Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Summary, 2012

The blog got its start in August of 2007. As of today, there have been 234 posts with 18 categories. The most read of the Categories is Minsky's model.
Past 30 days                              All time
The image shows the most-read posts for the Past 30 days and for All time.

  • Of late (Past 30 days) - Confoundedness (Poll 7) comes from the summer of 2009 when expectations  concerned the planned start of the flight testing. There was an associated poll. At the time, the blog had switched to looking at the economic downturn and its causes. The program seemed to be on its way with a new schedule, however wrinkle came to fore. However, testing continued with first delivery occurring on September 26, 2011.  
  • Since the beginning (All time) - Wing and body talks about a design issue that may have been related to the problem reported in summer of 2009. A continuing discussion from that occurrence would consider the need to keep ties between systems, their states, and the reality that they model. The issue really revolves around equivalences twixt computational model and nature. 
The number of posts show that there was more activity in 2008 (82) and 2009 (60). Of late, the post activity has wound down, to wit 2010 (21), 2011 (26), and 2012 (13). 


12/23/2012 --  This blog followed Truth Engineering by about a month. Motivation arose after a supplier for the 787 program said that they were rolling out something that would snap into place with other pieces. And, after the Company said that they could snap pieces together in a matter of days and that they were ready to put pieces together and to roll out a plane that would be ready to go into testing, more or less. Of course, it was after the 7/8/7 roll out, with tremendous fanfare, that the blog started.. People were scrutinizing photos taken at the roll out to see what was in the plane. Flightblogger was raising a clamor about seeing empty space. Then, the truth came out about the thing (mostly empty shell) that was rolled out not being ready. Luckily for some, the finance idiocy fell apart, big time, which took interest away. And, the Company eventually got the engineering focus the priority that it needed, and the engineers accomplished what needed to be done. 

Modified: 12/23/2012

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Cracking or fracking

Rick has a post titled: A Crack in the Foundations of Economics. Essentially, the ergodic thought is less strong than was considered.

We suggested that, somewhat, a couple of years ago.


We do not need the Santa Fe Institute to know that the dismal science (and some of its practitioners?) stinks. We are to think of mathematization, with its computational buddy, as the means out of the morass? The recent downturn's effect, and the continued reign of the quants, speak otherwise. They, principally, are the reason for the mess.

Too, we have other cracks awaiting discovery.

I don't have to go far to find something to the effect that the Vienna thinkers have cautioned against the over-reliance on the so-called "algorithmic" approaches. But, then, what is the alternative?

We'll get to that, at some point.


The only sure thing is that the payout won't be there, for many. How do we get a more fair situation? Well, neuroscience might provide a means, especially when enlightened by the likes of Baruch.


12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Friday, October 5, 2012

Avoiding oops

Not often, lately, have I posted twice (see Potemkin ...) in one day, but this is just too rich to ignore. While watching a talk given at IJCAI-2011 (Barcelona) in the context of computing (which, we know, is one manifestation of our ability to master the world), the following slide (in the talk, Homo heuristics) is the focus of the discussion.

The question relates to methods, and the power of heuristics. We'll have to discuss this further, but, for now, let's just look at what the slide tells us. In the world populated by those who seem to be advancing the state of the art (for all of us, yet we keep getting ourselves deeper into a hole, it seems), work such as this (Mean-variance model) receive the highest award (hint, yearly, big deal in Sweden).

Yet, when one of the main characters involved with the work invests his own money, he uses the heuristic shown in the slide. The guy's identity is cut out, as he is not the focus. What we ought to be concerned about is a worldview that races after abstract nonsense, that applies supposed knowledge gained from such thinking, and that doesn't restrict losses, or pains, to just those doing the playing.

No, we all are pulled into the quagmire.

The main question is how did this come about. As I've said many times, interloped mathematics and misunderstood computational modeling are the biggest factors related to the messes of today. Of course, that people with excessive greed have their fingers in the pie is a factor, to boot. We don't really want to go into that litany.


In brief, are we all not after a sustainable world that allows the fullest expression of the human element's potential (however you might want to express this)?

