Sometimes the changes in Science come from just thinking about things differently. Whether Stephen is arrogant or not is irrelevant to the ideas or claims being evaluated. I doubt anything is invented in a vacuum, but rather a product of all the little discoveries and thoughts finally coalescing into something tangible.
The main point here is that we are reaching limits in machine technology, and jumping to a different scale will require a new way of thinking about what we've already learned.
Let me recommend three books: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn, "Bionics" by Salsburg, and "How Inventions Begin" by Leinhard. Three different thinkers; three different descriptions of the progress of technology.
I have heard a number of criticisms on NKS, but most of the critics I've met have not actually read the book. (OK, it's a big book... I've found the same problems with people criticizing "Science and Sanity" by Korzybski, "Synergetics" by Fuller, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville.) If you are going to criticize a book, please read it and understand it first.
Recently William Gibson mentioned the problems with writing Science Fiction due to the unpredictability of the future and rapid technological change. As our technology becomes more abstract, more materials will be "intelligent" in new ways. For instance, imagine concrete with the intelligence to repair itself when a pothole is in imminent probability of forming. This type of "Turing Machine" computational ability at the molecular level may be the key to inventing this product.
"The Wisdom of the Crowds" does not apply here. TWOTC applies to aggregated decisions made my groups of people. This is more akin to a routing algorithm than individual assessment of a condition.
If you assume that most people don't know anything about a certain condition, those who don't know anything will probably cancel each other out 50-50, but the percentage of people who are knowledgeable about the condition will make more correct assessment. Therefore, when all the choices/assessments are aggregated, the knowledgeable choices will tip the median assessment in the right direction, and the crowd's assessment will be appear to be more reliable than individual choices.
In this particular case, there are several specific traffic algorithms that apply to a variety of traffic patterns, and since the information is being fed back in near real-time, it makes the service more useful.
You might be on to something here... I don't agree that quality can't be measured (Deming proved that it could in Japan), but I do agree that businesses with real good service are not communicating that difference to potential customers in a way that counts. This would be a good area to think on...
Hmmmm. In my area (Houston, TX) I'm not aware of any Federal, State or local subsidies for telco infrastructure paid for through tax dollars. That doesn't mean they don't exist or haven't existed, it just means I'm not aware of them. How does this work in your area and how did you research/discover the public funding?
I have some customers who use ComCast now that they own Houston's RoadRunner customers. (That is not really a typo...) I had occasion to call ComCast the other day asking for technical assistance for a customer replacing their Linksys Wireless cable gateway. Comcast told me they would have to fill out a form with the new MAC address and the account would be updated in 5-7 days. After an hour of being transferred around I finally found someone who updated the account MAC address in 5 minutes. Then I asked for the DNS address of the nameservers. They told me they didn't support DNS. I got transferred to four people who didn't have a CLUE about Windows XP needing a nameserver address (if you have a static IP, even if it's an internal NAT address) before I finally simply hung up, set the workstation to DHCP and derived a DNS address from ipconfig.
There is such an abundance of crappy customer service out there you would think that any company that provides outstanding (or even reasonable) customer service could steal the market.
My biggest advice for companies wanting to reduce the cost of customer service is, "Clean it up upstream." Don't put out crappy products and you will have fewer customer service problems. This means solid design and VERY good documentation, plus some solid troubleshooting tips. Then pay your customer support techs better money, give them a nice place to work, and reward them for SOLVING PROBLEMS instead of just closing tickets or answering calls. (This means the customer support function needs to be "designed" instead of just being an afterthought.) Provide constant and high-quality training and alternative ways for the customer to get support, and for God's sake, ANSWER THE PHONE!
I ask my customers, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate our service?" Then I ask, "What would it take to make it a 10?" I have managed to retain some really loyal customers this way, and I have dropped services I can't provide good service for. Noone can please everyone, so I have also dropped customers who are impossible to please. Cleaning it up upstream for me (an integrator) means clarifying the scope of work and the customer expectations before I start the job. I also evaluate the customer's reasons for wanting my services. Many times they are trying to solve a problem by "jumping to solutions", and I have saved customers a lot of money and grief by helping them troubleshoot the whole problem before committing to help. It takes more time, but it prevents hassles downstream.
Chinese researchers today announced $10.2 million (USD) funding for a system to predict the outcomes of unpredictable outcomes predicted and influenced by US ATRAP computing, with the goal of further influencing the the outcomes to produce a balance-of-trade advantage for China and producing a complete domination of Taiwan...
I used to tutor Juniors, Seniors and Grad Students in Math and Physics. ALL learning is self-learning. No one "teaches" you; YOU do the learning. Remember to practice, and I suggest spending a lot of time doing word problems, since they are the reality of math.
