the general global philosophy from working for the ability to survive and progress financially to a socialistic and humanistic expectations on how one receives what s/he needs to live and how s/he spends her/his time. Yes, the "Start Trek" switch.
Unfortunately, tech advances by the day and hour while philosophy changes by the generation... and even then only slightly.
It's hard to convince yourself to stay home when you know your company is relying on something so inane as the Bradford Factor to decide if you're a lazy-ass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor)
Yes, but I wish people would just send me emails. Often, I just don't have the time to talk. If I get an email, I can respond at will or forward it off to someone else who it should have gone to in the first place.
Come on... this is Criminology 101 - Crime and criminal actions are the symptoms of anger, hopelessness, unmet expectations, and the lack of accessibility to comfort reasonable to the actor.
I know... it's their award, they can do what they want, but I would assume that the "car of the year" would be the best mix of: *Affordability *Driver/Passenger Safety *Safety for Other Road Users *Fuel Economy/GHG Emissions per Mile *Sustainability of Production and Retirement *Attractiveness to the General Public *Real-World Availability
Slashdot Mirror
Honest question.
What alternatives are there to a low-production, high-powered laser that likely requires a ton of support crew/machinery to take out missiles?
Phalanx or successors? Are these considered competent?
What about missile-to-missile platforms?
And how useful is this thing if it's not an on tangential course?
So long as it's not Bill Gates backing high tech in the classroom, entrepreneurs peddling MOOCs, or for-profit schools trying to help defund public schools, I'll be interested in watching. But I have to assume that at least one of those concepts will be highlighted simply because the TED community loves them SO MUCH!
"Hey! Lectures in the CLOUD!" - "OMG! We found the solution!"
"Private schools for everyone!" - "OMG! We're 2 years from Star Trek now!"
"Every student gets a Microsoft Slate!" - "OMG! They'll never be tempted to goof off, I know it!"
I really hope the show goes something like this:
(1) We've continually tried to find an answer to make the education of our youth easier, cheaper, and standardized... and have failed every time.
(2) We need more teachers. We need them to feel safe enough to commit to a life of education. We need to treat them well.
(3) Home life matters. Where the home life is bad, we need more genuine counselors, mentors, and role models.
(4) We need to separate research universities, general ed. colleges, and trade schools while keeping them all at the same level of importance.
Look, crowdsourcing in a tragedy is a phenomenon, not an expectation. If it were an expectation, law enforcement agencies would release all the information they have on crimes (sans names, etc.) and allow "the crowd" to solve the problem.
But they don't. They don't want your help. They only want to be *seen* as being open to public input because the vast majority of public input is utter crap. They also don't want to be seen as incapable of doing their own jobs.
So crowdsourcing was never part of the equation. It was never given the job @ Boston. It was never facilitated. There are no expectations of success when no one asks for your help and thus there is no failure.
Waaah! Someone capitulate! I can't stand not being thoroughly entertained! Help! Help! I'm moderately uninterested! Why isn't someone doing something?! I've made a post on a community-moderated article response forum! Gah! I'm so angry I may talk to someone on a phone! A PHONE!
Grow up, kid. And if you're not a kid, just chill out. This site has a ton of people contributing a ton of stories and a few times out of the year, the employees (which you don't directly pay), throw out a gag. Not all jokes are funny. Some jokes that are generally funny, you won't enjoy. This is one of them. Get over it.
You've made yourself out to be an over-entitled ass and, seriously, maybe 3 people care that you "don't even feel like clicking on the link" but significantly more people are annoyed by the diaper-rash fit you're throwing.
You're not making friends. You're not influencing people. You're becoming a meme.
The 7 year old case of Jammie Thomas, a single-mother, who was fined...
Actually, that's kinda the goal. When it comes to the expenditure of time and money, if you don't come in with a Chicken Little, people are just going to ignore you. With the Chicken Little, you get people to fall in line and the effects of major epidemics or problems are mitigated.
Slashdot-friendly example: Today, people will say that the Y2K issue was completely blown out of proportion. Airplanes didn't fall out of the sky, bank accounts were there on Jan 1, 2000, and everything was just fine. Of course, that ignores the teams of coders working in even-then-archaic coding languages to adapt old software to work beyond their expected lifespan. Who knows what Y2K would have been had we just done nothing, but we're all better off with the purse-string-holders getting concerned.
Wow... you said everything I was about to type.
Also, no one else is suggesting other modified definitions, so I move to vote my definitions into Nerd Law.
Who will second?
=)
I'll start. Here's how I use the words:
Personal Devices (Very limited, proprietary software)
-- Feature Phone
-- GPS Device
Personal Computing Devices (Limited, Consumption-based OSes, optional other-source software)
-- Tablets
-- Smartphones
Personal Computers (Traditional OSes like Windows, Linux, etc.; uses applications not truncated "apps")
-- Laptops/Notebooks
-- Netbooks
-- Desktop Computers
Headline and summary convey two very different things. Less sensation, please.
It's an investigative document, not a declaration of capability. Someone asked the question, "If we found an American terrorist who we know to be planning imminent action on the US, can we kill him?" and this white paper is the exploratory response.
It's the same as if your boss asked, "What would the costs of outsourcing business processes A-B and what are the expected benefits?" and then you responded with a 16-page report.