Yet, have we not let technology, and its sciences, run amok somewhat giving up control (albeit, a lot of this may have been subconsciously done)?


11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

10/05/2012 -- Note the discussion about 28:33 which show that 500 years of data would be necessary for the prize-winning approach to beat the simple heuristic. As the speaker says, 500 years too early for the bank to use.

Modified: 11/09/2012

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Potemkin and more

On this day (and, perhaps, at other times, to boot), we'll always pause to think of Steve's contributions.

Discussions about 'reality distortion' are interesting. Many have charisma, of various types. Salesmen, in general, wouldn't be successful without something of this type of nature. Managers can motivate this way; is it better than using the stick?

We'll have to look at this further since Mr. Jobs was such a good example, given those with whom he worked, their particular domain of interest, and what has unfolded over the decades. You know, issues of computability are still open-ended, in many senses.


But, that's all for another day. Let's just reflect on potemkin type of things. The term was mentioned here as being used within a context related to wishes. That is, there was an enormous thrust, evidently, sustained by belief in modern systems (ah yes, we know how the finance people a mere four years ago, or so, were claiming to have conquered risk? Do you then recall what happened?).

People get into their heads that their rose-colored (whatever other color might be used) glasses do not have an effect on their perception, thereby influencing their cognition. Heck, they don't even know they have glasses on. But, hey, even the brilliants (yes, yes) have the same problem. We'll touch upon that theme quite a bit.

So, however these mis-perceptions are characterized, or emerge, and more, we can usually see the thing ex post facto. But, not always, since the effect is very strong. Certain worldviews seem to continue despite seeming lack of evidence (left purposely vague, think of it as a Rorschach test for yourself), and these have been around for oodles and eons of time. Yet, they do have some usefulness (if we can only get these things to settle into some type of peaceful - peace-able - mode).


Now, having said all that, reality distortion and potemkin'ism are two peas in a pod (not the only ones, mind you). Unfortunately, we're seeing this up-close during the muck-raking season (yet, are we learning anything therefrom?).

We could change context a little and talk about the issues related to determining value. We would also look at expectations' influence on outcome and measuring such. Going back to Steve, he noted that there were hard problems being worked by all sorts of people. How the interchange methods, and understanding of such, have emerged over the decades was not foreseen.


One main problem, folks? Too much effort at trying to pin down the future. Yes, there are a multitude of things to discuss here. In effect, though, look at nature. If you're following Darwin, are you going to propose that evolution is doing a design of experiments expansion? Well, there may be loose analogs, but, in actuality, we see myriads of proposed changes being filtered through some type of mechanism (we can use the notion of the most fit surviving - as, it can be modeled fairly well). And, please, be aware that those things being filtered are ex post facto realizations, not mere thoughtful entities.

Yes, territory-map problems can be one way to think of this. It is not TRUE, in any case, that foreknowledge (say, via computational modeling, visualization) is the same as the phenomenal existence (redundancy noted). Now, mental (loose sense) states can overlap that which is real. But, they are not the same (unless, ..., in certain events, we may have congruence of more than space-time, yet, science has steered from even considering such, except indirectly).


01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.

11/09/2012 -- Engineering memes. Nice.

Modified: 11/09/2013

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Entitlement (Message to Google)

Entitlement? Yes, many senses are around and about, especially during the election season. Here's one: drivers have some notion of entitlement when they're wrapped in the comfort and safety of their wheel'd machine.

In essence, road rage comes from someone outside of the vehicle breaking into the illusion of entitlement. I used to think that it was mere laziness; how much effort does it take to see a pedestrian or to move the foot a few inches to the left and apply the brakes? Infinitely much, according to some observations. Yet, if there is the entitlement sense, it may very well be some unbounded energy providing huge inertia.


Aside (see Zen, below): this post could have been titled "Message to Google" (but wasn't). You see, I'm going to celebrate the computer-driven car and offer Google some advice (yes, this from an old hacker with insights that may be way beyond what they might have considered -- let's put it this way, I've not seen evidence of wisdom on their parts -- how long did it take to lose the "don't cause harm" (however it was said, written) rule due to the fact that bucks started to become abundantly present?).


