Which is a comment on fornication, which is a big problem in a religious community who thinks they need not marry because Jesus is comming back in a couple years.
I hate it when people play the group people perspective into broad swipes, which makes me respect your post. I read the Economist, a british economics weekly magazine. Their favorite pick for president is a social liberal republican, usually of the west coast school of republicism. The reason why is a protectionist, isolationist America is viewed as being very bad thing for Europe.
Lets ask all the candidates if they believe in Keynesian Economics, since most respect experts in the field of economics believe in it. It has more to do with showing if someone is fit for running a country then belief in evolution.
Considering that I hired a lady who handles poisonous snakes due to the fact she is damd good at her job, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Beliefs that don't directly affect the job do not matter. Congratulations, you're a bigot. *golf clap*
Actually, it does. Let me explain. To model something, you need quality data. To have quality data, you need to have good data correction algorithms to adjust for variation. When the scientists will not produce the source code, then the data correction algorithm is closed-sourced, which has material effect on the climate model.
Without the source code or the algorithms used, we don't see the methodology, just a pat on the head explanation. We cannot verify or repeat the process. Since we are feeding this data into climate models and building 'better' models based off of this data, then the climate models should come into question. By close-sourcing a data correction algorithm, I am obfuscating how 'good' is my data, feeding possibly bad data into climate models and screwing over every other scientist working with my data. How many climate models were built on the bad data because of this error? How many years of work has to be reworked? In one fell swoop, NASA has set back climatology by several years, assuming the current produced data has any validity.
Personally, if I was working with this data with my climate models and 'improving' the models with it, I would be upset. Anything I had written would come into question. If it didn't, I would worry about the academic community. People should be tar and feathering Hansen.
Actually, the real problem here is why isn't Slashdot up in arms about closed sourced climate modeling and data correction algorithms? Sorry, couldn't resist.
In the process for setting myself up for an observance error arguement, why is the three NOAA monitoring stations I know about are in the three hottest sections of my city? All three of them are well within 100 feet of buildings, with one over red brick walkway, one over a concrete pad next to one of our airports and the last one is attached to the tower of the other.
I am sorry for your confusion. The CMS sets the standard, not a project manager. Expect more if Healthcare gets nationalized or if you are Medicare, since those quality scores determine where the CMS recommends where Medicare patients go. This puts a significant financial incentive to doing such for the hospital. In addition, it is safer, legally to do what the CMS recommends and have a patient die then it is to have a patient die because the hospital didn't. This is why Healthcare Law and Ethics Class sucked.
When politicians and government officials decided mandatory procedures, the patients die.
By the way, I would talk to a cardiologist about that. The beta blocker can cause cardiogenic shock and that could cause significant heart damage.
As a trained project manager,I have to take issue with this statement. I do think that NASA suffers from management who makes risk calculations with too much consideration of 'the schedule' verses the risk of life. However, NASA has done a valid risk mitigation step by examining the shuttle after takeoff and trying to determine what to do. Most sensible people can do the risk management required by asking a few questions. What is the risks? What are the chance of those risks being realized? How can we mitigate those risks? Those analysis steps are done by engineers, but it comes down to the manager who has to give the go/no-go decision. 10% risk of catastrophic failure? Ok, what are the other options?
Stuff like this requires more significant then six sigma quality (3.4 defects per million). The CMS puts a 0% error rate requirement on certain measures for hospital quality. Does someone presenting heart attack symptoms get an aspirin within the first 24 hours of being in a hospital? Do they get a beta blocker within 24 hours? 0 variations are allowed to meet their quality goal. Six sigma level quality would have 1 variance out of large hospital's annual patient level of patients presenting heart attach symptoms, which is unacceptable by the standard. Set a risk measure and goal for shuttle tiles, for example - 0% risk of a tile related catastrophic failure upon re-entry. Then make the engineers plan for how they will achieve it. If the engineers fail at achieving this, causing a catastrophic failure, start license removal procedures on the engineer that signed off on it, followed by criminal charges.
Laser safety lecture. My lab safety lecture every year came from a petite japanese woman who said, "Do blow shit up and don't get any of this crap on you." I miss chem lab in college.
Well, J&J din't do a good job with the licensing then. I would make sure I have a non-transferable license, then sue the manufacturers. The $1 makes the tax part easier in some areas.
If I was J&J, I would license the red cross to the red cross for some paltry amount, $1, and then write off the rest of my license fee as a charitable contribution.
Most of the hard SF writers did/do. Niven, Asimov, etc... They also know how to write for people. Wikipedia has some great science articles, but they are written for people in the field and suffer from some incestuous language barrier. I have yelled at a friend for one of his articles, but he also was kinda of a self-centered prick in high school. (Still love you Dave and you know I am right) I have an very good grasp of both health care business law in the US and economics, but the articles over such sections read like alien speach because they are so jargon filled. This is comming from a guy who knows the jargon. Try to rewrite them and you get a whole bunch of flack about dumbing down. People need to look into writing in Plain Language.
