Maybe barring the company from competing in a specific market would be better than barring it from doing business here at all.... Sorry , should have said that before.
In fact, not only should the executives go to jail, the entire company should be barred from doing business in the United States for some period of time (i.e., the equivalent of jail for a corporation).
Interesting message to send. So would this course of action be fair to the employees who had nothing to do with the crime? Or would there be a plan to place them with some other "clean" organization? Sounds like a good way to make finding a good job/retaining good employees more difficult in the US. Unless of course you're talking leave-with-pay for those not involved.
I think that if both "theories" have huge holes in them, they should be taught equally. You can't prove either and so far we haven't disproved evolution completely.
The problem is that many other people don't see "huge holes" in one or the other options. There are people who believe without a doubt that the world came about as written in Genesis. And there are those who believe in a different god with, maybe, different stories of creation. And don't forget about the atheists! Or those who manage to balance faith and science. What you should really be struggling with, mentally, is why you and many other people are only considering two options: Intelligent design and evolution. As you pointed out: They could both be wrong!
But from a scientific perspective: Who cares where god came from? Science is more about understanding natural phenomena, not god. It is an understanding of the physical universe around us. I have a strange feeling that many people think that all we know now is all that we CAN know, period. Science is growing, with every instrument that augments our senses enough to "see" more of the universe. If it can't be measured, it's not yet science! (Because we don't know about it yet, right?)
For the record, I don't think a godless universe is a difficult idea to swallow. Absence of an intelligent designer doesn't make it less wonderful or mysterious. I also don't think that existence of a "higher power" is hard to swallow; though I do think that it is tragic that people are quick to conclude that "we" know the nature/form/will/message of god, and then turn around and claim that biology is "irreducibly complex."
Labeling something as "irreducibly complex" is fine, as long as it is irreducibly complex with respect to our current abilities as humans. But our abilities are expanding (with science), and what may be irreducibly complex today might be no-big-deal in a hundred years. In general, it is the lack of logic in many ID arguments that makes me weep.
God created the world. Why teach children that he didn't?
A) Because it takes up time better spent teaching useful things, B) Because not all children have the same religious backgrounds, C) Because it's not true through the eyes of an atheist, D) Because those who are truly humble and god-fearing know that they should not be trying to explain a process that they could not possibly comprehend well enough to teach accurately, and E) because I don't want my tax dollars spent on resources used to teach religion. Teach a class on ethics and responsibility instead.
I agree ID shouldn't be taught in the public education system. Neither should evolution. Both take faith to believe.
Whether or not it truthfully defines the process explaing how things changed from then-to-now, what "we know" about evolution can be used to make predictions on what can happen from now-to-later. It's a scientific model; A statistical model. And it works "well enough" to model evolutionary scenarios for it to be useful. This alone justifies teaching it in sceince class. Certainly, if ID can be used as effectively RIGHT NOW to make predictions of mutation or evolution of any system, then it should be taught too.
With regards to faith and evolutionary models: You don't need to have faith to believe in models that are known to work in practice. Engineering examples: Application of linear ordinary differential equations to non-linear phenomena, or statistical methods applied to random processes. They are good models, but only under certain circumstances that must be recognized by the person(s) applying them.
I actually agree with your idea of not teaching ID or evolution. (But I'm also an ass.) My personal belief is that here in the US, we should be prioritizing math and reading. Make all the other stuff electives, or peripheral to math/reading development. (Ex. Want to learn US history? Then read about US history in your reading class. Want to know about physics? Do physics problems in your math class. Once you have solid math and reading ability, just proceed straight to college, or take a few years off to "develop." Naturally, ID would be a "reading elective," since it is pretty much worthless in a practical sense.
So tell me: Does ID expand on the mathematical models for chemical/biological evolutionary process? OR does it pretty much revert back to mathematical modeling when it has to be applied to a scientific query....
It's fuckheads like these that will spearhead the demise of the english language. Can't they recognise a simple fucking homophone when they fucking see it!?
Forgive my childishness but people that support Irreducible Complexity simply do not have the fortitude for proper research and have constructed a quick fix.
Oh, mod Mr. Boyd up...
Hopefully this situation will motivate more people to enter into science-- if only to try to crush the case for ID, or strengthen the case for ID. Just by reading about this on-going battle I'm finding more and more motivation to ditch engineering and move into pure research.
