I didn't say that one single individual was solely responsible for all advances in any particular field. I said that gifted individuals are capable of making quantum leaps if unencumbered by committees. The clearest examples of single creative individuals are arguably novelists. Of course they draw inspiration from past writers and knowledge from the society they live in but it is the way they synthesise it that makes it possible to take the next leap forward. Human beings work best in communities and but that does not mean that credit belongs equally to each and every person involved in the project. If we accept your argument, then every single person involved in the construction of St Paul's Cathedral from the Sir Christopher Wren's assistant down to the lowliest bricklayer would be equally entitled to claim credit for its construction. That's just nonsense. The inspiration and presiding genius behind the construction was Sir Christopher Wren and the fact that others also helped is neither here nor there.
As for Shakespeare borrowing his plots - so what? Others also borrowed plots but none managed to re-interpret them so well that it formed part of the canon of English Literature.
Probably not. Some things are better done by consensus - running a country comes to mind. Creative endeavours do not come to mind as one of them. At best, small groups of like-minded individuals working together might achieve something remarkable but anything larger will end up diluting the original thinking of the few in favour of keeping everyone happy. I feel sure that the/. community can name a few successful collaborations between two or more people but usually its one gifted individual making a quantum leap. Examples might include Einstein, Shakespeare, Darwin, even George Lucas and the Star Wars series...
Groan...
My last word on the subject. Rickover did a fantastic job - no question. I still await some compelling evidence that *ONLY* Rickover could have pulled it off...
I am willing to both change my mind and admit an error if someone points it out to me as I hope earlier posts have indicated.
However, its been my experience that very few people can fairly be described as being irreplaceable or that what they did could not have been achieved by anyone else. Nothing I have read subsequent to my initial post has convinced me that *ONLY* Rickover could have achieved what he did do. I didn't at any stage run down Rickover's achievements, it's just that no one so far has produced any evidence that putting, say, Arleigh Burke in charge would have produced less good results. Wikepedia has Burke down as CNO for three terms. Is anyone here seriously arguing that he would not have done as good a job? Sounds more like an argument for a cult of personality...
Actually, you can argue with the results...
Ask yourself this... did Rickovers' recruitment process enable him to employ significantly higher quality candidates for the nuclear programme?
If they did, then I concede that I was wrong.
Would someone else running the programme have failed?
What was so special about Rickover that only he could have succeeded?
I don't remember reading about Chester Nimitz pulling any of this shit. Did he fail? What about Arleigh Burke? What about George Marshall?
I did not say that he was a failure - merely that he was a complete asshole...
It was his success in other areas of his work that enabled him to pull all of this unnecessary sadistic BS for his own personal pleasure...
Rickover sounds like a complete asshole. I seriously doubt if any of the bullshit he pulled during recruitment interviews ever enabled him to recruit smarter or better personnel. There's no indication that any of his strategies were crucial to winning any war the Americans were in. He sounds like a fratboy who never grew up...
I may be wrong but in all my readings about great commanders, none of the articles featured front chair legs being sawn off.
I wasn't saying that I was cheating. I was merely pointing out that if you knowingly admit people onto a course that you know they are not capable to surviving solely to boost your fee income, then you are in no position to criticise people who do anything to get through the course. It's an ugly academic reality that there are probably too many courses chasing too few applicants. These compromises are probably done to ensure the survival of the course but are fundamentally wrong and dishonest.
An interesting comment about the morality of foreign students but not quite the whole story. I was admitted onto a law degree by a British University when i manifestly did not have the necessary academic requirements simply because they needed the money. It wasn't until I got to the University that I realised this. However, instead of throwing in the towel, I collected all the relevant exam papers for the last five preceding years and answered every single question in order to understand the basic principles of the legal subjects I was doing and to learn how to write an essay. It took something between 50 - 80 vountary essays (this was over and above my assigned coursework) and the constant pestering of lecturers to get through the course. Some other foreign students did not, others were passed to make the numbers look good. Sure, some of the foreign students cheated (something I don't condone) but we're looking at a glass house situation here. Probably none of these students should have been admitted in the first place. Standards of admission were lowered to get them in, take their money off them, and afterwards - who cares? This was about 18 years ago. I seriously doubt if the situation has changed for the better.