OK, Arithmetic: "The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics" by Ann Cutler and Rudolph McShane. This will teach you to do Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division and Square Roots, much of it in your head. Learn to use an Abacus/Soroban. It helps to bring arithmetic into focus. there are a couple of computer-based practice utilities on the net to help you memorize the rules and gain quickness in TSS.
Algebra: "Programmed Reviews of Mathematics" by Flexer and Flexer. Six small books with a good introduction to the basics of many Math concepts.
"Algebra", "Functions and Relations", and "Trigonometry and Analytic Geometry": "Pre-calculus Mathematics" Vols I, II, III by Vernon Howe.
Calculus: "Quick Calculus" (Wiley Self-Study Guide) by Kleppner and Ramsey, and also "Calculator Calculus" by McCarty.
Most of these books are older and you will need to look for them. Most of them are "programmed instruction books", which is not a popular Thing to publish these days. Programmed Instruction was developed by B. F. Skinner and Norman Crowder and has been used to teach almost any subject imaginable. The information is presented in "frames" with questions and answers, on the principle that people learn faster in short, successful segments than they do with larger difficult presentations. Programmed Instruction seems to have fallen out of favor about the time that B. F. Skinner was castigated and demonized for his rigid behavioral views. I have never known anyone to NOT learn from good programmed instruction, if they could read the material and understand it. You might want to check with your physician to make sure you don't have an issue like dyscalcula (similar to dyslexia) or some other learning disorder that needs to be overcome first. If so, that could explain much of your frustration and can be handled.
Good programmed instruction takes a long time to develop and test. Each frame should lead to 96%+ success for people taking the course. Many older books simply broke up their information in short segments and asked a question without actually testing the goal and result. I am least satisfied with the Wiley Self-Study guides, but they are usually adequate for learning.
Actually, I don't mind being mod'd down considering some of the high quality responses. My discouragement about the Nobel committee comes from their opinion of the low-level/low-quality analysis and thought behind the claims of global warming. It is a bandwagon prize, and these recipients aren't worthy of the award, mostly because the evidence isn't sufficient to support the claims. If enoough time had pased to prove or disprove these claims of global warming, including the cause-effect relationships, I wouldn't be so discouraged.
I think intellecual and scientific integrity requires that we hold conclusions in abeyance until there is sufficient proof to support the claims. I don't need to have an opinion if there is not enough information to draw a conclusion, and I reserve the right to change my opinions in the light of further evidence.
As for being labled flamebait: The original post was controversial and lacked substance. Obviously, there are a large number of/. posters of diminished intellectual ability, and, as one post states, the "true believers" avoid actual discussion and are not worth the bandwidth. You can't discuss horsepower ideas with flypower minds. On the other hand, some of the posts are insightful and contain real gems of wisdom. It's a pity we have to wade through so much crap to find them. This is the type of discussion Protege-OWL was designed for.
...and the futility of trying to communicate with close-minded ignorant folks in the world, I guess you either think you have more knowledge about Chinese than the authors' of the Chinese linguistic books I read or suffer from some other kind of misconception.
First, Cantonese is a spoken language. Yes, you can write Chinese and a Cantonese speaker can read it using Cantonese words, but my former girlfriend says it is like listening to a person at a scientific conference reading a scholarly paper; it doesn't convey the essence of Cantonese. Mandarin has more structure and is less dynamic than Cantonese. Written Chinese conveys the essentials of Mandarin very well.
All languages are spoken. The writing that accompanies the language is not the language. It is only a representation of the language. In English, we have an alphabet that we arrange to convey a concept such as "dog" and it takes three letters with whatever number of strokes each letter takes, depending on the handwriting. In Chinese, the concept of "dog" is represented by a single symbol, and the strokes are all essential to conveying the concept. By that I mean that in English I could remove a symbol and still possibly lead a person to reconstruct the concept of "dog" by adding a placeholder, as in "_og" (a pet), but in Chinese, removing any of the strokes destroys the meaning of the concept conveyed.
You might be able to find an older paperback copy of "An Introduction to Linguistics and Language", by Christopher Hall. This book introduces the history and study of Linguistics, and You wouldn't be such an ignorant sap if you read it or any of the other fine books on Linguistics available.
Yeah, I understand about the written complexity. As I understand it, language is what is spoken, not what is written. (This is a linguistic distinction I got from one of my earliest linguistics books, by a guy named Hall.) I've had a couple of Chinese girlfriends, and I've given up all hope of really understanding Chinese (or understanding women, for that matter). I can communicate basic ideas in Art and Mathematics, but I'm certainly never going to write scholarly papers in Chinese. I can glean some knowledge from a Chinese newspaper and follow the ideographic subtitles on my favorite Chinese martial Arts movies (even when I change from right-channel to left), but I'm not a Sinophile and I don't have the ambition necessary to achieving real Mastery in Chinese.
However, in spoken-language terms, what Rudolf Flesch said in his book seems to be born out, as you said, in basic learning patterns. More complicated linguistic patterns keep cropping up as I listen in on more serious or technical topics.