By the way, I use genetic algorithms as a tool for parameter optimization. In a nutshell, GAs are an optimization strategy based on human observations of natural selection and evolution. If I am not mistaken, we still do not have a good understanding of WHY genetic algorithms work, only that they do. And they work exceptionally efficiently. Does this mean that we have figured out a computer interface to some mystical force, or to the "creator?" A genetic algorithm can be remarkably easy to implement, and they ROUTINELY converge to answers that are valid and testable (the output works), but that also defy human understanding of the problem. (What? There is a better answer over where? Never would have thought that!) All hail GAOT!
Ultimately it is all about greed; their job is to make the maximum money.
Note that if you replace the word "greed" with the word "optimization," it sure does sound less evil. As for alienating the public: There is no better way of defining the boundaries of what the law or the public will tolerate than to simply walk up to the "the line" and cross it. As an individual, this option may not be so beneficial; it is more difficult to dodge the consequences should they be negative. As a corporation of several thousand people, the consequences (fines?) and blame can be diluted across many people-- including the customers. But, (like the parent poster) I bet there is analysis that indicates that crossing-the-line (AKA "pushing the envelope") is more optimal in terms of benefit than not crossing the line.
Is it not interesting that performance optimization is usually considered a good thing until it is applied to an entertainment company's business strategy? Stupid math.
To back this stance, it is worth nothing that the wealthiest wealthy grew wealthier between 2003 and 2004, partially thanks to tax cuts.
And partially due to good investing of wealth they accumulated years ago. But hey, I guess once you've earned enough money to be filthy rich, you shouldn't care that people will do anything to get a chunk of it or to reduce your wealth. Thank FSM that as an engineer, I'll never be rich.
Fuck 'em. I already own pretty much all of my favourite films and TV shows on DVD already. They can't force me to go hi-def and re-buy everything I've already paid for... can they?
Got kids? I imagine it will be hard to convince kids that they can't have "SpongeBob Squarepants 3000" because of a family boycott-- without looking like a mean parent, anyway. These companies will succeed if only because of "family politics."
So everybody plays it safe and puts up with all the bullshit until they can't ignore it any longer. (Rather like most big companies I've worked for!)
Like the engineers who left for Yahoo? I thought that I actually back-buttoned myself into the other/. article! My opinion (which I bet is shared by many people) is that people are growing weary of the "formula for success" approach to work and pleasure. Big companies have a set of tried-and-true processes that in the past have lead to profit. As I have ranted in the past, I see a tremendous push by large organizations to follow cook-book recipes to achieve the bare-minimum of what is required to meet customer expectations. And I see this in the music industry, the movie industry, and at my workplace (engineer). Why would you spend a penny more than what is required to convince Little Timmy to shell out $10 for a ticket? Similarly, why improve on a product or process if it already meets spec?
I'll tell you why: Because as a consumer, I'll always be on the lookout for a higher quality product. My expectations have exceeded whatever threshold the money-managers in Hollywood have set up in their models. Similarly, as an engineer, I want to DO MORE. I want to create the higher quality product. I am certain that there are those in the movie/music industry who feel the same. Now if only we could convince the money-people and pure managers to give scientists and artists more say in designing the products...
Here is my whack at dysfunctional managers, execs, and the people who feed their visions: You're strategy is flawed. It used to work. But the system that it is integrated into has changed. I suggest loosening the reigns on the people who actually know how to make things work so that they may adapt to the new system.
I am an engineer at a company that was purchased by Boeing. So I have been able to watch the transition from "start up company" enthusiasm and work ethic to big-company process and standardization. It is incredible how much less nuts-and-bolts engineering work there is from day-to-day. One observation: When I started (4 years ago), there were ALWAYS people working in the labs (weekends, nights, etc), trying to get stuff to work, or work better. Innovation was king. Now, it takes so many freaking meetings and documents and signatures to make a change to a design (because it's the "best practice"), that few people are motivated to take innovation beyond what is necessary to meet the design specs. In a lot of cases my employer and our customers are not willing to accept the (dollar or schedule) risk posed by a more "innovative" approach.
As a small company, when engineers were calling the shots, they could take more risks, and then work crazy-ass hours to help those risks pay off. It was hard work, but FUN work.