Obesity is a serious problem in the UK (as it is in most of the developed world). That's just part of the problem. having to get along with people you don't necessarily like is a social skill that is lost when you can simply tune the world out with your DS or PSP. i am a criminal lawyer (with an interest in IT and developing database applications for work) and i have to deal with the fallout of a society where people cannot communicate without the use of crutches like alcohol and drugs. there is no comparison between this generation and any previous one. Consumer electronics, and the internet have only really reached maturation in recent years. They present an unparalled opportunity to avoid learning the necessary hard lessons of life like listening to alternative voices, the need for patience to achieve anything worthwhile, and the art of negotiation and compromise. In my job, i have had to represent teenage sociopaths whose behaviour is absolutely frightening. These are kids that torment and bully others kids and post the results on the internet. it's not that the kids are necessarily worse now than they were before, it's that the damage they can do and the consequences are far worse than before. both the damage that kids can cause and the dangers they face are without precedent. sorry to digress but 'real' play as opposed to LAN or internet gaming etc teaches kids social skills and keeps them healthier and happier. Anyone who thinks otherwise should come and meet some of these young casualties I represent on a regular basis.
Guess these guys are incapable of learning from past mistakes. The size and form factor of the device is one thing I am sure that Microsoft will get right. The problem will be in the GUI. Gaming devices require a different GUI to MP3 players to work successfully. Compromises get you nowhere. Apple has learned that lesson as has Nintendo with their GBA, ec. I remain unconvinced that battery life, robustness, different user requirements of the various devices can be successfully married. Wish these guys luck though - would certainly make an interesting addition to the market.
No reason why they shouldn't succeed... provided they get a UI at least as good as iTunes, and mp3 players that at least match iPods for ease of use. Those are two very big ifs but Apple won't be number one forever. There have been endless debates about why no one else is able to compete. Think we've pretty much established why iTunes and iPods are successful. To replicate it would be difficult but not impossible.
speaking as a criminal lawyer, the most accurate way of judging relative rates of crime is by comparing similar scenarios. I feel pretty sure that comparing Waco Texas to say London Britain will enable you to show that more guns means less crime. You need to compare like with like. I have no idea whether more guns really do cause less crime. Frankly, I can't be bothered to check it out. What I do know is that more guns and access to them is more likely to lead to crazy people shooting everyone else. Comparing Switzerland to the USA does not make any sense. The guns held by the Swiss are held as part of the militia requirements. From what I know of the Swiss, those guns are likely to be held in secure gun cabinets with no access to anyone but the militia man. In the USA, at least one state that I know of, I think it's Texas, allows unrestricted gun ownership of virtually any kind of handgun, and does not enforce any kind of proper training and storage.
I had considered this and agree that it is certainly possible. The problem is that it's not thinking big enough. Can't remember the exact name of the economic theory but I believe that Karl Marx first postulated it. Capitalist economies suffer from boom and bust. With each successive cycle of boom and bust, the winners shrink in number and get bigger. While I don't think we will see a post-capitalist socialist paradise anytime soon, I do believe that the growing convergence in digital media will mean that one or two companies will scoop the entire pot. Apple either needs to win the entire game to the total exclusion of everyone else or join the rest of the losers.
Actually, I suspect that simply buying a mobile phone network is a whole lot simpler that actually running one. That's why we have stocks and shares. I believe that iPods will be superseded by convergence devices will communications capabilities. The only thing stopping me from buying a a Sony Ericcson W900i is its lack of proper functionality with my 12" Powerbook and Powermac G5. I can live without iTunes but I do not want to have to carry a whole bunch of electronic devices. Apple must realise that unless they control the market, they will eventually be marginalised. The sale of digital media, its distribution, and creation is the wave of the future. Phones are the way to go and Apple are into vertical intergration economic model and buying a mobile phone network is the only real way it is going to work.