Rudolf Flesch wrote some books back in the '50's implying that the most modern language we have is...CHINESE! Since Chinese is a spoken language rather than a written language (The writing is mostly pictorial representing whole concepts), it wasn't frozen in place with a bunch of affixes (suffixes, prefixes, etc.) or genders and all that other stuff that makes English hard to learn. Subject, verb, predicate.. That's all there is? You can't regularize verbs better than that! My last girlfriend was Cantonese (from Hong Kong) and since Cantonese doesn't really exist in a written form, it constantly changes patterns and vocabulary. I once had a book that showed 50 common patterns of Chinese language (VERY helpful book!), but it's getting harder to distinguish linguisitc patterns as Chinese "modernizes".
In Flesch's book, "How to Write, Speak and Think more effectively" he suggests getting clear communication by pretending you were composing in Chinese. Hmmmm..I need to find that book...
Actually, the googled links are a plant to test software that helps the NSA determine who is interested in it's activities, and the grant code is a key to tracing the CPU runningthe browser that is doing the googling.
Yes, that's my major problem with this whole issue: IF the woman was fully responsible for sharing her music library with the public, then what she did may have deprived the copyright owners of legitimate sales. If she (conspired, plotted, whatever) to deprive the copyright owner of their rights under copyright, then she committed a CRIME (fraud, theft, whatever) and she should have been taken to a criminal court, not a civil court. The underlying moral question is, "What constitutes theft?" and the generalized term for someone committing theft is "stealing". If she was prosecuted for theft, the record companies would have to prove she actually did the act, and that by doing the act she deprived them of their rights under copyright. This standard entails more precise use of evidence.
It looks like she may have a legitimate grounds for appeal, but the actual effect is to intimidate others rather than correct a moral lapse.
IMO, the two most important tasks of any government are the administration of Justice and defense or safety. As far as I can tell, most people don't think very deeply about Justice. For a good, head-expanding treatment of Justice, read the Justice topic in Mortimer Adler's, "Six Great Ideas".
"The consequence of not being involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors." -Plato
I have no problem seeing someone prosecuted for stealing, but I'm worried that Justice is failing in this area. First, I demand a clear, concise boundary for fair use. I don't care what SONY says, I'm not buying a "CD"; I'm buying the right to hear music when and where I want. This means I should be able to use the "device" that has the music I paid for in any way that allows me to meet my goals, as long as I don't deprive the copyright owner of a legitimate sale to (or for) another party. Within my household, having the music on my MP3 player should not preclude my daughter or guests from listening to the original device.
Second, the suit in MN was decided on a "preponderance of evidence", which is a lower standard than a criminal act which requires "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". Stealing is a criminal act. It should have been prosecuted as a criminal act. I don't have all the facts available to the jury, but I don't think this would have passed any "reasonable doubt" standard. If it had been prosecuted as a criminal act, and if the woman had been convicted, it would have been a perfect opportunity for the jury and judge to practice "reparative justice" by making her pay damages and punitive damages. (Sending a person to jail for stealing may temporarily prevent further theft, but it doesn't do the victims any good without reparations.)
I think this case fails both my criteria, and I'm disturbed that Justice is being used unfairly. (OK, I know this is not an ideal society, but I still have a DESIRE for a more ideal society, and I can criticize what I see as shortcomings.)
Interesting viewpoint. We may lack some hard statistics that would clarify the actual effectiveness and integrity of the FBI. I worked as a bail bondsman for a while in Houston. I would MUCH prefer to be investigated by the Feds than the locals. Houston is not as close to being a police state as it was 10 years ago, but that may be due to problems recruiting and keeping good cops, and they are undermanned. On the other hand, the Feds will investigate local police corruption or police abuse of authority in a heartbeat, and they can't generally be swayed from their investigations.
On the other hand there are the political investigations. The Oscar Wyatt case is a good example of something that is likely to be confused for years because the pressures are politically charged. (Wyatt is mostly Democrat, but contributes on both sides of the gate.) Now we have a case that is complicated and the public will never get to to see the complete relevant issues. The trial is very lengthy, the transactions are complex, and the justification for the transactions are tied to so many possible extenuating circumstances that people are likely to have a brain meltdown trying to decide whats a relevant fact and what's a judgment call. Needless to say, it is highly likely that the investigators are sucking up to the people who write their paychecks, but without proof we can't know for sure.
Thanks for the link. the only argument that I agree with in the list is, "Early disclosure encourages early use". The arguments for "Because everyone else does it this way do not impress me at all. My criteria is, "What is best for both the inventor and the public?"
I agree; the award should be based on the value of the item being used, which would certainly be part of any royalty arrangement. I did not mean to imply that the manufacturing cost of the item should be the deciding factor.