Now that engineers don't make any of those decisions (or have them swatted down from above), the objective is to "minimize risk" which is almost akin to saying "minimize innovation." I suppose that I could persue an innovative idea on my own, but "I don't work uncompensated overtime." Because it screws up the metrics/rates. So I'm looking for something else. More risk for me personally. More work. But more FUN, more innovation, and more opportunities to solve problems.
Favorite example of whay I hate adopting "process" simply for the sake of following the "best practices" in industry: During our first (and my last:-) ) software process training, we actually got the speaker to say something like: "if you follow the process, the average engineer should be able to pick up your work and continue it seamlessly." And later, and I QUOTE: "we don't want a company of heros...", referring to engineers who always seems to get the job done. Well great. It worked. Now the "heros" are so bogged down/burnt out by paperwork that their output is about average (standard?), and I'm not motivated to be anything more than and industry standard engineer (for them anyway).
And just leave the bodies hanging from the rope, to rot, just to remind people what this is all about.
You gotta get Old Skool, my fellow Americans, or else, ya gonna go 3rd world.
Just my ever humble opinion....
Oh, great post! Claim that we're headed for third-world status, and then follow up with a call for mob-style lynching! Wow is that backwards.
"Humble" opinion? I think you confused the word "humble" with the word "stupid." This being the USA, you are more than welcome to express your opinions. I might even take note of them occasionally. Here is a tip: Your opinion will probably carry more weight with intelligent people when it isn't self-contradictory and doesn't convey the image of the author (you) being a "redneck high-school dropout." (No offense to real rednecks.)
Shit. I was even considering modding you up so so people could read your post and laugh at you.
I also presume you know that you are the reason people dislike middle management.
Actually, if he/she knows his team well enough to know what each member can/cannot do and can orchestrate their actions effectively, then time and effort of the team members is probably not wasted. I would love a manager who could do that consistently. When I dislike middle management, it's usually because they are brought in to micro-manage. Unless they have a science/engineering background, it's pretty much like having an idiot standing behind you with a clipboard doodling and asking dumb questions.
That's pretty much how I feel at work now. The job started off OK: It was fast paced and fun. There was lab work and cube work (I'm an engineer). But as we grew and adopted more of the "big company" standardization and the associated "big company" leadership attitude, it just got boring. Being "big" apparently means that we can't go after the dynamic little projects anymore; the new leadership is much more interested in the huge programs. I feel like I'm sitting on a shelf, or on a bench...just waiting.
Incidentally, on my quest for more interesting employment, I came across the book "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Rickard Florida. (It was mentioned on an Albuquerque business dev page). Not too far into it, but it is interesting, and somewhat on-topic.
I'm thinking about going to graduate school, and not having a traditional library would rule out a school immediately, no questions asks.
If you plan on studying science or engineering, consider that when you do your "state of the art" survey, you will probably have to hit the stacks to get all of the papers that were written before the computer even existed. The newest, and likely most relevant papers will be available through electronic journals, and probably also on the shelves.
I found that through graduate school (6 years), I rarely went to the library for texts; journals tend to be the primary source of relevant info. Texts, at least in science and engineering, are typically just condensations of groundbreaking or standard-establishing papers into easily digestible chunks. At the coursework level, there is usually a prescribed book for each course that coveres the basics. (The one at the bookstore.)
When I did grab a book from the library, it was usually to look for references to the original papers, or to get a different perspective on the subject matter-- same physics, just filtered through a different author. What would really be fantastic would be to be able to have a number of authors' explanations of the same material available in one convenient location. And it looks like this would be a better way of doing that.
Tell me one person who would be against putting these executives in JAIL. They were entrusted with data on almost every human being in the United States and they FAILED US. Get the stake, timbers, gasoline, and matches. Heaven knows I am ready for blood.
Depends. Charge them with a crime, try them, and convict them. Then I'm all for jail. If I whipped out the pitchfork and torches every time I thought someone "failed me" I wouldn't have enough time to read Slashdot. (Not that I actually read the articles....)
Check to make sure your information is intact/secure, and move on. Don't be consumed by your "outrage."
Slashdot Mirror
XXX = (8pi) + 69*sin(KY*t) ?
Maybe barring the company from competing in a specific market would be better than barring it from doing business here at all.... Sorry , should have said that before.