Apple will simply buy a network
on
iCell in the Works?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I have on this website and on another predicted that Apple will simply buy a mobile phone network. Before anyone argues that they don't have the market cap, I will say that smaller fish have been known to swallow biggers ones, and I believe that there are venture capitalists and banks that would be prepared to back Apple on this one. It's the only logical way to go.
Have been practicising criminal law in the uk for 15 years and am still amazed that anyone thinks law and logic have anything but a passing relation to each other. Most of my time has been spent in changing the perceptions of my client. Lawyers are needed because people are greedy, racist, bigoted, dishonest, sexist, and immature. When everyone grows up, then lawyers can be dispensed with.
I fail to see how accepting a lack of privacy means that I accept that someone (the govt?) is entitled to rape my daughter. I am simply stating a fact. we live in a complex society where the convenience we take for granted requires widespread dissemination of information we would rather keep private. that is the real world we live in. i have no where suggested that people should be allowed to do this but that they can and will. the more complex a system is, the more likely it is that people are able to exploit its loopholes for personal gain.
its part of the price you pay for convenience. things are no better in the uk. i used to pay cash for my groceries because I resented having my purchases monitored. now i buy my groceries online and everyone knows my business. all the conveniences we enjoy have a price. welcome to the real world. to be totally safe. walk everywhere and conduct all business face to face and keep nothing written down. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.
Not wholly improbable. Imagine a Google PC with Google OS and a broadband connection. Fire it up and it takes you straight to Google / AOL. They provide you with everything including a simple Office suite. You never need to leave the Google OS environment. Captive audience or what? Average computer user doesn't need to ever leave it. Sweet.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that one single individual was solely responsible for all advances in any particular field. I said that gifted individuals are capable of making quantum leaps if unencumbered by committees. The clearest examples of single creative individuals are arguably novelists. Of course they draw inspiration from past writers and knowledge from the society they live in but it is the way they synthesise it that makes it possible to take the next leap forward. Human beings work best in communities and but that does not mean that credit belongs equally to each and every person involved in the project. If we accept your argument, then every single person involved in the construction of St Paul's Cathedral from the Sir Christopher Wren's assistant down to the lowliest bricklayer would be equally entitled to claim credit for its construction. That's just nonsense. The inspiration and presiding genius behind the construction was Sir Christopher Wren and the fact that others also helped is neither here nor there. As for Shakespeare borrowing his plots - so what? Others also borrowed plots but none managed to re-interpret them so well that it formed part of the canon of English Literature.
Probably not. Some things are better done by consensus - running a country comes to mind. Creative endeavours do not come to mind as one of them. At best, small groups of like-minded individuals working together might achieve something remarkable but anything larger will end up diluting the original thinking of the few in favour of keeping everyone happy. I feel sure that the /. community can name a few successful collaborations between two or more people but usually its one gifted individual making a quantum leap. Examples might include Einstein, Shakespeare, Darwin, even George Lucas and the Star Wars series...
I don't take cowards seriously. Bet you also shout abuse from the safety of the bleachers hidden in the crowds don't you...
Groan... My last word on the subject. Rickover did a fantastic job - no question. I still await some compelling evidence that *ONLY* Rickover could have pulled it off...
I am willing to both change my mind and admit an error if someone points it out to me as I hope earlier posts have indicated. However, its been my experience that very few people can fairly be described as being irreplaceable or that what they did could not have been achieved by anyone else. Nothing I have read subsequent to my initial post has convinced me that *ONLY* Rickover could have achieved what he did do. I didn't at any stage run down Rickover's achievements, it's just that no one so far has produced any evidence that putting, say, Arleigh Burke in charge would have produced less good results. Wikepedia has Burke down as CNO for three terms. Is anyone here seriously arguing that he would not have done as good a job? Sounds more like an argument for a cult of personality...
