And no, their power isn't genetic. No it's not genetic, but it's also not just handed to them, it's learned. Just like the children of a business owner learn how to start a business, while most people wouldn't even know where to start; the children of policians, learn politics. Unfortunately most of the masses don't educate themselves, which is the greatest tragedy. Though it's more difficult for somebody who doesn't come from a wealthy background, the opportunity is there. How many people actually participate in goverment at the local level? At that level you can make a difference despite what corporations want, but most of the time people don't care. So usually it ends up being a couple loudmouths with their own agenda who make the rules for the apathetic masses, and this bubbles up to national level. If you were a politician who would you listen to most? The 50% who said nothing, the 25% who voted against you, the 20% who voted for you, or the 5% who actively participated in getting you elected. That is why a small minority get their agenda across, not just the money contributers, but the people who were leaders and went out and organized a group of people behind you. There is a reason certain groups like the christian coalition have so much power. It isn't money, its the fact that their leadership can mobilize a large group of sheep behind a specific candidate. There is one thing politicians listen to more than money, and that's votes. Goverment is not inherently evil, people are victims of their own apathy.
Re:Governments are not concerned...
on
China Bans 50 Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They organize to use you for power. You don't even have a choice In democracy, there is a difference between feeling like you don't have a choice, and not having a choice. Most people are too lazy to change things, that's the problem. True leaders, that have a vision, who can organize, and influence change are few and far between, most people just follow. Why do we still give favored nation status to China? It's because most average people prefer to save a few bucks on a DVD player than worry about the faceless victims. If the people don't care (60% voter turnout), then of course goverment will remain in control. Let me put it this way, your money (stamped with the very face of the kings that made the rules your life) has always been taken out of your hardworking hands and given to some bastard at the top to buy polo ponies Because of course nobody at the top actually worked their way up there. Once again most people are too lazy and shortsighted to do the kind of hard work and risk taking required to become successful.
Giving up control is definately the hardest part. Do not try to solve everybody's problems, it is doubtful you'll have a new off-the-cuff solution that works. What you need to do is just make sure they are working to solve the problem and understand the direction they are going and what help, if any, is needed (ie more resources, new lab equipment, etc.).
What typically happens with a micromanaging boss: Sir we have this proble... Well have you tried X? Yes, it didn't work How about Y? That wasn't workable under our conditions What about Z? It failed too Hmmm, I'll try to think of something A good manager will ask, "okay so what are your plans for a solution?" Then evaluate what the plans are and acts as a fresh set of eyes to double-check that they make sense, give technical input, ensures it fits budget, and timelines.
Yes, but how does it do against a grandmaster
on
Machine Learns Games
·
· Score: 1
What I initially thought of when I saw "Machine Learns Game" Shall we play a game Love to. How about rock-paper-scissors. Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess? Later. Right now lets play rock-paper-scissors Fine A strange game. The only way to not look like a dork is not to play.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-big-brother as the next person, but in a society where privacy cannot be garunteed, the next best thing is to have as much as public as possible. Since we cannot guarantee privacy, we should just eliminate it? So you want your coworkers to know how much money you make, know your medical history, have an exact account of when you take your breaks, how long your lunch is, etc. Oh look Joe from accounting takes 2 hour lunch breaks he doesn't deserve more money than me. Except perhaps he's efficient and gets more accomplished than you in less time. This promotes a backstabbing type mentality in the workplace. More information is not necessarily better unless you have a good way to analyze it to get a complete picture. In your example of shoes:The company wants to make shoes in Indonesia for a total material and labor cost of $20/pair and sell them in the USA for $120/pair. You forgot to mention the other expenses. Company spent $13/pair in marketing, $5/pair getting choice shelving at the store, $3/pair tariffs, $2/pair overhead, $4/pair shipping, $5/pair licensing. So that $20/pair of shoes for material & labor actually cost $50. Of course you are selling it wholesale for $75 (50% pre-tax margin). Then the retailer sells it for $120, of course the retailer has its own costs to factor in. If you don't understand an industry how can you accurately understand all the information provided? You can't, but what will happen is people with their own agendas will use the information to put their own spin on things. So while a company may look like it has 500% margins, in actuallity it makes about 44% (12/22/04 10-Q filing). How can you expect people to make good use of increased information when they don't even spend the time to look through what is provided now.