From page 6 of the whitepaper:
"In the circumstances here, the interests on both sides would be weighty... An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is "uniquely compelling."...No private interest is more substantial. As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of war," ''the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process .. . is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant.
"But, ''the realities of combat" render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces...
"In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in
circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level official of the US Gov't has determined the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Also, try to remember the SOURCE of the commentary. Reason.com is one of those very partisan places (though not as bad as the Free Republic) that produces and distributes highly questionable material with the intent of "stirring up the base".
No. The current status of renewable energy (geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) can in no way support our current consumption habits.
Can a more widely implemented renewable energy/less-polluting energy infrastructure support a society that uses less energy? Likely. Or some of us are going to have to die to make room for the bigger consumers lest we all die.
The plan?
(1) Assume all fossil-fuel-burning energy plants will shut down in 50 years.
(2) Begin plans to install the most regionally appropriate renewable energy power plants to support those areas.
(3) Calculate the energy shortfalls and make plans to supplement with the most reasonable nuclear options (insert arguments about recycling waste, using thorium, etc.)
(4) Select a demo site, implement, learn, discuss, implement better.
First, Lego didn't design Jabba's Palace. I'm pretty sure that was under LucasArts' realm.
Second, Jabba's Palace is modeled like all the other homes on Tatooine. Except his is bigger. It's desert design influencing desert design.
Third, Jabba's not the only one smoking from a hookah like device in the movie.
Fourth, omg stop being the dumb.
Entrepreneurs achieve greater innovation because they take many risks. They fail a great deal of the time, too, so they have to know how to externalize risk or game the system so that risk is not felt as directly. "Screwed up? Write it off and try something else!"
Managers, on the other hand, are typically *in* the system with genuine and figurative audits coming from up the ladder, their employees, and their colleagues. In management, risk has less reward potential while steady (bearish) gains are better for the long-term health of one's employment. "Screwed up? Better hope your performance review isn't crapped out."
High Winds in the area: http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/sse_figure28a_rev.gif
Paper on effects of high winds on U-Shaped buildings: http://nargeo.geo.uni.lodz.pl/~icuc5/text/O_18_1.pdf
This is great!
I had no idea there were schools in which 100% of the populations had access to sufficiently capable computers with broadband access! I can't wait to see how well the kids on free lunch respond to this amazing new standard!
Yes, that was sarcasm.
False Dichotomy.
You could also work to reduce the frequency at which people feel compelled to attack.
(Ego, Politics)
How concerned are you with others' perception of you and your actions?
(Self-Confidence, Protection)
How do you handle stress passed down from the higher rungs on the ladder? Do you pass it down the hierarchy or do you act to shield your employees from stress they don't genuinely need?
(Field Sgt. vs. Desk Jockey)
How important is it for a manager to be capable of replacing her/his employees in absence of the employee? Are you willing to fill-in for your employees to the best of your capability?
(Career "Management Track" vs. Genuine Leader)
What do you see as the "perks" of being a manager vs. being the managed? What are the burdens?
You have 3 employees in your division and you are told that the office is letting most people go early for the holidays. However, each division must "hold the fort" with at least one person. How do you decide who stays?
(Ethics)
Have you ever been required to compromise your integrity by a supervisor or manager? How did you feel?
(Authenticity)
What makes you uncomfortable in the work environment? (Clothing, language, discussion topics, etc.)
(Humor and Creativity)
Cake or pie? When and why?
(Confidence in Team)
On a scale of 1-10 (10 being frequent), how much do you micromanage? When would you prefer to be most involved in lower-level decision? When would you like to see your employees take charge?
Some tech actually erodes employment. There's no question about there. In fact, nearly any kind of system that decreases human input or actions has the specific INTENT of incurring savings through reduced human employment and increased process precision:
--Manufacturing automation
--Community Self-Assistance (Forums, FAQs, etc.)
--Self-driving taxi cabs
--Etc.
Some tech on the other hand creates employment need. This tech usually involved the addition of a product or service to a market.
--Cellular Telephones
--New websites that offer services in new niches
--Etc.
The problem comes when business, entrepreneurs, and economic theory suggests that the first grouping is more important than the second. With that scenario, tech has a net-negative effect on employment.
The question then arises, "What do we do when the machines are capable of doing our work?". The answer is simple, but not easy: move the general global philosophy from working for the ability to survive and progress financially to a socialistic and humanistic expectations on how one receives what s/he needs to live and how s/he spends her/his time. Yes, the "Start Trek" switch.
Unfortunately, tech advances by the day and hour while philosophy changes by the generation... and even then only slightly.
It's hard to convince yourself to stay home when you know your company is relying on something so inane as the Bradford Factor to decide if you're a lazy-ass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor)
Yes, but I wish people would just send me emails. Often, I just don't have the time to talk. If I get an email, I can respond at will or forward it off to someone else who it should have gone to in the first place.
Come on... this is Criminology 101 - Crime and criminal actions are the symptoms of anger, hopelessness, unmet expectations, and the lack of accessibility to comfort reasonable to the actor.
I was hoping someone else would type this out so I didn't have to.
I enjoyed this comment. =D
I know... it's their award, they can do what they want, but I would assume that the "car of the year" would be the best mix of:
*Affordability
*Driver/Passenger Safety
*Safety for Other Road Users
*Fuel Economy/GHG Emissions per Mile
*Sustainability of Production and Retirement
*Attractiveness to the General Public
*Real-World Availability