In fact, not only should the executives go to jail, the entire company should be barred from doing business in the United States for some period of time (i.e., the equivalent of jail for a corporation).
Interesting message to send. So would this course of action be fair to the employees who had nothing to do with the crime? Or would there be a plan to place them with some other "clean" organization? Sounds like a good way to make finding a good job/retaining good employees more difficult in the US. Unless of course you're talking leave-with-pay for those not involved.
I think that if both "theories" have huge holes in them, they should be taught equally. You can't prove either and so far we haven't disproved evolution completely.
The problem is that many other people don't see "huge holes" in one or the other options. There are people who believe without a doubt that the world came about as written in Genesis. And there are those who believe in a different god with, maybe, different stories of creation. And don't forget about the atheists! Or those who manage to balance faith and science. What you should really be struggling with, mentally, is why you and many other people are only considering two options: Intelligent design and evolution. As you pointed out: They could both be wrong!
But from a scientific perspective: Who cares where god came from? Science is more about understanding natural phenomena, not god. It is an understanding of the physical universe around us. I have a strange feeling that many people think that all we know now is all that we CAN know, period. Science is growing, with every instrument that augments our senses enough to "see" more of the universe. If it can't be measured, it's not yet science! (Because we don't know about it yet, right?)
For the record, I don't think a godless universe is a difficult idea to swallow. Absence of an intelligent designer doesn't make it less wonderful or mysterious. I also don't think that existence of a "higher power" is hard to swallow; though I do think that it is tragic that people are quick to conclude that "we" know the nature/form/will/message of god, and then turn around and claim that biology is "irreducibly complex."
Labeling something as "irreducibly complex" is fine, as long as it is irreducibly complex with respect to our current abilities as humans. But our abilities are expanding (with science), and what may be irreducibly complex today might be no-big-deal in a hundred years. In general, it is the lack of logic in many ID arguments that makes me weep.
God created the world. Why teach children that he didn't?
A) Because it takes up time better spent teaching useful things, B) Because not all children have the same religious backgrounds, C) Because it's not true through the eyes of an atheist, D) Because those who are truly humble and god-fearing know that they should not be trying to explain a process that they could not possibly comprehend well enough to teach accurately, and E) because I don't want my tax dollars spent on resources used to teach religion. Teach a class on ethics and responsibility instead.
I agree ID shouldn't be taught in the public education system. Neither should evolution. Both take faith to believe.
Whether or not it truthfully defines the process explaing how things changed from then-to-now, what "we know" about evolution can be used to make predictions on what can happen from now-to-later. It's a scientific model; A statistical model. And it works "well enough" to model evolutionary scenarios for it to be useful. This alone justifies teaching it in sceince class. Certainly, if ID can be used as effectively RIGHT NOW to make predictions of mutation or evolution of any system, then it should be taught too.
With regards to faith and evolutionary models: You don't need to have faith to believe in models that are known to work in practice. Engineering examples: Application of linear ordinary differential equations to non-linear phenomena, or statistical methods applied to random processes. They are good models, but only under certain circumstances that must be recognized by the person(s) applying them.
I actually agree with your idea of not teaching ID or evolution. (But I'm also an ass.) My personal belief is that here in the US, we should be prioritizing math and reading. Make all the other stuff electives, or peripheral to math/reading development. (Ex. Want to learn US history? Then read about US history in your reading class. Want to know about physics? Do physics problems in your math class. Once you have solid math and reading ability, just proceed straight to college, or take a few years off to "develop." Naturally, ID would be a "reading elective," since it is pretty much worthless in a practical sense.
So tell me: Does ID expand on the mathematical models for chemical/biological evolutionary process? OR does it pretty much revert back to mathematical modeling when it has to be applied to a scientific query....
But, why?
Because Wichita is a major player in aerospace and aircraft T&E.
It's fuckheads like these that will spearhead the demise of the english language. Can't they recognise a simple fucking homophone when they fucking see it!?
What the phuck is a homophone?
Gravity: Nature's strategy to minimize the interface between "something" and "nothing."
Forgive my childishness but people that support Irreducible Complexity simply do not have the fortitude for proper research and have constructed a quick fix.