You may have a point. There are many people that think the patent system should be abolished completely. In the meantime, my criteria is, "what is best for both the inventor and the public?" The new law doesn't seem to protect the small inventor as well as what we have.
I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent". I believe that the policy of "prior art" protects the small inventor. Somehow this change is being ignored in light of the "small detail" portion of the bill. Some of the awards are clearly out-of-hand. An inventor should be compensated for someone stealing his/her invention, and punitive damages are appropriate, but surely the remuneration award should be based on fair royalties, right? So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part? If he didn't invent the whole machine he shouldn't be entitled to all the accumulated royalties due the other contirbuting inventors.
In over 40 years of working with computers, I've seen the cycle happen over and over again: Code is worthless unless it does something useful. Thre is a demand for applications, but the ability to produce these applications is deficient, so there is a demand for even the worst programmers until employers scale back their expectations. One statistic bandied about is that over 90% of all programming projects are never completed. Why? Because there are too few teams that can produce good products.
So much code is computer-generated these days that the real talent is in analyzing processes and DEFINING the functions. Once the process is defined, any generator, Foreign Programmer or first-year high school graduate can be taught to code to the requirements. Even some of the hard decisions in programming are falling to AI as long as the analyst can adequately describe inputs and outputs, or functions, or look-feel. There is a reason that some fast, cool code is developed in short lead times in Haskell. A program like Libero http://legacy.imatix.com/html/libero makes good programmers; the program works even if the code is not totally efficient, as long as the definitions are correct and complete.
Learn to design good solutions and there will always be a position for you. Remember, though, the position that makes use of these skills will probably change drastically over the years as the tools get more sophisticated. (Another statistic bandied about is that the workers my daughter's age (32) will have over 30 career upheavals during their working lifetimes.)
How many "nerds" specifically, are libertarian compared to non-libertarian? (And what is a "nerd"?)
Libertarianism is growing in popularity globally, but doesn't seem to be the popular view yet. There are no hard and fast cause-effect correlations for the increase in popularity. The "common wisdom" is that people gravitate toward libertarianism when they perceive that it works. I strongly recommend the articles at http://www.mskousen.com/ for interesting discussion points on libertarianism. The articles regarding "Economics in One Page" and "One Graph says it All" are particularly interesting.
According to Economist Bryan Caplan in an article in "The Economist", the higher the education level, the more likely it is that a person will agree with the views of Economics researchers, and these views are not very far apart in most cases.
If, as you suggest, more nerds are leaning toward Libertarianism, then I would forward an hypothesis that those nerds are better educated than the general populace, and that they have a value system that reflects personal responsibility and self-ownership. (You might find good explanations of these views in books by Bastiat, Locke and Mill.)
After reading the Dem Senator's comments and some of the discussion, my question is, "Why?"
First off, the engineering JOBS are going to China, India, etc. because the engineers there do a competitive job at a lower price. This won't change just because we graduate more Engineers (although it will drive the price for domestic Engineers down due to increase in supply). While there will always be a requirement for some local manufacturing and research, most of it will re-locate where it can be done most efficiently. In the near future this probably means China, India, Vietnam and the Philippines.
The government strongly subsidizes the teaching profession, and look what happened; we got lots of under-qualified teachers who are little more than prison wardens. (Parents should sue the Public School System for fraud.) http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
In Soviet Russia the government tells you what to learn.
This type of plan to use limeted buttons to generate full keyboard capability has been around since at leat 1978, when a device called "The WriteHander" made the cover of a popular PC magazine. I've seen a number of similar devices, and I'm frankly puzzeld as to why they aren't more prevalent. Surely there are handicapped people who could benefit from this. I like the idea of a one-device mouse/input device attached to a computer.
Although the Wikipedia is not authoritative, an open-minded person could learn a lot from just reading the publications in the references.
Labels, such as "Libertarian" or "Neocon" are simply a shortcut to bypassing rational thinking, and it seems to be used a lot by people trying to sell their own views without the courage to explain their claims. When I hear people dismissing someone else's views based on a label, I don't know very much about the person whose views are being dismissed, but it tells me a lot about the person doing the dismissing. There appears to be quite a difference in views among people who purport to be anything, whether Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, or whatever. I'm interested in what the PERSON thinks, not what the "label" thinks. If someone dismisses an idea ad hominem, innuendo, guilt-by-association, etc., I get bored pretty easily. I want to hear someone discuss an idea on the merits, not on prejudice. If someone tells me he/she is informed enough to discuss economic principles, I expect them to have read both Marx and Hayek (along with the other major contributors to Economics), and I expect them to be able to express their opinion's rationally. Otherwise, a person with integrity should probably admit they don't have enough relevant information to form an opinion. Opinions can be changed in the light of further evidence, but it is not necessary to have an opinion on everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the changes in Science come from just thinking about things differently. Whether Stephen is arrogant or not is irrelevant to the ideas or claims being evaluated. I doubt anything is invented in a vacuum, but rather a product of all the little discoveries and thoughts finally coalescing into something tangible.