Bravo, you have done a great job explaining what I have been trying to figure out for about a year. I understand math well enough to get some of the principle behind nth dimensional theory, which helps to work with multi-dimensional data structures (patient care stats for example) for several years. The explanation of 'the big bang' does a poor job of explaining cosmic topology to us poor laity. Most of the books, articles and 'expert opinion' for the laity state theory as fact and consensus when disagreement exist. Glossing over the hard-to-explain bits doesn't help.
Actually, I understand what the theory is pertaining dark matter (stuff we can't see but must exist) and dark energy (an universal force that we really don't understand but we figure exists by what we think we see). I am sorta haphazardly amazed that people are surprised that something isn't playing by the rules that we have artificially set when we haven't gotten our tails out there and truly tested. We need to remember that we are working off a mixture of proofs and assumptions that might not be exactly like we think they are, as a chem professor pointed out in Organic 2, 12 years ago. It was her warning to us about hubris.
On the big bang question, understanding that there are points we haven't seen yet due to the speed of light (horizon theory) and points we might never see, is it possible that we are mis-guessing ages by not understand our position to the position of the sighted object versus the position of the singularity point?
On the logic part, scientists are humans first. I knew a guy who was very smart and excelling in his post doc, when he blew his brains out over a bad breakup over a chick. People forget perspective.
Dark matter! Maybe dark energy! Even maybe we have to revise theories in astrophysics because we were wrong on something... sigh, why do scientists think they are right now when their forbears were wrong?
Speaking of Astrophysics, if we can look into the sky and only see x millions of years back based off of light years, how do we know that we are not seeing the opposite side of the big bang curve? Here we are -> ( *Bang* )
If it is a riding plow, where you are in a cart behind a horse, then it is very easy to sleep while plowing. Horse knows where it needs to go, you are just systems management at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, the undergrad Org Behavior sucked, but the graduate one was very insightful on team dynamics.
Which is a comment on fornication, which is a big problem in a religious community who thinks they need not marry because Jesus is comming back in a couple years.
Easy, context clues.
I hate it when people play the group people perspective into broad swipes, which makes me respect your post. I read the Economist, a british economics weekly magazine. Their favorite pick for president is a social liberal republican, usually of the west coast school of republicism. The reason why is a protectionist, isolationist America is viewed as being very bad thing for Europe.
Lets ask all the candidates if they believe in Keynesian Economics, since most respect experts in the field of economics believe in it. It has more to do with showing if someone is fit for running a country then belief in evolution.
Wouldn't that be the 'mistake' made in not believing in evolution? That people believed in who they viewed as an expert?
Considering that I hired a lady who handles poisonous snakes due to the fact she is damd good at her job, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Beliefs that don't directly affect the job do not matter. Congratulations, you're a bigot. *golf clap*
That would be Saint Paul's fault. I would suggest you read something before a smart ass remark.
Actually, you need a horse, saddle, head gear, etc... and a good amount of money, but what do I know - I just own two.
Actually, it does. Let me explain. To model something, you need quality data. To have quality data, you need to have good data correction algorithms to adjust for variation. When the scientists will not produce the source code, then the data correction algorithm is closed-sourced, which has material effect on the climate model.
Without the source code or the algorithms used, we don't see the methodology, just a pat on the head explanation. We cannot verify or repeat the process. Since we are feeding this data into climate models and building 'better' models based off of this data, then the climate models should come into question. By close-sourcing a data correction algorithm, I am obfuscating how 'good' is my data, feeding possibly bad data into climate models and screwing over every other scientist working with my data. How many climate models were built on the bad data because of this error? How many years of work has to be reworked? In one fell swoop, NASA has set back climatology by several years, assuming the current produced data has any validity.
Personally, if I was working with this data with my climate models and 'improving' the models with it, I would be upset. Anything I had written would come into question. If it didn't, I would worry about the academic community. People should be tar and feathering Hansen.
Actually, the real problem here is why isn't Slashdot up in arms about closed sourced climate modeling and data correction algorithms? Sorry, couldn't resist.
In the process for setting myself up for an observance error arguement, why is the three NOAA monitoring stations I know about are in the three hottest sections of my city? All three of them are well within 100 feet of buildings, with one over red brick walkway, one over a concrete pad next to one of our airports and the last one is attached to the tower of the other.
I am sorry for your confusion. The CMS sets the standard, not a project manager. Expect more if Healthcare gets nationalized or if you are Medicare, since those quality scores determine where the CMS recommends where Medicare patients go. This puts a significant financial incentive to doing such for the hospital. In addition, it is safer, legally to do what the CMS recommends and have a patient die then it is to have a patient die because the hospital didn't. This is why Healthcare Law and Ethics Class sucked.