So, let's start with Zen of Computing as the framework and branch from there. A few little pointers can be the inception point.
  • -- Please, Google, train your thing to respect the rights of pedestrians. We'll go into this at large (today, two close calls due to my encountering entitled idiots - yes, we know, idiots can drive). Google claiming their 300K+ hours of accident free driving means not much without some tests (next bullet) that we can use for graduated assessment (as in progressive). 
  • -- Know, too, that having autonomous objects communication is a nice idea (birds within a flock are a wonderful example), but the mode of communication must not be constrained to known (as in, defined by our monkeying with the spectrum) levels (protocols, if you would, based upon e-m at large). Too, we need your thing able to handle visible objects whose behavior may very well be in realms outside of your limits (and not talking, by necessity, black swans).  
  • -- Turing-test analog. Yes! There are several things that we could propose. Right now, we could think of a race, perhaps, NASCAR like or similar. It would be controlled, as in, rules defined and followed (no bumper cars - though some like to allow this). For mayhem, perhaps we could use the demolition derby type of thing. In short, there are issues to consider (hint: see the note on the blogs menu about computability).

'entitlement' may be mis-used, as there is nothing in the laws that would suggest such. We know that driving is a privilege  not a right. One needs to know the laws, pass a test, and keep on the right side of the law. So, why does this sense (seemingly close to feeling entitled - at least, that appears to be the case from observing the behavior) emerge? Is it a type of mania?

Do we not see the same thing with phones? In the early days of the mobile thing, people were not so apt (or so rude) to just talk in public as if they were ranting in a public park while standing on a soapbox talking some nonsense (any large city has this daily). In fact, most adults, at the time, turned to the voice in order to relate (respond); then, they found some vacuous face, eyes staring into the distance, of a person involved with something (someone) in another space-time locale, far removed from the present.   

Ah, back to Zen, does the present pertain to the moment or the location? You see, we all can multitask, in many cases bridging far-flung spaces in a manner unique to humans. In fact, we have done this for a very long time; those, who were more adept, made the most use of the faculty. For many, the whole thing was too ephemeral. Yet, the existence of connected servers spread across the globe which are interlinked offers an analog for that which was there before.


Aside: many times, we have seen better devices approach some type of threshold (close enough) so as to become the new reality. The energy behind the older phenomenon dissipates. Is that progress? Well, that is for us to discuss. From one view, the progress in commonly grasped mathematics is one overlaying (not overarching) blanket damping out all sorts of talents (which are very much needed -- hence, again, innumeracy is not idiocy -- no, no, no -- we'll make that clear --- the flip side, though, is true - numeracy can approach idiocy (mis-use, exploitation, and much more); we'll have to go into that as an aspect of near zero).


10/02/2012 --

Modified: 10/02/2012

Friday, September 28, 2012

Codecademy, at last

Context: See Focus going forward - Update of Codecademy use.


I discovered the site from reading a WSJ book review. The book was Randall Stross' The Launch Pad which depicts a writer watching the 'boot camp'-like experience that some developers went through to define the next big thing in terms of a software product that might appeal to the masses and to obtain funding for launching such. Or, as read the headline, "Where Apps are Hatched."

It was an interesting read for several reasons. For one, there was the use of 'hope' in the review. As in, the motivation is a driving hope to hit it big (and lots of money and, perhaps, fame). And, we know the importance of 'hope' in several different ways. So, we'll be getting back to that discussion frequently (in the all of the several contexts).

Too, the 'learning to code' idea has a lot of merit. Everyone ought to be able to code, similar to their knowing how to use numbers. In a sense, most code ought to be in some easy to understand framework; the emphasis on legal documents being more readable by the general public is analogous.

Most? Yes. No matter the computer language, a program still needs to execute. The general solution might be executable specifications, as in expressing something in a mode that is understandable by someone who works within the related domain (area of human expertise, okay?). Yet, from any higher-level view, such as this, there will be transforms to what the machine can process. Our 'hope' there is that these changes are 'true' to expectation of the domain (one aspect of truth engineering).

Which brings up another point: some things cannot be expressed in natural language. Just consider, if you would, how things go awry when mathematically-framed ideas are brought out to the publicly-witnessed state. Confusion is one way to describe this. Sometimes, it seems like the message means several things. The expert always says, if only you could see the math.