The main point here is that we are reaching limits in machine technology, and jumping to a different scale will require a new way of thinking about what we've already learned.
Let me recommend three books: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn, "Bionics" by Salsburg, and "How Inventions Begin" by Leinhard. Three different thinkers; three different descriptions of the progress of technology.
I have heard a number of criticisms on NKS, but most of the critics I've met have not actually read the book. (OK, it's a big book... I've found the same problems with people criticizing "Science and Sanity" by Korzybski, "Synergetics" by Fuller, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville.) If you are going to criticize a book, please read it and understand it first.
Recently William Gibson mentioned the problems with writing Science Fiction due to the unpredictability of the future and rapid technological change. As our technology becomes more abstract, more materials will be "intelligent" in new ways. For instance, imagine concrete with the intelligence to repair itself when a pothole is in imminent probability of forming. This type of "Turing Machine" computational ability at the molecular level may be the key to inventing this product.
"The Wisdom of the Crowds" does not apply here. TWOTC applies to aggregated decisions made my groups of people. This is more akin to a routing algorithm than individual assessment of a condition.
If you assume that most people don't know anything about a certain condition, those who don't know anything will probably cancel each other out 50-50, but the percentage of people who are knowledgeable about the condition will make more correct assessment. Therefore, when all the choices/assessments are aggregated, the knowledgeable choices will tip the median assessment in the right direction, and the crowd's assessment will be appear to be more reliable than individual choices.
In this particular case, there are several specific traffic algorithms that apply to a variety of traffic patterns, and since the information is being fed back in near real-time, it makes the service more useful.
You might be on to something here... I don't agree that quality can't be measured (Deming proved that it could in Japan), but I do agree that businesses with real good service are not communicating that difference to potential customers in a way that counts. This would be a good area to think on...
Hmmmm. In my area (Houston, TX) I'm not aware of any Federal, State or local subsidies for telco infrastructure paid for through tax dollars. That doesn't mean they don't exist or haven't existed, it just means I'm not aware of them. How does this work in your area and how did you research/discover the public funding?
I have some customers who use ComCast now that they own Houston's RoadRunner customers. (That is not really a typo...) I had occasion to call ComCast the other day asking for technical assistance for a customer replacing their Linksys Wireless cable gateway. Comcast told me they would have to fill out a form with the new MAC address and the account would be updated in 5-7 days. After an hour of being transferred around I finally found someone who updated the account MAC address in 5 minutes. Then I asked for the DNS address of the nameservers. They told me they didn't support DNS. I got transferred to four people who didn't have a CLUE about Windows XP needing a nameserver address (if you have a static IP, even if it's an internal NAT address) before I finally simply hung up, set the workstation to DHCP and derived a DNS address from ipconfig.
There is such an abundance of crappy customer service out there you would think that any company that provides outstanding (or even reasonable) customer service could steal the market.
My biggest advice for companies wanting to reduce the cost of customer service is, "Clean it up upstream." Don't put out crappy products and you will have fewer customer service problems. This means solid design and VERY good documentation, plus some solid troubleshooting tips. Then pay your customer support techs better money, give them a nice place to work, and reward them for SOLVING PROBLEMS instead of just closing tickets or answering calls. (This means the customer support function needs to be "designed" instead of just being an afterthought.) Provide constant and high-quality training and alternative ways for the customer to get support, and for God's sake, ANSWER THE PHONE!
I ask my customers, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate our service?" Then I ask, "What would it take to make it a 10?" I have managed to retain some really loyal customers this way, and I have dropped services I can't provide good service for. Noone can please everyone, so I have also dropped customers who are impossible to please. Cleaning it up upstream for me (an integrator) means clarifying the scope of work and the customer expectations before I start the job. I also evaluate the customer's reasons for wanting my services. Many times they are trying to solve a problem by "jumping to solutions", and I have saved customers a lot of money and grief by helping them troubleshoot the whole problem before committing to help. It takes more time, but it prevents hassles downstream.
Chinese researchers today announced $10.2 million (USD) funding for a system to predict the outcomes of unpredictable outcomes predicted and influenced by US ATRAP computing, with the goal of further influencing the the outcomes to produce a balance-of-trade advantage for China and producing a complete domination of Taiwan...
I used to tutor Juniors, Seniors and Grad Students in Math and Physics. ALL learning is self-learning. No one "teaches" you; YOU do the learning. Remember to practice, and I suggest spending a lot of time doing word problems, since they are the reality of math.
OK, Arithmetic: "The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics" by Ann Cutler and Rudolph McShane. This will teach you to do Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division and Square Roots, much of it in your head. Learn to use an Abacus/Soroban. It helps to bring arithmetic into focus. there are a couple of computer-based practice utilities on the net to help you memorize the rules and gain quickness in TSS.
