Thanks for the reply.... you've said it better than I probably did.
In my own words, it's not that you actually get "dumb", but you can't work both sides simultaneously. You can't stay tech-savvy enough to keep up with the techies *and* still be "in" with the execs.
I have been there. The knowledge gap can be huge (especially where I was). The better I got at "management" the more $$ I made and the more I got promoted, but the less I could stay honest to the technology. The biggest reason by far?
Non-tech management simply cannot move fast enough to maintain proper decision making as tech advances. When you support a decision and it takes 10 months to be put into action, how do you tell them tech winds have shifted and the decision is no longer appropriate? As a non-tech exec to fall behind is to be WRONG, and their collective sense is they can't all be WRONG, can they? Truth is YES they can, but if you are the one who has to tell them that, you will be alienated/disenfranchised.
Perhaps my perspective is specific to a tech manager in a non-tech industry, but nonetheless it is very, very real.
I won't be management again unless it's my company or a tech company, or there are many tech managers to share the burden.
My sentiments exactly. Once a manager, you need to deal with (and answer to) execs who know so little it's truly frightening! To be a GOOD manager, you must lose sight of tech reality (or you can't "connect" with your new "peers", which is necessary). But then you lose sight of the tech work.... and round and round we go!
But once you are alienated by those execs (as this guy clearly is feeling... his comments highlight bad decisions more than bad software), you best regain your tech skills and return to your roots. If you don't you will be "lost in the middle", as he appears to be.
Some places need a techie-connected IT manager. Some places need an exec-connected IT manager. Everybody could use a techie-connected IT manager who can gain the trust of the execs (rare). Nobody needs a disconnected IT manager.
seems like an attempt to wrestle control away from "the Internet" and back to the telcos. Sure it has some uses, and therefore needs IETF standards eventually, but this hype about it being the next big thing?
Sounds like an attempt to re-establish phone numbers as the primary business identifier, and return control of small business to the regulated monopolies and their lawyers. Reminds me of the current "Yellow Page" advertising system.... $700 per month for an ad, and it can't contain a website address larger than 12 point type.
Dinosaurs are still might beasts, right up until they die.
He states "While similar services have been tested and offered before, VeriSign's Site Finder has triggered debate because it hasn't been tried for.com and.net domain names."
Wrong. It triggered debate because it was a clear abuse of authority, and a unilateral change in practice possible only through exploit of the trust granted.
Raymond Damadian has been the "David" in this battle since he first submitted to publish his original images in 1969.... and started to experience the "outsider syndrome". It was Damadian's experiment that led Lauterbur to employ a gradient field and achieve high resolution, using existing methods from Computed Tomography imaging.
Damadian has the patents on use of T1 and T2 relaxation times in MRI. I met him at a small seminar in the early 80's where he was about to abandon his attempts to defend his patents against GE, Seimens, et al. due to costs... he eventually won against all of them. He's at
www.fonar.com
and a nice summary of the controversy is at
www.mult-sclerosis.org .
To liken Google to the Internet is a big mistake. Google is your tool, and the Internet is your resource. When we start linking our ACCESS to our resource to the ABILITY of our tools, we introduce selective barriers into our environment... barriers which are very dificult to tear down.
Ever try to find something without Google? If you can't, you are setting yourself up for trouble (too much reliance on a single tool). If everyone does that, we get this social helplessness that effectively makes excuses for in-action based on laziness... Google was down so I couldn't find it. Does this remind anyone of the Microsoft Windows monopoly and information security? If the majority doesn't bother to patch Windows, then is it acceptable (albeit sub-optimal) to leave systems vulnerable?
Interesting how society makes a law based on current events, and later reverses them based on newer, current events. I suppose ignorance is an acceptable excuse?
e.g. First, going through someone's trash - rotten apple cores, bathroom tissues, empty Schlitz cans - is legal. Later, going through someone's trash - dozens of credit card offers with reply envelopes, banks tatements with SSNs, liberal newsletters, CD with 800MB of hidden cache on it - is illegal.
Adds merit to the idea that perhaps law makers didn't KNOW ENOUGH back then, and only now KNOW ENOUGH to make a reasonable law? Did we have to wait until EVERYONE had incriminating evidence in their garbage before we could make a sensible ruling... apparently so.
Binary is a very simple approximation... there's no "grey", just black and white (one or not one).
Since we can do BINARY so gosh-darn fast, we have now developed ways to use TONS of fast simple APPROXIMATIONS to simulate complexity. To do this, we create STATISTICAL MODELS and the binary operations operate within the assumptions of those statistical models.
To the extent that our model assumptions are correct, our binary approximations may be correct - that is today's science.
