Doing something for your country? Like committing murder for political theater?
It's been a long time since the US was in a war. We're not out there fighting to protect good people from bad people; we're out there fighting to protect politicians from voters who have too much time to think, and bankers from beardslims who buy their oil in gold.
You are the worst parent in the world for letting your kids see what real life is! They're CHILDREN! They don't need to be ADULTS until they're 35! Tell them SANTA IS REAL!
Experience is just more information. Every situation contains piles of information; every recording of that situation cuts out piles of information. Even a POV recording with explained though paths and feelings would cut off the actual sensations a project manager has when dealing with his team--his knowledge and understanding of their feelings, his prior experience understanding human behavior, his gut feelings and what that tingle actually felt like at the time, and so on.
Of course you have to learn some of it on your own. You also never stop learning it, unless you start not caring about how shitty your work is. Theory to a fresh mind is the biggest return-on-investment; the compound theory-and-demonstration teaching method lays out theory, then shows a demonstration (anecdotes, etc.); theory-and-simulation teaches theory and then puts the student in simulation. These increase your information base and convert some data into information; they are real-world-experience substitute.
These advanced teaching methods are pretty close to the real world: if you had been in a real-world situation exactly like the anecdote or simulation, you would take away something similar, and it would help you in the next real-world situation almost exactly as much. The real world is like that: it never lets you coast.
The OP's observation is this: Sit through a bunch of boring classes that have nothing to do with anything of note, try to get a passing grade, and you'll learn how to solve problems.
What you'll learn is how to memorize facts long enough to pass a test. You don't face real-world problems, you face nothing on a large scale. All you do is muddle. I've been through the REAL WORLD, and all I learned was how to muddle; I also learned nobody else knows what the fuck they're doing.
Kepner and Tregoe published a book, "The New Rational Manager." It goes through a bunch of sanitized examples from clients of theirs--they teach their own brand of problem analysis and decision making. They cite everyone from mining companies up to and including NASA. It's a nice book: the selected passages are very entertaining, they transfer real-world lessons learned, and it's overall a fun read. I would, in fact, enjoy a periodical published in the same style. Another book, "No Excuses" by Dickstein, tells similar anecdotes--very familiar ones: Barings, Enron, Arthur Anderson, and Exxon-Valdez.
We don't teach engineering students to build airplanes by showing them a pile of wood and metal and giving them tools to try to build something that can fly; we teach them math, we teach them fluid dynamics, we teach them how engines are constructed, how lift works, and so on. What form of brain damage would lead you to believe we're effectively teaching effective problem solving by throwing students into college and telling them to write papers and pass tests?
All of that shit about independent study and problem solving could be taught much more efficiently. I learned those things outside college by studying Project Management, learning about Operational Risk Management, and reading up on various Problem Analysis and Decision Analysis strategies.
Project Management brings a lot of useful base skills, such as hierarchical decomposition: you can decompose work, risks, and organizations into complete sets of components, which each further decompose. Building a computer: Parts, Hardware, Software; you can decompose each of these as deliverable objects (i.e. Orders, not Ordering; Operating System, not Install OS). Running a business: Business breaks down to Marketing, Finance, and IT, which further break down (IT contains Networking, Security, Systems). At each level, everything that makes up the above node must exist.
Problem solving strategies such as Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis are invaluable. These allow you to not only systematically categorize and approach problems, but also recognize when you have too little information and what information you need. Guess, test, scratch your head, ask abstract questions, and try again is not a strategy.
Decision analysis strategies come in two large groups. I personally dislike Comparative Advantage: it's a satisficer strategy that lists the advantages (no disadvantages) of various alternatives, then selects whichever has the bigger list; without a structured decision, it amounts to "select the shiny without considering the need". Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis is a maximizing strategy evolved from the weighted Pugh matrix, which evolved from the standard Pugh matrix: it provides a qualifying "MUST" and "WANT" criteria, rejecting anything not hitting 100% of "MUST" criteria before weighting and comparing the relative degree to which alternative satisfies the "WANT" criteria.
You didn't learn this by jacking off in the back of Math class while your hot Asian teacher talked about multi-variable integration.
Yes, it creates a bi-directional chain. We've also got pluripotent cells (bone marrow stem cells can become 90% of anything), and the ability to tissue culture like we're propagating trees (heart, liver, kidney, etc.; although only the heart is problematic, as we can make liver from bone marrow cells).