But what exactly is the speed of light? If I stand here and shine a laser, sure, it has a speed, but think about it: This planet is hurtling through space at breakneck speeds. Now add the speed of light from my laser to the speed the Earth is moving, and voila! You have a speed faster than the speed of light First rule of relativity club is the speed of light is the same for all observers. Which means your laser will appear to be travelling the same speed for somebody travelling through space at "Breakneck speeds" as it would for somebody just leaning back in a chair sipping a Corona watching you.
Laws against murder and theft are not to protect morality, but to protect one's rights, specifically the right to life and property. Life and property rights seem self evident but when you look at specifics they come down to moral questions. One example is intellectual property" rights. That comes down to a moral arguement about what society agrees upon. Do you have certain rights to your intellectual creations and discoveries? Also, what moral authority does the state have to tax you, or do your children have to your property? Euthanasia is another example, do you have the right to terminate your own life? Then when you have conflicts between these two "self evident" rights which become moral decisions. If you break into my house can i shoot you? Is my right to property greater than your right to life?
Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4 Yes I'm sure Intel hates that they drove down AMD market share from 20% to 12% with their marketing driven scheme. Like it or not, keeping the Mhz-Myth alive worked, the mistake was they kept it going one generation too long (Prescott) before making the switch.
I see goals as being the way to motivate somebody to keep busy. You can't just "keep busy," you have to want something. When you tell a kid they need to learn algebra, the first thing they reply with (or at least think) is "Why?" That question is directly asking what the end is to all "this busy work". Few people I know actually like doing math or physics problems. If you treat math or reading or any subject as the end goal, its not inspiring. If math or reading is a means to an end, something that is interesting then the person is more likely to want to learn. Which is more motiviating? Tell them to program for 2 hours, then tell them to do some chemistry research for a few more hours (basically what school does); or get them started working on a solar power RC car, get them involved in building a robot. It's these application oriented activities that really drive studying and interest. Most people know in general what they want, even at an early age. Typically if they set some sort of goal, even if later on they are not as interested, many of the things they worked on are applicable to their next desire. Somebody interested in robotics, may discover the programming side just isn't as "fun" as the mechanical side. It's only through experience can somebody learn about themselves and how things actually work.
Actually I think he addresses the issue of goal setting, though not exactly using the term
"What you need to do is discover what you like. You have to work on stuff you like if you want to be good at what you do." Perhaps my definition of goal setting differs from the common usage. I pretty much have the same feeling from my experience as Graham, find that which you will be passionate about. I think that's what makes college such a wonderful place, because it addresses the issue he brings up "But there are other jobs you can't learn about, because no one is doing them yet." It gives you the opportunity to get much broader experiences, and many of those jobs 10 years down the line are functioning in a lab, though only one or two people are doing it. Personally I had no idea what a materials engineer did, I was gung-ho CompE going into college, then I discovered a new area of study I had never heard of things more specific to what I wanted and loved. Also, that's why college isn't necessary for everybody, some people have discovered their passion earlier on, and can do their own study, and will be driven to dedicate themselves towards success.
Actually there is something more important than convincing them to study harder. What they need to do is learn to set goals on what they actually want to accomplish in life. Most people during that time in their life don't know what they want. They have no goals, so they really just muddle around not working towards anything. After school maybe just hang around, or mindlessly play video games. Its also not just a matter of setting the goal "go to college." They need to find something facinating that inspires them. Something like "Build robots," from that college will be a step to something they truly want. Then beyond school they can pursue Lego/Battlebots/programming or other hobbies that are advancing them towards their goal. Let's say a couple years from now they decide they aren't so interested in robots, at least they've acquired alot of skills that will be helpful in their next passion.
It's pretty easy to get $3,000 at 15. You have no bills to pay, so by working part time during the school year and full time over the summer you can get $3,000. Unfortunately I wasted all my hard earned money on Magic Cards and computer games. If you're in debt because of college, it's a fool's errand to invest unless you can get a much better interest rate than the one you're paying on your loans. Unless you get tax breaks on that invested money as well, such as 401k or IRA.
Which is sad because I love IT. But I don't want to be around when all the jobs disappear. Like what happened to textiles, aerospace, and manufacturing. I work in electronics manufacturing, and the jobs haven't all disappeared. Although, you can't just pick up "PCB assembly for dummies" manual and expect to get in. If you're motivated and dedicated then the jobs are there. There are also advanatages for a constricted job market: 1. Your coworkers are talented and really want to be in that field. You don't have to worry about fixing the mess your coworkers make because they are completely clueless and/or unmotivated.