Algebra: "Programmed Reviews of Mathematics" by Flexer and Flexer. Six small books with a good introduction to the basics of many Math concepts.
"Algebra", "Functions and Relations", and "Trigonometry and Analytic Geometry": "Pre-calculus Mathematics" Vols I, II, III by Vernon Howe.
Calculus: "Quick Calculus" (Wiley Self-Study Guide) by Kleppner and Ramsey, and also "Calculator Calculus" by McCarty.
Most of these books are older and you will need to look for them. Most of them are "programmed instruction books", which is not a popular Thing to publish these days. Programmed Instruction was developed by B. F. Skinner and Norman Crowder and has been used to teach almost any subject imaginable. The information is presented in "frames" with questions and answers, on the principle that people learn faster in short, successful segments than they do with larger difficult presentations. Programmed Instruction seems to have fallen out of favor about the time that B. F. Skinner was castigated and demonized for his rigid behavioral views. I have never known anyone to NOT learn from good programmed instruction, if they could read the material and understand it. You might want to check with your physician to make sure you don't have an issue like dyscalcula (similar to dyslexia) or some other learning disorder that needs to be overcome first. If so, that could explain much of your frustration and can be handled.
Good programmed instruction takes a long time to develop and test. Each frame should lead to 96%+ success for people taking the course. Many older books simply broke up their information in short segments and asked a question without actually testing the goal and result. I am least satisfied with the Wiley Self-Study guides, but they are usually adequate for learning.
Good luck!
Actually, I don't mind being mod'd down considering some of the high quality responses. My discouragement about the Nobel committee comes from their opinion of the low-level/low-quality analysis and thought behind the claims of global warming. It is a bandwagon prize, and these recipients aren't worthy of the award, mostly because the evidence isn't sufficient to support the claims. If enoough time had pased to prove or disprove these claims of global warming, including the cause-effect relationships, I wouldn't be so discouraged.
/. posters of diminished intellectual ability, and, as one post states, the "true believers" avoid actual discussion and are not worth the bandwidth. You can't discuss horsepower ideas with flypower minds. On the other hand, some of the posts are insightful and contain real gems of wisdom. It's a pity we have to wade through so much crap to find them. This is the type of discussion Protege-OWL was designed for.
I think intellecual and scientific integrity requires that we hold conclusions in abeyance until there is sufficient proof to support the claims. I don't need to have an opinion if there is not enough information to draw a conclusion, and I reserve the right to change my opinions in the light of further evidence.
As for being labled flamebait: The original post was controversial and lacked substance. Obviously, there are a large number of
Well, there goes any confidence I've had in the competency and integrity of the Nobel committee.
...and the futility of trying to communicate with close-minded ignorant folks in the world, I guess you either think you have more knowledge about Chinese than the authors' of the Chinese linguistic books I read or suffer from some other kind of misconception.
First, Cantonese is a spoken language. Yes, you can write Chinese and a Cantonese speaker can read it using Cantonese words, but my former girlfriend says it is like listening to a person at a scientific conference reading a scholarly paper; it doesn't convey the essence of Cantonese. Mandarin has more structure and is less dynamic than Cantonese. Written Chinese conveys the essentials of Mandarin very well.
All languages are spoken. The writing that accompanies the language is not the language. It is only a representation of the language. In English, we have an alphabet that we arrange to convey a concept such as "dog" and it takes three letters with whatever number of strokes each letter takes, depending on the handwriting. In Chinese, the concept of "dog" is represented by a single symbol, and the strokes are all essential to conveying the concept. By that I mean that in English I could remove a symbol and still possibly lead a person to reconstruct the concept of "dog" by adding a placeholder, as in "_og" (a pet), but in Chinese, removing any of the strokes destroys the meaning of the concept conveyed.
You might be able to find an older paperback copy of "An Introduction to Linguistics and Language", by Christopher Hall. This book introduces the history and study of Linguistics, and You wouldn't be such an ignorant sap if you read it or any of the other fine books on Linguistics available.
Yeah, I understand about the written complexity. As I understand it, language is what is spoken, not what is written. (This is a linguistic distinction I got from one of my earliest linguistics books, by a guy named Hall.) I've had a couple of Chinese girlfriends, and I've given up all hope of really understanding Chinese (or understanding women, for that matter). I can communicate basic ideas in Art and Mathematics, but I'm certainly never going to write scholarly papers in Chinese. I can glean some knowledge from a Chinese newspaper and follow the ideographic subtitles on my favorite Chinese martial Arts movies (even when I change from right-channel to left), but I'm not a Sinophile and I don't have the ambition necessary to achieving real Mastery in Chinese.