I'm a decisionary maximizer: given the low return of embryonic stem cell research and the huge coverage of adult stem cell research, I find it a huge waste of time to divert significant funds to embryonic stem cell research. When we've tapped out adult stem cell treatments to the point of high expense for remaining coverage that should be possible if we had good manipulations derivable from embryonic research, suddenly adult stem cell research is a large waste of money and embryonic has higher returns.
It's more like saying it's pointless to study the chemical structure of a Szechuan Button seed when deriving treatment from Szechuan Button leaves, flowers, roots, oils, and so on. The seed is starch, enzymes, and DNA; it derives the whole plant from a set of biological processes carried out during its entire life cycle.
In short: it makes sense to study the growth of embryos in general, which can be done with mice or fish or, especially, fruit flies. It doesn't make sense to try and force embryonic stem cells into treatments when bone marrow stem cell treatments are easier to create, have a greater chance of success, and carry lower risks of complications.
In 2004, we had a huge political mud fight about this. It came down to a bunch of nothing. I am still lampooning the mistaken belief that embryonic stem cells hold much greater potential than adult stem cells and are much easier to coax into producing useful results; it's just not true, and all existing evidence indicates it's mostly a highly complicated thrill act that looks bitchin' if you pull it off, but can't be pulled off by most mortals, and can go *really* wrong if not pulled off *exactly* correct.
Actually, embryonic stem cell treatments--the few we've figured out--hardly work. They require immense timing of chemical signals, or else they simply turn cancerous.
Pluripotent adult stem cells have been demonstrated to grow full tissue (such as layers of skin, kidney, etc.), and are theorized capable of producing full organs (whole kidneys, liver, heart). Bone marrow stem cells can be coaxed into producing a whole heart on a scaffold, i.e., by removing all muscle from a heart and seeding the connective tissue with some donor heart muscle and a pile of marrow stem cells. Growing the full organ independently is difficult; and growing an appropriate organ would present unique challenges (a scaffold organ grows into the size of the scaffold; a new organ would grow into a child's organ, which won't provide a heart for an adult body).
Adult stem cells are often banked from umbilical cord and placenta for treating the child early in life. In adult life, we use drugs to stimulate the release of large amounts of bone marrow stem cells; this provides stem cells for chemotherapy recovery, as chemotherapy destroys all bone marrow. Both types have been used to regenerate damaged heart, spinal nerve column, bone marrow, and other tissues and organs. Stem cells rendered from the patient's blood also rapidly treat severe burns as a component of a spray-on tissue plasm (a slurry of material and marrow stem cells) that regenerates the destroyed skin without scarring.
I was lampooning the huge political theater of embryonic stem cell research in the 2004 election cycle. The US is the only country with such minimal funding; yet even Russia only occasionally outputs an amusing, largely-faulty, academic hack. Russia makes large breakthroughs in adult stem cell treatments all the time, because such treatments are more viable and widely-applicable. The article makes such a big deal about HSCs because saying "stem cells" is played out, and we know "adult stem cells from bone marrow" already; wen need a new buzzword, and "embryonic" is a dead end without politics.
Corporate offices. We need chains of management, teams of accountants, lawyers, etc. Factories just need a call-out contracted mechanic, floor managers, and a few technicians to run the automated systems. It takes 40 people to run a nuclear power plant.
Putting aside whatever stance on California's policies you may have, this is mainly a risk consideration.
On one hand, you have the threat of certain damage. California's laws try to mitigate a number of perceived threats through regulations enforcing all industrial activities to take specific threat mitigation action.
On the other, Telsa's efforts may cause a boom in new technologies which mitigate those threats--an opportunity. California wants to poise itself to control that opportunity by getting Tesla under its regulatory structure, and it can best do that by accepting some of the threats it previously mitigated.
The opportunity also comes with its own risks. California not only wants to support Tesla's battery industry and the development of electric cars, but also to regulate the use of toxic manufacture processes and the disposal of hazardous waste. The opportunity to expand the battery-driven motor technologies industry comes with the threat of toxic manufacture practices.
It makes sense to perform these risk trade-offs. I'm surprised California hasn't tried to attract GreenWorks, as their 19 inch TwinForce dual 40V Lithium Ion battery electric lawnmower is lighter than a gas mower, just as powerful, and more efficient, while fully avoiding the billions of gallons of gasoline spilled filling gas mowers. The G-MAX 40V weed eaters accept all gas trimmer accessories, as they have similar power output (more powerful than some, less powerful than others, depending on the size of the 2-stroke engine; they are in the range). Our fleet of lawn tools emits far more toxic waste into the environment than our fleet of cars.