2. The type of work you get is more interesting. While most production is done in other countries, the R&D is still done in the US. So although there are overall less jobs, they are the higher paying, and more fulfilling ones. The problem with IT right now is it got saturated with "cash grabbers" who didn't care about the industry, they just saw big money with little work. So the supply of "qualified" people is much larger than the demand. Over time it will be much easier for somebody like you who truly loves the field to get a job, although I know it's no consolation for the bleak short-term outlook.
Or that the electron occupies a large amount of space, and oozes through the screen. Also occurs with individual photons, which don't take up space. Particle/wave duality applies to atoms as well. Yes you can compute wavelength with the DeBroglie equation, which correlates wavelength with mass and kinetic energy.
I always thought the general idea was that our Universe was going to slowly stop expanding and start contracting, eventually ending in another big bang and the whole process starts over again. That's so 80's get with the times, the current theories revolve around bubbles and strings and technical stuff like that.
The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself. There's a reason why very talented people who don't sell out linger in obscurity, while an untalented Ashlee Simpson is given a national stage to perform.
A similar problem is seen modernly in folk lore. Traditionally the stories have been passed down verbally and have changed both with the situation they are told in and with the times. As soon as they are written down there becomes a "right way" to tell them. Many view this as being harmful to folk traditions in general. How do you define a story? If you confine it to exact names, exact locations, and specific events, then you are right, a specific story doesn't change. If you view them more broadly as character types, locations, and plots, people still interpret and retell stories. In the late 19th century people feared machines, in the late 20th century it wasn't steam powered monstrosities they feared it was computers. The basic premise of "we are the creators of our own demise" has been retold to fit our times. Look at stories, movies, TV from a few decades back... much of it was influenced by the cold war. Now similar stories are based more around the fear of decentralized terrorist groups, nuclear winter senarios have been replaced by giant meteors and global warming, the rail robber barons replaced by the multinational corporation.
You're talking about the kids who buy Abercrombie & Fitch when you can get better quality from K-Mart and buy Starbucks when you could get it for $5.50 less from the gas station. K-Mart clothes and gas station coffee aren't exactly what I call quality products.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep them maxed out. Sure they can have my credit card number, but just wait until they get that look of shame when they try to use it.
And no, their power isn't genetic.
No it's not genetic, but it's also not just handed to them, it's learned. Just like the children of a business owner learn how to start a business, while most people wouldn't even know where to start; the children of policians, learn politics. Unfortunately most of the masses don't educate themselves, which is the greatest tragedy. Though it's more difficult for somebody who doesn't come from a wealthy background, the opportunity is there.
How many people actually participate in goverment at the local level? At that level you can make a difference despite what corporations want, but most of the time people don't care. So usually it ends up being a couple loudmouths with their own agenda who make the rules for the apathetic masses, and this bubbles up to national level.
If you were a politician who would you listen to most? The 50% who said nothing, the 25% who voted against you, the 20% who voted for you, or the 5% who actively participated in getting you elected. That is why a small minority get their agenda across, not just the money contributers, but the people who were leaders and went out and organized a group of people behind you. There is a reason certain groups like the christian coalition have so much power. It isn't money, its the fact that their leadership can mobilize a large group of sheep behind a specific candidate. There is one thing politicians listen to more than money, and that's votes.
Goverment is not inherently evil, people are victims of their own apathy.
They organize to use you for power. You don't even have a choice
In democracy, there is a difference between feeling like you don't have a choice, and not having a choice. Most people are too lazy to change things, that's the problem. True leaders, that have a vision, who can organize, and influence change are few and far between, most people just follow. Why do we still give favored nation status to China? It's because most average people prefer to save a few bucks on a DVD player than worry about the faceless victims. If the people don't care (60% voter turnout), then of course goverment will remain in control.
Let me put it this way, your money (stamped with the very face of the kings that made the rules your life) has always been taken out of your hardworking hands and given to some bastard at the top to buy polo ponies
Because of course nobody at the top actually worked their way up there. Once again most people are too lazy and shortsighted to do the kind of hard work and risk taking required to become successful.
Giving up control is definately the hardest part. Do not try to solve everybody's problems, it is doubtful you'll have a new off-the-cuff solution that works. What you need to do is just make sure they are working to solve the problem and understand the direction they are going and what help, if any, is needed (ie more resources, new lab equipment, etc.).
What typically happens with a micromanaging boss:
Sir we have this proble...
Well have you tried X?
Yes, it didn't work
How about Y?
That wasn't workable under our conditions
What about Z?