Oh, mod Mr. Boyd up... Hopefully this situation will motivate more people to enter into science-- if only to try to crush the case for ID, or strengthen the case for ID. Just by reading about this on-going battle I'm finding more and more motivation to ditch engineering and move into pure research.
By the way, I use genetic algorithms as a tool for parameter optimization. In a nutshell, GAs are an optimization strategy based on human observations of natural selection and evolution. If I am not mistaken, we still do not have a good understanding of WHY genetic algorithms work, only that they do. And they work exceptionally efficiently. Does this mean that we have figured out a computer interface to some mystical force, or to the "creator?" A genetic algorithm can be remarkably easy to implement, and they ROUTINELY converge to answers that are valid and testable (the output works), but that also defy human understanding of the problem. (What? There is a better answer over where? Never would have thought that!) All hail GAOT!
i've never known anyone to get high and oh, say, beat their wife, or wreck head-on at 90mph racing down roads, or even really do much of ANYTHING
Is that not one of the problems?
Ultimately it is all about greed; their job is to make the maximum money.
Note that if you replace the word "greed" with the word "optimization," it sure does sound less evil. As for alienating the public: There is no better way of defining the boundaries of what the law or the public will tolerate than to simply walk up to the "the line" and cross it. As an individual, this option may not be so beneficial; it is more difficult to dodge the consequences should they be negative. As a corporation of several thousand people, the consequences (fines?) and blame can be diluted across many people-- including the customers. But, (like the parent poster) I bet there is analysis that indicates that crossing-the-line (AKA "pushing the envelope") is more optimal in terms of benefit than not crossing the line.
Is it not interesting that performance optimization is usually considered a good thing until it is applied to an entertainment company's business strategy? Stupid math.
To back this stance, it is worth nothing that the wealthiest wealthy grew wealthier between 2003 and 2004, partially thanks to tax cuts.
And partially due to good investing of wealth they accumulated years ago. But hey, I guess once you've earned enough money to be filthy rich, you shouldn't care that people will do anything to get a chunk of it or to reduce your wealth. Thank FSM that as an engineer, I'll never be rich.
Do they hate them more than having to feel a dog's testicles for a living?
Yeah, their job is nuts.
Will the cost really be worth the benifit to the normal consumer?
Not if the normal consumer has eyesight like mine. I could probably go to 40x30 and still do OK.
Fuck 'em. I already own pretty much all of my favourite films and TV shows on DVD already. They can't force me to go hi-def and re-buy everything I've already paid for... can they?
Got kids? I imagine it will be hard to convince kids that they can't have "SpongeBob Squarepants 3000" because of a family boycott-- without looking like a mean parent, anyway. These companies will succeed if only because of "family politics."
It discourages risk taking and creativity.
So everybody plays it safe and puts up with all the bullshit until they can't ignore it any longer. (Rather like most big companies I've worked for!)
Like the engineers who left for Yahoo? I thought that I actually back-buttoned myself into the other /. article! My opinion (which I bet is shared by many people) is that people are growing weary of the "formula for success" approach to work and pleasure. Big companies have a set of tried-and-true processes that in the past have lead to profit. As I have ranted in the past, I see a tremendous push by large organizations to follow cook-book recipes to achieve the bare-minimum of what is required to meet customer expectations. And I see this in the music industry, the movie industry, and at my workplace (engineer). Why would you spend a penny more than what is required to convince Little Timmy to shell out $10 for a ticket? Similarly, why improve on a product or process if it already meets spec?
I'll tell you why: Because as a consumer, I'll always be on the lookout for a higher quality product. My expectations have exceeded whatever threshold the money-managers in Hollywood have set up in their models. Similarly, as an engineer, I want to DO MORE. I want to create the higher quality product. I am certain that there are those in the movie/music industry who feel the same. Now if only we could convince the money-people and pure managers to give scientists and artists more say in designing the products...
Here is my whack at dysfunctional managers, execs, and the people who feed their visions: You're strategy is flawed. It used to work. But the system that it is integrated into has changed. I suggest loosening the reigns on the people who actually know how to make things work so that they may adapt to the new system.