Hook up the Food Saver or VacuVita to a bag full of stacked, tied bills. Then put the whole vacuum-packed, heat-sealed bag into your suitcase lining, hidden compartment, or money belt.
Or, we could make it not illegal to, you know, carry large wads of cash, deposit huge amounts of money in your bank account, etc.
Or we could vacuum pack the bills, and fold that up into the money belt or suitcase.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
It's silly to punish me by cutting the copyright on the scripts I wrote and configurations and systems I put in place at my sysadmin job. They should keep paying me for life+10 after I leave.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 2
Characters are trademarks.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Copyright of lifetime-plus is stupid. This, again, lets you continue to demand recompense for work you did ages ago. I just need to write one novel, get it standardized like Lord of the Flies, and let the money roll in until I die--80 years maybe.
In today's world, copyrights and patents move slow. Technology moves fast, and information gets around. Terms too short get businesses waiting out the patent or copyright; terms too long create stagnation and litigation waste.
Inventors don't always have the means to produce. What if you invented a new type of satellite module that costs $500,000 to produce instead of $1,500,000? You don't have $500,000 to produce and sell it; everyone just waits 3 years, then steals your invention.
I dunno about the degree thing. I mean, the kid is full of bullshit talk, but hey, I've had bad grades in school. My Statistics teacher was pissy because I had Ds and I got like 4 exam problems wrong all year--I never paid attention in class, I never did any homework, I was always goofing off, and I chewed through stat exams like a correctly working version of Mathematica. Obviously, I knew my shit hard; but I was failing the class.
It was boring. Well, homework was boring. I got better shit to do than waste time relearning things I already know. I'll relearn things I've forgotten, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing something for your country? Like committing murder for political theater?
It's been a long time since the US was in a war. We're not out there fighting to protect good people from bad people; we're out there fighting to protect politicians from voters who have too much time to think, and bankers from beardslims who buy their oil in gold.
You are the worst parent in the world for letting your kids see what real life is! They're CHILDREN! They don't need to be ADULTS until they're 35! Tell them SANTA IS REAL!
Doesn't change the fact that math isn't problem solving; it's simple computation. Often lots of it, i.e. statistics or calculus.
Experience is just more information. Every situation contains piles of information; every recording of that situation cuts out piles of information. Even a POV recording with explained though paths and feelings would cut off the actual sensations a project manager has when dealing with his team--his knowledge and understanding of their feelings, his prior experience understanding human behavior, his gut feelings and what that tingle actually felt like at the time, and so on.
Of course you have to learn some of it on your own. You also never stop learning it, unless you start not caring about how shitty your work is. Theory to a fresh mind is the biggest return-on-investment; the compound theory-and-demonstration teaching method lays out theory, then shows a demonstration (anecdotes, etc.); theory-and-simulation teaches theory and then puts the student in simulation. These increase your information base and convert some data into information; they are real-world-experience substitute.
These advanced teaching methods are pretty close to the real world: if you had been in a real-world situation exactly like the anecdote or simulation, you would take away something similar, and it would help you in the next real-world situation almost exactly as much. The real world is like that: it never lets you coast.
No, it's not.
The OP's observation is this: Sit through a bunch of boring classes that have nothing to do with anything of note, try to get a passing grade, and you'll learn how to solve problems.
What you'll learn is how to memorize facts long enough to pass a test. You don't face real-world problems, you face nothing on a large scale. All you do is muddle. I've been through the REAL WORLD, and all I learned was how to muddle; I also learned nobody else knows what the fuck they're doing.
Kepner and Tregoe published a book, "The New Rational Manager." It goes through a bunch of sanitized examples from clients of theirs--they teach their own brand of problem analysis and decision making. They cite everyone from mining companies up to and including NASA. It's a nice book: the selected passages are very entertaining, they transfer real-world lessons learned, and it's overall a fun read. I would, in fact, enjoy a periodical published in the same style. Another book, "No Excuses" by Dickstein, tells similar anecdotes--very familiar ones: Barings, Enron, Arthur Anderson, and Exxon-Valdez.
We don't teach engineering students to build airplanes by showing them a pile of wood and metal and giving them tools to try to build something that can fly; we teach them math, we teach them fluid dynamics, we teach them how engines are constructed, how lift works, and so on. What form of brain damage would lead you to believe we're effectively teaching effective problem solving by throwing students into college and telling them to write papers and pass tests?