However, in spoken-language terms, what Rudolf Flesch said in his book seems to be born out, as you said, in basic learning patterns. More complicated linguistic patterns keep cropping up as I listen in on more serious or technical topics.
Rudolf Flesch wrote some books back in the '50's implying that the most modern language we have is...CHINESE! Since Chinese is a spoken language rather than a written language (The writing is mostly pictorial representing whole concepts), it wasn't frozen in place with a bunch of affixes (suffixes, prefixes, etc.) or genders and all that other stuff that makes English hard to learn. Subject, verb, predicate .. That's all there is? You can't regularize verbs better than that! My last girlfriend was Cantonese (from Hong Kong) and since Cantonese doesn't really exist in a written form, it constantly changes patterns and vocabulary. I once had a book that showed 50 common patterns of Chinese language (VERY helpful book!), but it's getting harder to distinguish linguisitc patterns as Chinese "modernizes".
In Flesch's book, "How to Write, Speak and Think more effectively" he suggests getting clear communication by pretending you were composing in Chinese. Hmmmm..I need to find that book...
Actually, the googled links are a plant to test software that helps the NSA determine who is interested in it's activities, and the grant code is a key to tracing the CPU runningthe browser that is doing the googling.
Yes, that's my major problem with this whole issue: IF the woman was fully responsible for sharing her music library with the public, then what she did may have deprived the copyright owners of legitimate sales. If she (conspired, plotted, whatever) to deprive the copyright owner of their rights under copyright, then she committed a CRIME (fraud, theft, whatever) and she should have been taken to a criminal court, not a civil court. The underlying moral question is, "What constitutes theft?" and the generalized term for someone committing theft is "stealing". If she was prosecuted for theft, the record companies would have to prove she actually did the act, and that by doing the act she deprived them of their rights under copyright. This standard entails more precise use of evidence.
It looks like she may have a legitimate grounds for appeal, but the actual effect is to intimidate others rather than correct a moral lapse.
IMO, the two most important tasks of any government are the administration of Justice and defense or safety. As far as I can tell, most people don't think very deeply about Justice. For a good, head-expanding treatment of Justice, read the Justice topic in Mortimer Adler's, "Six Great Ideas".
"The consequence of not being involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors." -Plato
I have no problem seeing someone prosecuted for stealing, but I'm worried that Justice is failing in this area. First, I demand a clear, concise boundary for fair use. I don't care what SONY says, I'm not buying a "CD"; I'm buying the right to hear music when and where I want. This means I should be able to use the "device" that has the music I paid for in any way that allows me to meet my goals, as long as I don't deprive the copyright owner of a legitimate sale to (or for) another party. Within my household, having the music on my MP3 player should not preclude my daughter or guests from listening to the original device.
Second, the suit in MN was decided on a "preponderance of evidence", which is a lower standard than a criminal act which requires "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". Stealing is a criminal act. It should have been prosecuted as a criminal act. I don't have all the facts available to the jury, but I don't think this would have passed any "reasonable doubt" standard. If it had been prosecuted as a criminal act, and if the woman had been convicted, it would have been a perfect opportunity for the jury and judge to practice "reparative justice" by making her pay damages and punitive damages. (Sending a person to jail for stealing may temporarily prevent further theft, but it doesn't do the victims any good without reparations.)
I think this case fails both my criteria, and I'm disturbed that Justice is being used unfairly. (OK, I know this is not an ideal society, but I still have a DESIRE for a more ideal society, and I can criticize what I see as shortcomings.)
Interesting viewpoint. We may lack some hard statistics that would clarify the actual effectiveness and integrity of the FBI. I worked as a bail bondsman for a while in Houston. I would MUCH prefer to be investigated by the Feds than the locals. Houston is not as close to being a police state as it was 10 years ago, but that may be due to problems recruiting and keeping good cops, and they are undermanned. On the other hand, the Feds will investigate local police corruption or police abuse of authority in a heartbeat, and they can't generally be swayed from their investigations.
On the other hand there are the political investigations. The Oscar Wyatt case is a good example of something that is likely to be confused for years because the pressures are politically charged. (Wyatt is mostly Democrat, but contributes on both sides of the gate.) Now we have a case that is complicated and the public will never get to to see the complete relevant issues. The trial is very lengthy, the transactions are complex, and the justification for the transactions are tied to so many possible extenuating circumstances that people are likely to have a brain meltdown trying to decide whats a relevant fact and what's a judgment call. Needless to say, it is highly likely that the investigators are sucking up to the people who write their paychecks, but without proof we can't know for sure.
Thanks for the link. the only argument that I agree with in the list is, "Early disclosure encourages early use". The arguments for "Because everyone else does it this way do not impress me at all. My criteria is, "What is best for both the inventor and the public?"
I agree; the award should be based on the value of the item being used, which would certainly be part of any royalty arrangement. I did not mean to imply that the manufacturing cost of the item should be the deciding factor.