Now that makes sense... If that was the purpose then certainly I would be happy to withdraw any and all criticisms I made of the man...
Actually, you can argue with the results... Ask yourself this... did Rickovers' recruitment process enable him to employ significantly higher quality candidates for the nuclear programme? If they did, then I concede that I was wrong. Would someone else running the programme have failed? What was so special about Rickover that only he could have succeeded? I don't remember reading about Chester Nimitz pulling any of this shit. Did he fail? What about Arleigh Burke? What about George Marshall? I did not say that he was a failure - merely that he was a complete asshole... It was his success in other areas of his work that enabled him to pull all of this unnecessary sadistic BS for his own personal pleasure...
Rickover sounds like a complete asshole. I seriously doubt if any of the bullshit he pulled during recruitment interviews ever enabled him to recruit smarter or better personnel. There's no indication that any of his strategies were crucial to winning any war the Americans were in. He sounds like a fratboy who never grew up...
I may be wrong but in all my readings about great commanders, none of the articles featured front chair legs being sawn off.
What a dick.
I wasn't saying that I was cheating. I was merely pointing out that if you knowingly admit people onto a course that you know they are not capable to surviving solely to boost your fee income, then you are in no position to criticise people who do anything to get through the course. It's an ugly academic reality that there are probably too many courses chasing too few applicants. These compromises are probably done to ensure the survival of the course but are fundamentally wrong and dishonest.
An interesting comment about the morality of foreign students but not quite the whole story. I was admitted onto a law degree by a British University when i manifestly did not have the necessary academic requirements simply because they needed the money. It wasn't until I got to the University that I realised this. However, instead of throwing in the towel, I collected all the relevant exam papers for the last five preceding years and answered every single question in order to understand the basic principles of the legal subjects I was doing and to learn how to write an essay. It took something between 50 - 80 vountary essays (this was over and above my assigned coursework) and the constant pestering of lecturers to get through the course. Some other foreign students did not, others were passed to make the numbers look good. Sure, some of the foreign students cheated (something I don't condone) but we're looking at a glass house situation here. Probably none of these students should have been admitted in the first place. Standards of admission were lowered to get them in, take their money off them, and afterwards - who cares? This was about 18 years ago. I seriously doubt if the situation has changed for the better.
Hot damn.
Obesity is a serious problem in the UK (as it is in most of the developed world). That's just part of the problem. having to get along with people you don't necessarily like is a social skill that is lost when you can simply tune the world out with your DS or PSP. i am a criminal lawyer (with an interest in IT and developing database applications for work) and i have to deal with the fallout of a society where people cannot communicate without the use of crutches like alcohol and drugs. there is no comparison between this generation and any previous one. Consumer electronics, and the internet have only really reached maturation in recent years. They present an unparalled opportunity to avoid learning the necessary hard lessons of life like listening to alternative voices, the need for patience to achieve anything worthwhile, and the art of negotiation and compromise. In my job, i have had to represent teenage sociopaths whose behaviour is absolutely frightening. These are kids that torment and bully others kids and post the results on the internet. it's not that the kids are necessarily worse now than they were before, it's that the damage they can do and the consequences are far worse than before. both the damage that kids can cause and the dangers they face are without precedent. sorry to digress but 'real' play as opposed to LAN or internet gaming etc teaches kids social skills and keeps them healthier and happier. Anyone who thinks otherwise should come and meet some of these young casualties I represent on a regular basis.
how do we know he's really dead. he could be on a beach sitting next to Robert Maxwell somewhere...
Given that the London and Madrid bombings took place on trains and on a bus, and we're talking about airline security - isn't this a little off-topic?
Guess these guys are incapable of learning from past mistakes. The size and form factor of the device is one thing I am sure that Microsoft will get right. The problem will be in the GUI. Gaming devices require a different GUI to MP3 players to work successfully. Compromises get you nowhere. Apple has learned that lesson as has Nintendo with their GBA, ec. I remain unconvinced that battery life, robustness, different user requirements of the various devices can be successfully married. Wish these guys luck though - would certainly make an interesting addition to the market.