On the other hand, biology (or perhaps more appropriately, biochemistry)is COMPLEX. It, too is WICKED FAST but it is not as simple. By definition, it is NOT an approximation, but it is THE REAL THING.
Now, can we break this complex biological stuff down into simple, almost-binary-like pieces? Sure - there are plenty of analogs like +/- ions, ATGC base pairs, etc.
Once we have those, can we use our advanced, binary tools to rebuild (around model-based statistical assumptions) pseudo-complex systems? Sure. That's a large part of bioinformatics and bioengineering.
Just remember, when we do things that way, the results are only valid within the model assumptions we made, which permitted the reconstruction of complex behavior from simple pieces. It is not reality, but a reflection of the statistical behavior of the simulation we have made.
So is it "wise" to work this way? If we have the REAL system in hand, why build an approximation whose behavior will be suspect?
Because it's too damn hard for us to understand the complex system without breaking it down like this (e.g. superposition). And we don't have (yet) better tools for breaking it down. And our super-fast binary computers are not really that fast when it comes to these complex systems (which is one reason why those "bio" chips in development show promise for being so much faster than the silicon we use now).
Hopefully one day we will have "bio" computing (not binary computing) which solves biological systems as fast as needed. Then we might make research progress on something like a Moore's Law curve - but not with binary.
Welcome to "bioengineering". Geesh - talk about a field in its infancy. Now, if you want a really difficult problem to attempt while you are engaged in bio-IT research, figure out how society can accommodate the COSTS associated with researching they way your colleagues are currently researching....
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like classical scientific/engineering approach, but still very early in the evolution.
At first they characterize the signal... measure, analyze, dissect.
Then they filter the signal, removing what they think is bad (the "noise"), amplifying what they think is good (the "focus"). (Looks like we are here with respect to brain functioning and using drugs like Ritalin for disorders like ADHD)
Then they model the system, play with model inputs, analyze the outputs, try to make sense of it (anyone doing this?)
Then they make programmable filters, trying to "fit" the filter to the specific situation.(Sounds like custom drugs/designer drugs, genomics-based drug development, etc?)
Eventually they discover that WHITENING the signal (actually ADDING random noise) gives the best results. (Perhaps those white-noise generating machines are doing this?)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reply.... you've said it better than I probably did.
In my own words, it's not that you actually get "dumb", but you can't work both sides simultaneously. You can't stay tech-savvy enough to keep up with the techies *and* still be "in" with the execs.
I have been there. The knowledge gap can be huge (especially where I was). The better I got at "management" the more $$ I made and the more I got promoted, but the less I could stay honest to the technology. The biggest reason by far?
Non-tech management simply cannot move fast enough to maintain proper decision making as tech advances. When you support a decision and it takes 10 months to be put into action, how do you tell them tech winds have shifted and the decision is no longer appropriate? As a non-tech exec to fall behind is to be WRONG, and their collective sense is they can't all be WRONG, can they? Truth is YES they can, but if you are the one who has to tell them that, you will be alienated/disenfranchised.
Perhaps my perspective is specific to a tech manager in a non-tech industry, but nonetheless it is very, very real. I won't be management again unless it's my company or a tech company, or there are many tech managers to share the burden.
My sentiments exactly. Once a manager, you need to deal with (and answer to) execs who know so little it's truly frightening! To be a GOOD manager, you must lose sight of tech reality (or you can't "connect" with your new "peers", which is necessary). But then you lose sight of the tech work.... and round and round we go!
But once you are alienated by those execs (as this guy clearly is feeling... his comments highlight bad decisions more than bad software), you best regain your tech skills and return to your roots. If you don't you will be "lost in the middle", as he appears to be.
Some places need a techie-connected IT manager. Some places need an exec-connected IT manager. Everybody could use a techie-connected IT manager who can gain the trust of the execs (rare). Nobody needs a disconnected IT manager.
seems like an attempt to wrestle control away from "the Internet" and back to the telcos. Sure it has some uses, and therefore needs IETF standards eventually, but this hype about it being the next big thing? Sounds like an attempt to re-establish phone numbers as the primary business identifier, and return control of small business to the regulated monopolies and their lawyers. Reminds me of the current "Yellow Page" advertising system.... $700 per month for an ad, and it can't contain a website address larger than 12 point type. Dinosaurs are still might beasts, right up until they die.
He states "While similar services have been tested and offered before, VeriSign's Site Finder has triggered debate because it hasn't been tried for .com and .net domain names."
Wrong. It triggered debate because it was a clear abuse of authority, and a unilateral change in practice possible only through exploit of the trust granted.