It failed too
Hmmm, I'll try to think of something
A good manager will ask, "okay so what are your plans for a solution?" Then evaluate what the plans are and acts as a fresh set of eyes to double-check that they make sense, give technical input, ensures it fits budget, and timelines.
How long before we have a man-vs-machine RPS championship
What I initially thought of when I saw "Machine Learns Game"
Shall we play a game
Love to. How about rock-paper-scissors.
Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
Later. Right now lets play rock-paper-scissors
Fine
A strange game. The only way to not look like a dork is not to play.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-big-brother as the next person, but in a society where privacy cannot be garunteed, the next best thing is to have as much as public as possible.
Since we cannot guarantee privacy, we should just eliminate it? So you want your coworkers to know how much money you make, know your medical history, have an exact account of when you take your breaks, how long your lunch is, etc. Oh look Joe from accounting takes 2 hour lunch breaks he doesn't deserve more money than me. Except perhaps he's efficient and gets more accomplished than you in less time. This promotes a backstabbing type mentality in the workplace.
More information is not necessarily better unless you have a good way to analyze it to get a complete picture.
In your example of shoes:The company wants to make shoes in Indonesia for a total material and labor cost of $20/pair and sell them in the USA for $120/pair.
You forgot to mention the other expenses. Company spent $13/pair in marketing, $5/pair getting choice shelving at the store, $3/pair tariffs, $2/pair overhead, $4/pair shipping, $5/pair licensing. So that $20/pair of shoes for material & labor actually cost $50. Of course you are selling it wholesale for $75 (50% pre-tax margin). Then the retailer sells it for $120, of course the retailer has its own costs to factor in.
If you don't understand an industry how can you accurately understand all the information provided? You can't, but what will happen is people with their own agendas will use the information to put their own spin on things. So while a company may look like it has 500% margins, in actuallity it makes about 44% (12/22/04 10-Q filing).
How can you expect people to make good use of increased information when they don't even spend the time to look through what is provided now.
"My eyes...The goggles do nothing!"
how to add relativistic speeds
But what exactly is the speed of light? If I stand here and shine a laser, sure, it has a speed, but think about it: This planet is hurtling through space at breakneck speeds. Now add the speed of light from my laser to the speed the Earth is moving, and voila! You have a speed faster than the speed of light
First rule of relativity club is the speed of light is the same for all observers. Which means your laser will appear to be travelling the same speed for somebody travelling through space at "Breakneck speeds" as it would for somebody just leaning back in a chair sipping a Corona watching you.
Laws against murder and theft are not to protect morality, but to protect one's rights, specifically the right to life and property.
Life and property rights seem self evident but when you look at specifics they come down to moral questions. One example is intellectual property" rights. That comes down to a moral arguement about what society agrees upon. Do you have certain rights to your intellectual creations and discoveries? Also, what moral authority does the state have to tax you, or do your children have to your property? Euthanasia is another example, do you have the right to terminate your own life? Then when you have conflicts between these two "self evident" rights which become moral decisions. If you break into my house can i shoot you? Is my right to property greater than your right to life?
Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4
Yes I'm sure Intel hates that they drove down AMD market share from 20% to 12% with their marketing driven scheme. Like it or not, keeping the Mhz-Myth alive worked, the mistake was they kept it going one generation too long (Prescott) before making the switch.
I see goals as being the way to motivate somebody to keep busy. You can't just "keep busy," you have to want something.
When you tell a kid they need to learn algebra, the first thing they reply with (or at least think) is "Why?" That question is directly asking what the end is to all "this busy work". Few people I know actually like doing math or physics problems. If you treat math or reading or any subject as the end goal, its not inspiring. If math or reading is a means to an end, something that is interesting then the person is more likely to want to learn.
Which is more motiviating? Tell them to program for 2 hours, then tell them to do some chemistry research for a few more hours (basically what school does); or get them started working on a solar power RC car, get them involved in building a robot. It's these application oriented activities that really drive studying and interest.
Most people know in general what they want, even at an early age. Typically if they set some sort of goal, even if later on they are not as interested, many of the things they worked on are applicable to their next desire. Somebody interested in robotics, may discover the programming side just isn't as "fun" as the mechanical side. It's only through experience can somebody learn about themselves and how things actually work.
Actually I think he addresses the issue of goal setting, though not exactly using the term
"What you need to do is discover what you like. You have to work on stuff you like if you want to be good at what you do."
Perhaps my definition of goal setting differs from the common usage. I pretty much have the same feeling from my experience as Graham, find that which you will be passionate about.