All of that shit about independent study and problem solving could be taught much more efficiently. I learned those things outside college by studying Project Management, learning about Operational Risk Management, and reading up on various Problem Analysis and Decision Analysis strategies.
Project Management brings a lot of useful base skills, such as hierarchical decomposition: you can decompose work, risks, and organizations into complete sets of components, which each further decompose. Building a computer: Parts, Hardware, Software; you can decompose each of these as deliverable objects (i.e. Orders, not Ordering; Operating System, not Install OS). Running a business: Business breaks down to Marketing, Finance, and IT, which further break down (IT contains Networking, Security, Systems). At each level, everything that makes up the above node must exist.
Problem solving strategies such as Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis are invaluable. These allow you to not only systematically categorize and approach problems, but also recognize when you have too little information and what information you need. Guess, test, scratch your head, ask abstract questions, and try again is not a strategy.
Decision analysis strategies come in two large groups. I personally dislike Comparative Advantage: it's a satisficer strategy that lists the advantages (no disadvantages) of various alternatives, then selects whichever has the bigger list; without a structured decision, it amounts to "select the shiny without considering the need". Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis is a maximizing strategy evolved from the weighted Pugh matrix, which evolved from the standard Pugh matrix: it provides a qualifying "MUST" and "WANT" criteria, rejecting anything not hitting 100% of "MUST" criteria before weighting and comparing the relative degree to which alternative satisfies the "WANT" criteria.
You didn't learn this by jacking off in the back of Math class while your hot Asian teacher talked about multi-variable integration.
Yes, it creates a bi-directional chain. We've also got pluripotent cells (bone marrow stem cells can become 90% of anything), and the ability to tissue culture like we're propagating trees (heart, liver, kidney, etc.; although only the heart is problematic, as we can make liver from bone marrow cells).
I'm a decisionary maximizer: given the low return of embryonic stem cell research and the huge coverage of adult stem cell research, I find it a huge waste of time to divert significant funds to embryonic stem cell research. When we've tapped out adult stem cell treatments to the point of high expense for remaining coverage that should be possible if we had good manipulations derivable from embryonic research, suddenly adult stem cell research is a large waste of money and embryonic has higher returns.
It looks like they coaxed embryonic stem cells into becoming heart muscle cells, instead of just going right to the source.
It's more like saying it's pointless to study the chemical structure of a Szechuan Button seed when deriving treatment from Szechuan Button leaves, flowers, roots, oils, and so on. The seed is starch, enzymes, and DNA; it derives the whole plant from a set of biological processes carried out during its entire life cycle.
In short: it makes sense to study the growth of embryos in general, which can be done with mice or fish or, especially, fruit flies. It doesn't make sense to try and force embryonic stem cells into treatments when bone marrow stem cell treatments are easier to create, have a greater chance of success, and carry lower risks of complications.
In 2004, we had a huge political mud fight about this. It came down to a bunch of nothing. I am still lampooning the mistaken belief that embryonic stem cells hold much greater potential than adult stem cells and are much easier to coax into producing useful results; it's just not true, and all existing evidence indicates it's mostly a highly complicated thrill act that looks bitchin' if you pull it off, but can't be pulled off by most mortals, and can go *really* wrong if not pulled off *exactly* correct.
Actually, embryonic stem cell treatments--the few we've figured out--hardly work. They require immense timing of chemical signals, or else they simply turn cancerous.
Pluripotent adult stem cells have been demonstrated to grow full tissue (such as layers of skin, kidney, etc.), and are theorized capable of producing full organs (whole kidneys, liver, heart). Bone marrow stem cells can be coaxed into producing a whole heart on a scaffold, i.e., by removing all muscle from a heart and seeding the connective tissue with some donor heart muscle and a pile of marrow stem cells. Growing the full organ independently is difficult; and growing an appropriate organ would present unique challenges (a scaffold organ grows into the size of the scaffold; a new organ would grow into a child's organ, which won't provide a heart for an adult body).
Adult stem cells are often banked from umbilical cord and placenta for treating the child early in life. In adult life, we use drugs to stimulate the release of large amounts of bone marrow stem cells; this provides stem cells for chemotherapy recovery, as chemotherapy destroys all bone marrow. Both types have been used to regenerate damaged heart, spinal nerve column, bone marrow, and other tissues and organs. Stem cells rendered from the patient's blood also rapidly treat severe burns as a component of a spray-on tissue plasm (a slurry of material and marrow stem cells) that regenerates the destroyed skin without scarring.