Raymond Damadian has been the "David" in this battle since he first submitted to publish his original images in 1969.... and started to experience the "outsider syndrome". It was Damadian's experiment that led Lauterbur to employ a gradient field and achieve high resolution, using existing methods from Computed Tomography imaging.
Damadian has the patents on use of T1 and T2 relaxation times in MRI. I met him at a small seminar in the early 80's where he was about to abandon his attempts to defend his patents against GE, Seimens, et al. due to costs... he eventually won against all of them. He's at www.fonar.com and a nice summary of the controversy is at www.mult-sclerosis.org .
sometimes infomercials/advertorials are interesting, but worthy of article status?
To liken Google to the Internet is a big mistake. Google is your tool, and the Internet is your resource. When we start linking our ACCESS to our resource to the ABILITY of our tools, we introduce selective barriers into our environment... barriers which are very dificult to tear down. Ever try to find something without Google? If you can't, you are setting yourself up for trouble (too much reliance on a single tool). If everyone does that, we get this social helplessness that effectively makes excuses for in-action based on laziness... Google was down so I couldn't find it. Does this remind anyone of the Microsoft Windows monopoly and information security? If the majority doesn't bother to patch Windows, then is it acceptable (albeit sub-optimal) to leave systems vulnerable?
Interesting how society makes a law based on current events, and later reverses them based on newer, current events. I suppose ignorance is an acceptable excuse? e.g. First, going through someone's trash - rotten apple cores, bathroom tissues, empty Schlitz cans - is legal. Later, going through someone's trash - dozens of credit card offers with reply envelopes, banks tatements with SSNs, liberal newsletters, CD with 800MB of hidden cache on it - is illegal. Adds merit to the idea that perhaps law makers didn't KNOW ENOUGH back then, and only now KNOW ENOUGH to make a reasonable law? Did we have to wait until EVERYONE had incriminating evidence in their garbage before we could make a sensible ruling... apparently so.
..you only get those early warnings if you subscribe ;-)
Binary is a very simple approximation... there's no "grey", just black and white (one or not one).
Since we can do BINARY so gosh-darn fast, we have now developed ways to use TONS of fast simple APPROXIMATIONS to simulate complexity. To do this, we create STATISTICAL MODELS and the binary operations operate within the assumptions of those statistical models.
To the extent that our model assumptions are correct, our binary approximations may be correct - that is today's science.
On the other hand, biology (or perhaps more appropriately, biochemistry)is COMPLEX. It, too is WICKED FAST but it is not as simple. By definition, it is NOT an approximation, but it is THE REAL THING.
Now, can we break this complex biological stuff down into simple, almost-binary-like pieces? Sure - there are plenty of analogs like +/- ions, ATGC base pairs, etc.
Once we have those, can we use our advanced, binary tools to rebuild (around model-based statistical assumptions) pseudo-complex systems? Sure. That's a large part of bioinformatics and bioengineering.
Just remember, when we do things that way, the results are only valid within the model assumptions we made, which permitted the reconstruction of complex behavior from simple pieces. It is not reality, but a reflection of the statistical behavior of the simulation we have made.
So is it "wise" to work this way? If we have the REAL system in hand, why build an approximation whose behavior will be suspect?
Because it's too damn hard for us to understand the complex system without breaking it down like this (e.g. superposition). And we don't have (yet) better tools for breaking it down. And our super-fast binary computers are not really that fast when it comes to these complex systems (which is one reason why those "bio" chips in development show promise for being so much faster than the silicon we use now).
Hopefully one day we will have "bio" computing (not binary computing) which solves biological systems as fast as needed. Then we might make research progress on something like a Moore's Law curve - but not with binary.
Welcome to "bioengineering". Geesh - talk about a field in its infancy. Now, if you want a really difficult problem to attempt while you are engaged in bio-IT research, figure out how society can accommodate the COSTS associated with researching they way your colleagues are currently researching....
Sounds like classical scientific/engineering approach, but still very early in the evolution.
At first they characterize the signal... measure, analyze, dissect.
Then they filter the signal, removing what they think is bad (the "noise"), amplifying what they think is good (the "focus"). (Looks like we are here with respect to brain functioning and using drugs like Ritalin for disorders like ADHD)
Then they model the system, play with model inputs, analyze the outputs, try to make sense of it (anyone doing this?)
Then they make programmable filters, trying to "fit" the filter to the specific situation.(Sounds like custom drugs/designer drugs, genomics-based drug development, etc?)
Eventually they discover that WHITENING the signal (actually ADDING random noise) gives the best results. (Perhaps those white-noise generating machines are doing this?)
Yeah, it runs Linux, but I bet they didn't make any profit on the sale.