I am an engineer at a company that was purchased by Boeing. So I have been able to watch the transition from "start up company" enthusiasm and work ethic to big-company process and standardization. It is incredible how much less nuts-and-bolts engineering work there is from day-to-day. One observation: When I started (4 years ago), there were ALWAYS people working in the labs (weekends, nights, etc), trying to get stuff to work, or work better. Innovation was king. Now, it takes so many freaking meetings and documents and signatures to make a change to a design (because it's the "best practice"), that few people are motivated to take innovation beyond what is necessary to meet the design specs. In a lot of cases my employer and our customers are not willing to accept the (dollar or schedule) risk posed by a more "innovative" approach.
:-) ) software process training, we actually got the speaker to say something like: "if you follow the process, the average engineer should be able to pick up your work and continue it seamlessly." And later, and I QUOTE: "we don't want a company of heros...", referring to engineers who always seems to get the job done. Well great. It worked. Now the "heros" are so bogged down/burnt out by paperwork that their output is about average (standard?), and I'm not motivated to be anything more than and industry standard engineer (for them anyway).
As a small company, when engineers were calling the shots, they could take more risks, and then work crazy-ass hours to help those risks pay off. It was hard work, but FUN work.
Now that engineers don't make any of those decisions (or have them swatted down from above), the objective is to "minimize risk" which is almost akin to saying "minimize innovation." I suppose that I could persue an innovative idea on my own, but "I don't work uncompensated overtime." Because it screws up the metrics/rates. So I'm looking for something else. More risk for me personally. More work. But more FUN, more innovation, and more opportunities to solve problems.
Favorite example of whay I hate adopting "process" simply for the sake of following the "best practices" in industry: During our first (and my last
Specifically, the pain-killer isle.
Oh, great post! Claim that we're headed for third-world status, and then follow up with a call for mob-style lynching! Wow is that backwards.
"Humble" opinion? I think you confused the word "humble" with the word "stupid." This being the USA, you are more than welcome to express your opinions. I might even take note of them occasionally. Here is a tip: Your opinion will probably carry more weight with intelligent people when it isn't self-contradictory and doesn't convey the image of the author (you) being a "redneck high-school dropout." (No offense to real rednecks.)
Shit. I was even considering modding you up so so people could read your post and laugh at you.
Communism? Yeah, it's working for them so far.
Actually, if he/she knows his team well enough to know what each member can/cannot do and can orchestrate their actions effectively, then time and effort of the team members is probably not wasted. I would love a manager who could do that consistently. When I dislike middle management, it's usually because they are brought in to micro-manage. Unless they have a science/engineering background, it's pretty much like having an idiot standing behind you with a clipboard doodling and asking dumb questions.
That's pretty much how I feel at work now. The job started off OK: It was fast paced and fun. There was lab work and cube work (I'm an engineer). But as we grew and adopted more of the "big company" standardization and the associated "big company" leadership attitude, it just got boring. Being "big" apparently means that we can't go after the dynamic little projects anymore; the new leadership is much more interested in the huge programs. I feel like I'm sitting on a shelf, or on a bench...just waiting.
Incidentally, on my quest for more interesting employment, I came across the book "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Rickard Florida. (It was mentioned on an Albuquerque business dev page). Not too far into it, but it is interesting, and somewhat on-topic.
If you plan on studying science or engineering, consider that when you do your "state of the art" survey, you will probably have to hit the stacks to get all of the papers that were written before the computer even existed. The newest, and likely most relevant papers will be available through electronic journals, and probably also on the shelves.
I found that through graduate school (6 years), I rarely went to the library for texts; journals tend to be the primary source of relevant info. Texts, at least in science and engineering, are typically just condensations of groundbreaking or standard-establishing papers into easily digestible chunks. At the coursework level, there is usually a prescribed book for each course that coveres the basics. (The one at the bookstore.)
When I did grab a book from the library, it was usually to look for references to the original papers, or to get a different perspective on the subject matter-- same physics, just filtered through a different author. What would really be fantastic would be to be able to have a number of authors' explanations of the same material available in one convenient location. And it looks like this would be a better way of doing that.
All that urgent cramping and pressure.....
The mad dash to seek relief.....
And in the end it ends up being a big fart.
Depends. Charge them with a crime, try them, and convict them. Then I'm all for jail. If I whipped out the pitchfork and torches every time I thought someone "failed me" I wouldn't have enough time to read Slashdot. (Not that I actually read the articles....)
Check to make sure your information is intact/secure, and move on. Don't be consumed by your "outrage."