How about SCROTUM?
No reason why they shouldn't succeed... provided they get a UI at least as good as iTunes, and mp3 players that at least match iPods for ease of use. Those are two very big ifs but Apple won't be number one forever. There have been endless debates about why no one else is able to compete. Think we've pretty much established why iTunes and iPods are successful. To replicate it would be difficult but not impossible.
speaking as a criminal lawyer, the most accurate way of judging relative rates of crime is by comparing similar scenarios. I feel pretty sure that comparing Waco Texas to say London Britain will enable you to show that more guns means less crime. You need to compare like with like. I have no idea whether more guns really do cause less crime. Frankly, I can't be bothered to check it out. What I do know is that more guns and access to them is more likely to lead to crazy people shooting everyone else. Comparing Switzerland to the USA does not make any sense. The guns held by the Swiss are held as part of the militia requirements. From what I know of the Swiss, those guns are likely to be held in secure gun cabinets with no access to anyone but the militia man. In the USA, at least one state that I know of, I think it's Texas, allows unrestricted gun ownership of virtually any kind of handgun, and does not enforce any kind of proper training and storage.
I had considered this and agree that it is certainly possible. The problem is that it's not thinking big enough. Can't remember the exact name of the economic theory but I believe that Karl Marx first postulated it. Capitalist economies suffer from boom and bust. With each successive cycle of boom and bust, the winners shrink in number and get bigger. While I don't think we will see a post-capitalist socialist paradise anytime soon, I do believe that the growing convergence in digital media will mean that one or two companies will scoop the entire pot. Apple either needs to win the entire game to the total exclusion of everyone else or join the rest of the losers.
Actually, I suspect that simply buying a mobile phone network is a whole lot simpler that actually running one. That's why we have stocks and shares. I believe that iPods will be superseded by convergence devices will communications capabilities. The only thing stopping me from buying a a Sony Ericcson W900i is its lack of proper functionality with my 12" Powerbook and Powermac G5. I can live without iTunes but I do not want to have to carry a whole bunch of electronic devices. Apple must realise that unless they control the market, they will eventually be marginalised. The sale of digital media, its distribution, and creation is the wave of the future. Phones are the way to go and Apple are into vertical intergration economic model and buying a mobile phone network is the only real way it is going to work.
I have on this website and on another predicted that Apple will simply buy a mobile phone network. Before anyone argues that they don't have the market cap, I will say that smaller fish have been known to swallow biggers ones, and I believe that there are venture capitalists and banks that would be prepared to back Apple on this one. It's the only logical way to go.
Have been practicising criminal law in the uk for 15 years and am still amazed that anyone thinks law and logic have anything but a passing relation to each other. Most of my time has been spent in changing the perceptions of my client. Lawyers are needed because people are greedy, racist, bigoted, dishonest, sexist, and immature. When everyone grows up, then lawyers can be dispensed with.
I fail to see how accepting a lack of privacy means that I accept that someone (the govt?) is entitled to rape my daughter. I am simply stating a fact. we live in a complex society where the convenience we take for granted requires widespread dissemination of information we would rather keep private. that is the real world we live in. i have no where suggested that people should be allowed to do this but that they can and will. the more complex a system is, the more likely it is that people are able to exploit its loopholes for personal gain.
its part of the price you pay for convenience. things are no better in the uk. i used to pay cash for my groceries because I resented having my purchases monitored. now i buy my groceries online and everyone knows my business. all the conveniences we enjoy have a price. welcome to the real world. to be totally safe. walk everywhere and conduct all business face to face and keep nothing written down. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.
Not wholly improbable. Imagine a Google PC with Google OS and a broadband connection. Fire it up and it takes you straight to Google / AOL. They provide you with everything including a simple Office suite. You never need to leave the Google OS environment. Captive audience or what? Average computer user doesn't need to ever leave it. Sweet.