I was lampooning the huge political theater of embryonic stem cell research in the 2004 election cycle. The US is the only country with such minimal funding; yet even Russia only occasionally outputs an amusing, largely-faulty, academic hack. Russia makes large breakthroughs in adult stem cell treatments all the time, because such treatments are more viable and widely-applicable. The article makes such a big deal about HSCs because saying "stem cells" is played out, and we know "adult stem cells from bone marrow" already; wen need a new buzzword, and "embryonic" is a dead end without politics.
What happened to embryonic stem cells being the most important, and all the political battles over embryonic stem cell research funding?
Corporate offices. We need chains of management, teams of accountants, lawyers, etc. Factories just need a call-out contracted mechanic, floor managers, and a few technicians to run the automated systems. It takes 40 people to run a nuclear power plant.
Putting aside whatever stance on California's policies you may have, this is mainly a risk consideration.
On one hand, you have the threat of certain damage. California's laws try to mitigate a number of perceived threats through regulations enforcing all industrial activities to take specific threat mitigation action.
On the other, Telsa's efforts may cause a boom in new technologies which mitigate those threats--an opportunity. California wants to poise itself to control that opportunity by getting Tesla under its regulatory structure, and it can best do that by accepting some of the threats it previously mitigated.
The opportunity also comes with its own risks. California not only wants to support Tesla's battery industry and the development of electric cars, but also to regulate the use of toxic manufacture processes and the disposal of hazardous waste. The opportunity to expand the battery-driven motor technologies industry comes with the threat of toxic manufacture practices.
It makes sense to perform these risk trade-offs. I'm surprised California hasn't tried to attract GreenWorks, as their 19 inch TwinForce dual 40V Lithium Ion battery electric lawnmower is lighter than a gas mower, just as powerful, and more efficient, while fully avoiding the billions of gallons of gasoline spilled filling gas mowers. The G-MAX 40V weed eaters accept all gas trimmer accessories, as they have similar power output (more powerful than some, less powerful than others, depending on the size of the 2-stroke engine; they are in the range). Our fleet of lawn tools emits far more toxic waste into the environment than our fleet of cars.
Betteridge's Law says no.
Who cares? I knew the material better than anyone. If the point of the education system was grades, I'd just cheat.
Hook up the Food Saver or VacuVita to a bag full of stacked, tied bills. Then put the whole vacuum-packed, heat-sealed bag into your suitcase lining, hidden compartment, or money belt.
Or, we could make it not illegal to, you know, carry large wads of cash, deposit huge amounts of money in your bank account, etc.
Or we could vacuum pack the bills, and fold that up into the money belt or suitcase.
It's silly to punish me by cutting the copyright on the scripts I wrote and configurations and systems I put in place at my sysadmin job. They should keep paying me for life+10 after I leave.
Characters are trademarks.
Copyright of lifetime-plus is stupid. This, again, lets you continue to demand recompense for work you did ages ago. I just need to write one novel, get it standardized like Lord of the Flies, and let the money roll in until I die--80 years maybe.
In today's world, copyrights and patents move slow. Technology moves fast, and information gets around. Terms too short get businesses waiting out the patent or copyright; terms too long create stagnation and litigation waste.
Inventors don't always have the means to produce. What if you invented a new type of satellite module that costs $500,000 to produce instead of $1,500,000? You don't have $500,000 to produce and sell it; everyone just waits 3 years, then steals your invention.
They take Internet IQ tests scoring everyone rather high. They don't use a Culture Fair test, either.
I dunno about the degree thing. I mean, the kid is full of bullshit talk, but hey, I've had bad grades in school. My Statistics teacher was pissy because I had Ds and I got like 4 exam problems wrong all year--I never paid attention in class, I never did any homework, I was always goofing off, and I chewed through stat exams like a correctly working version of Mathematica. Obviously, I knew my shit hard; but I was failing the class.
It was boring. Well, homework was boring. I got better shit to do than waste time relearning things I already know. I'll relearn things I've forgotten, thanks.
Of course it's based on a true story. Once, there were some kids, and they thought they were badass hacker geniuses.
The semicolon hasn't been overused; omitting the conjunction shortens the sentence.
Last sentence. Semicolon, not comma.