You may have a point. There are many people that think the patent system should be abolished completely. In the meantime, my criteria is, "what is best for both the inventor and the public?" The new law doesn't seem to protect the small inventor as well as what we have.
I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent". I believe that the policy of "prior art" protects the small inventor. Somehow this change is being ignored in light of the "small detail" portion of the bill. Some of the awards are clearly out-of-hand. An inventor should be compensated for someone stealing his/her invention, and punitive damages are appropriate, but surely the remuneration award should be based on fair royalties, right? So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part? If he didn't invent the whole machine he shouldn't be entitled to all the accumulated royalties due the other contirbuting inventors.
In over 40 years of working with computers, I've seen the cycle happen over and over again: Code is worthless unless it does something useful. Thre is a demand for applications, but the ability to produce these applications is deficient, so there is a demand for even the worst programmers until employers scale back their expectations. One statistic bandied about is that over 90% of all programming projects are never completed. Why? Because there are too few teams that can produce good products.
So much code is computer-generated these days that the real talent is in analyzing processes and DEFINING the functions. Once the process is defined, any generator, Foreign Programmer or first-year high school graduate can be taught to code to the requirements. Even some of the hard decisions in programming are falling to AI as long as the analyst can adequately describe inputs and outputs, or functions, or look-feel. There is a reason that some fast, cool code is developed in short lead times in Haskell. A program like Libero http://legacy.imatix.com/html/libero makes good programmers; the program works even if the code is not totally efficient, as long as the definitions are correct and complete.
Learn to design good solutions and there will always be a position for you. Remember, though, the position that makes use of these skills will probably change drastically over the years as the tools get more sophisticated. (Another statistic bandied about is that the workers my daughter's age (32) will have over 30 career upheavals during their working lifetimes.)
How many "nerds" specifically, are libertarian compared to non-libertarian? (And what is a "nerd"?)
Libertarianism is growing in popularity globally, but doesn't seem to be the popular view yet. There are no hard and fast cause-effect correlations for the increase in popularity. The "common wisdom" is that people gravitate toward libertarianism when they perceive that it works. I strongly recommend the articles at http://www.mskousen.com/ for interesting discussion points on libertarianism. The articles regarding "Economics in One Page" and "One Graph says it All" are particularly interesting.
According to Economist Bryan Caplan in an article in "The Economist", the higher the education level, the more likely it is that a person will agree with the views of Economics researchers, and these views are not very far apart in most cases.
If, as you suggest, more nerds are leaning toward Libertarianism, then I would forward an hypothesis that those nerds are better educated than the general populace, and that they have a value system that reflects personal responsibility and self-ownership. (You might find good explanations of these views in books by Bastiat, Locke and Mill.)
After reading the Dem Senator's comments and some of the discussion, my question is, "Why?"
First off, the engineering JOBS are going to China, India, etc. because the engineers there do a competitive job at a lower price. This won't change just because we graduate more Engineers (although it will drive the price for domestic Engineers down due to increase in supply). While there will always be a requirement for some local manufacturing and research, most of it will re-locate where it can be done most efficiently. In the near future this probably means China, India, Vietnam and the Philippines.
The government strongly subsidizes the teaching profession, and look what happened; we got lots of under-qualified teachers who are little more than prison wardens. (Parents should sue the Public School System for fraud.) http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
In Soviet Russia the government tells you what to learn.
This type of plan to use limeted buttons to generate full keyboard capability has been around since at leat 1978, when a device called "The WriteHander" made the cover of a popular PC magazine. I've seen a number of similar devices, and I'm frankly puzzeld as to why they aren't more prevalent. Surely there are handicapped people who could benefit from this. I like the idea of a one-device mouse/input device attached to a computer.
A starting point for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
A second point of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences
Although the Wikipedia is not authoritative, an open-minded person could learn a lot from just reading the publications in the references.
Labels, such as "Libertarian" or "Neocon" are simply a shortcut to bypassing rational thinking, and it seems to be used a lot by people trying to sell their own views without the courage to explain their claims. When I hear people dismissing someone else's views based on a label, I don't know very much about the person whose views are being dismissed, but it tells me a lot about the person doing the dismissing. There appears to be quite a difference in views among people who purport to be anything, whether Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Communists, or whatever. I'm interested in what the PERSON thinks, not what the "label" thinks. If someone dismisses an idea ad hominem, innuendo, guilt-by-association, etc., I get bored pretty easily. I want to hear someone discuss an idea on the merits, not on prejudice. If someone tells me he/she is informed enough to discuss economic principles, I expect them to have read both Marx and Hayek (along with the other major contributors to Economics), and I expect them to be able to express their opinion's rationally. Otherwise, a person with integrity should probably admit they don't have enough relevant information to form an opinion. Opinions can be changed in the light of further evidence, but it is not necessary to have an opinion on everything.