When politicians and government officials decided mandatory procedures, the patients die.
By the way, I would talk to a cardiologist about that. The beta blocker can cause cardiogenic shock and that could cause significant heart damage.
As a project manager dealing with human lives (health care), I would say Cost & Quality.
0% was a toss-out number, until you are on the variation shuttle.
As a trained project manager,I have to take issue with this statement. I do think that NASA suffers from management who makes risk calculations with too much consideration of 'the schedule' verses the risk of life. However, NASA has done a valid risk mitigation step by examining the shuttle after takeoff and trying to determine what to do. Most sensible people can do the risk management required by asking a few questions. What is the risks? What are the chance of those risks being realized? How can we mitigate those risks? Those analysis steps are done by engineers, but it comes down to the manager who has to give the go/no-go decision. 10% risk of catastrophic failure? Ok, what are the other options?
Stuff like this requires more significant then six sigma quality (3.4 defects per million). The CMS puts a 0% error rate requirement on certain measures for hospital quality. Does someone presenting heart attack symptoms get an aspirin within the first 24 hours of being in a hospital? Do they get a beta blocker within 24 hours? 0 variations are allowed to meet their quality goal. Six sigma level quality would have 1 variance out of large hospital's annual patient level of patients presenting heart attach symptoms, which is unacceptable by the standard. Set a risk measure and goal for shuttle tiles, for example - 0% risk of a tile related catastrophic failure upon re-entry. Then make the engineers plan for how they will achieve it. If the engineers fail at achieving this, causing a catastrophic failure, start license removal procedures on the engineer that signed off on it, followed by criminal charges.
Laser safety lecture. My lab safety lecture every year came from a petite japanese woman who said, "Do blow shit up and don't get any of this crap on you." I miss chem lab in college.
Well, J&J din't do a good job with the licensing then. I would make sure I have a non-transferable license, then sue the manufacturers. The $1 makes the tax part easier in some areas.
If I was J&J, I would license the red cross to the red cross for some paltry amount, $1, and then write off the rest of my license fee as a charitable contribution.
Most of the hard SF writers did/do. Niven, Asimov, etc... They also know how to write for people. Wikipedia has some great science articles, but they are written for people in the field and suffer from some incestuous language barrier. I have yelled at a friend for one of his articles, but he also was kinda of a self-centered prick in high school. (Still love you Dave and you know I am right) I have an very good grasp of both health care business law in the US and economics, but the articles over such sections read like alien speach because they are so jargon filled. This is comming from a guy who knows the jargon. Try to rewrite them and you get a whole bunch of flack about dumbing down. People need to look into writing in Plain Language.
Just makes my two run fast to the feed dish and take a nap afterwards.
Bravo, you have done a great job explaining what I have been trying to figure out for about a year. I understand math well enough to get some of the principle behind nth dimensional theory, which helps to work with multi-dimensional data structures (patient care stats for example) for several years. The explanation of 'the big bang' does a poor job of explaining cosmic topology to us poor laity. Most of the books, articles and 'expert opinion' for the laity state theory as fact and consensus when disagreement exist. Glossing over the hard-to-explain bits doesn't help.
I tip my hat at you.
Actually, I understand what the theory is pertaining dark matter (stuff we can't see but must exist) and dark energy (an universal force that we really don't understand but we figure exists by what we think we see). I am sorta haphazardly amazed that people are surprised that something isn't playing by the rules that we have artificially set when we haven't gotten our tails out there and truly tested. We need to remember that we are working off a mixture of proofs and assumptions that might not be exactly like we think they are, as a chem professor pointed out in Organic 2, 12 years ago. It was her warning to us about hubris.
On the big bang question, understanding that there are points we haven't seen yet due to the speed of light (horizon theory) and points we might never see, is it possible that we are mis-guessing ages by not understand our position to the position of the sighted object versus the position of the singularity point?
On the logic part, scientists are humans first. I knew a guy who was very smart and excelling in his post doc, when he blew his brains out over a bad breakup over a chick. People forget perspective.
Dark matter! Maybe dark energy! Even maybe we have to revise theories in astrophysics because we were wrong on something... sigh, why do scientists think they are right now when their forbears were wrong?
Speaking of Astrophysics, if we can look into the sky and only see x millions of years back based off of light years, how do we know that we are not seeing the opposite side of the big bang curve? Here we are -> ( *Bang* )
More dumb observations later.
That would be Finish Line's Ultra Fire for the multivitamin route or Thyro-L by Vet-A-Mix for a real kick.
Note: I am not a vet and taking any of my advice should consitute a right beating from a vet. You have been warned.
If it is a riding plow, where you are in a cart behind a horse, then it is very easy to sleep while plowing. Horse knows where it needs to go, you are just systems management at that point.