I think that's what makes college such a wonderful place, because it addresses the issue he brings up "But there are other jobs you can't learn about, because no one is doing them yet." It gives you the opportunity to get much broader experiences, and many of those jobs 10 years down the line are functioning in a lab, though only one or two people are doing it. Personally I had no idea what a materials engineer did, I was gung-ho CompE going into college, then I discovered a new area of study I had never heard of things more specific to what I wanted and loved.
Also, that's why college isn't necessary for everybody, some people have discovered their passion earlier on, and can do their own study, and will be driven to dedicate themselves towards success.
Actually there is something more important than convincing them to study harder. What they need to do is learn to set goals on what they actually want to accomplish in life.
Most people during that time in their life don't know what they want. They have no goals, so they really just muddle around not working towards anything. After school maybe just hang around, or mindlessly play video games.
Its also not just a matter of setting the goal "go to college." They need to find something facinating that inspires them. Something like "Build robots," from that college will be a step to something they truly want. Then beyond school they can pursue Lego/Battlebots/programming or other hobbies that are advancing them towards their goal.
Let's say a couple years from now they decide they aren't so interested in robots, at least they've acquired alot of skills that will be helpful in their next passion.
It's pretty easy to get $3,000 at 15. You have no bills to pay, so by working part time during the school year and full time over the summer you can get $3,000. Unfortunately I wasted all my hard earned money on Magic Cards and computer games.
If you're in debt because of college, it's a fool's errand to invest unless you can get a much better interest rate than the one you're paying on your loans.
Unless you get tax breaks on that invested money as well, such as 401k or IRA.
It was me... sorry, its just because they raised the minimum wage
Actually should be
Step 2. The EE's design it
Step 3. the MatE/ChemE/MechE fabricate it
etc.
Which is sad because I love IT. But I don't want to be around when all the jobs disappear. Like what happened to textiles, aerospace, and manufacturing.
I work in electronics manufacturing, and the jobs haven't all disappeared. Although, you can't just pick up "PCB assembly for dummies" manual and expect to get in. If you're motivated and dedicated then the jobs are there. There are also advanatages for a constricted job market:
1. Your coworkers are talented and really want to be in that field. You don't have to worry about fixing the mess your coworkers make because they are completely clueless and/or unmotivated.
2. The type of work you get is more interesting. While most production is done in other countries, the R&D is still done in the US. So although there are overall less jobs, they are the higher paying, and more fulfilling ones.
The problem with IT right now is it got saturated with "cash grabbers" who didn't care about the industry, they just saw big money with little work. So the supply of "qualified" people is much larger than the demand. Over time it will be much easier for somebody like you who truly loves the field to get a job, although I know it's no consolation for the bleak short-term outlook.
Or that the electron occupies a large amount of space, and oozes through the screen.
Also occurs with individual photons, which don't take up space.
Particle/wave duality applies to atoms as well.
Yes you can compute wavelength with the DeBroglie equation, which correlates wavelength with mass and kinetic energy.
I always thought the general idea was that our Universe was going to slowly stop expanding and start contracting, eventually ending in another big bang and the whole process starts over again.
That's so 80's get with the times, the current theories revolve around bubbles and strings and technical stuff like that.
The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations
They also spend millions in promotions, provide contacts, etc, which sadly enough, is worth more (in terms of cash) than the creation itself. There's a reason why very talented people who don't sell out linger in obscurity, while an untalented Ashlee Simpson is given a national stage to perform.
A similar problem is seen modernly in folk lore. Traditionally the stories have been passed down verbally and have changed both with the situation they are told in and with the times. As soon as they are written down there becomes a "right way" to tell them. Many view this as being harmful to folk traditions in general.
How do you define a story? If you confine it to exact names, exact locations, and specific events, then you are right, a specific story doesn't change. If you view them more broadly as character types, locations, and plots, people still interpret and retell stories.
In the late 19th century people feared machines, in the late 20th century it wasn't steam powered monstrosities they feared it was computers. The basic premise of "we are the creators of our own demise" has been retold to fit our times.
Look at stories, movies, TV from a few decades back... much of it was influenced by the cold war. Now similar stories are based more around the fear of decentralized terrorist groups, nuclear winter senarios have been replaced by giant meteors and global warming, the rail robber barons replaced by the multinational corporation.
You're talking about the kids who buy Abercrombie & Fitch when you can get better quality from K-Mart and buy Starbucks when you could get it for $5.50 less from the gas station.
K-Mart clothes and gas station coffee aren't exactly what I call quality products.
Score +1 for insanely slow robots of the world.
It's a union robot.