The phenomenon of coding has this downfall as the underlying enabler is a formal system. Somehow, that seems to have been lost in the infatuation with apps on mobile devices. Many 'stupid' realizations have resulted from the mania; but, that genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. Somehow, we'll have to have ways to measure apps beyond their appeal or monetary uptake (for instance, we don't let worms out on app space). But, that is a whole new realm to explore as there is a growing basis (seemingly unbounded).

Having been involved with code throughout my career, the newer thrusts appeal. For one, a brief B&N browse confirmed to me that there is a progression (as in, worked in all of these major paradigms - in fact, started to do so more than two decades ago -- and, have had my hands in the water the whole time). The difference is one of viewpoint and experience. I've seen waves of boom/bust, several times. Youthful exuberance, left alone by clueless adults, goes awry more than not. Yet, we have not found a way to keep technology from eating its own tail.

To me, the elders rested on their laurels, in many cases. In other cases, it was considered beneath their exalted view of themselves. Or, it was just too darn hard. Having, as a result, situations arise, such as the latest downturn caused by idiots who were empowered by computational elements way beyond their comprehension.

Everyone coding is not the answer. Removal of the wizard element is not either. For one thing, we need to be able to rate apps by something other than gross, mass appeal. Oh, I know, those who roll in the dough love to hit it big. Yet, money is not the true measurable, either. Saying that might seem unwise, since our current election is mainly about too many bucks being allowed to muck up the waters. No one knows the outcome of the current messes.


So, development might turn out to be similar to the adage about mathematicians (after 25, you're done). But, we know, from looking at the professorship, that it's not entirely true. After all, there is some role for maturity (which is hard for youth to fathom, heck, it's hard for some of the elders to do so, too).

But, from the viewpoint of a sustainable worldview, there needs to be some type of generational overlap. The baby-boomers were the first to cast off the shackles that had been laid down (in a sense - but, not entirely true -- we'll look at the history of the emergence of free thinking in this regard). But, limits is a technical concept, to boot. We will address that, at some point.


Flash in the pan comes to mind, for some reason. My last thought, here, is that some collection of 'apps' ought to stand the test of time. And, sustainable is more about constrained waves, rather than big splashes (remember, someone has to clean up the mess -- in the latest case, change the diapers of those who crapped on the world, big time -- won't name names).


03/03/2014 -- We need to relook at several things. Yes, like, bringing memes (and more) to the fore in the discussion. Mathematicians have their "ancestors," know about them (and their contributions), and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger (). I took it back to 1585 since that would be co-temporal with those who were involved with the Great Migration to New England. Too, note that the ancestor is an adviser or mentor or tutor. This brings to mind that a meme'tic look at descendancy would consider the influence of step-child-ness. I have found many of these relationships.

02/24/2014 -- Put in context link, at the start.

02/23/2014 -- I ran across in 2012. At the time, my interests were directed at other than code (if someone had asked me six years ago if that were possible (you see, I was buying into the code-based worldview - even though I knew that being was not subsumed therein), I would not have understood the question -- yes, one can live, nicely, without code - but ought we?). Then, today, I noticed that the below post had been recently read, several times, so I looked again at the site.

Codecademy has a nice feel with its little interactive, interpretative environment. Too, it makes me wonder if we could use this type of approach to upgrade someone's skills (as in, an older person who has been around computing awhile who needs to transition to something modern - and, there are lots of these). Beside, we have this question: would coding delay mental decay? Gaming has been shown to have a benefit, thusly. Playing with code ought to be as titillating, if one is working on serious problems (the psychology and sociology issues might be brought up here).

As mentioned elsewhere, I have been involved in computing (technically, software) for a long while. I have touched all sorts of systems (environments, operating systems, 50-plus languages (spanning the generations), all sorts of domains: databases - all aspects, including database system development - as in, vendor, design, administration, data languages; too, the project environments ran the gamut: research, development, delivery, maintenance.

For the younger crowd, I can say that I first touched C++ in the 80s (advanced computational group in a corporation - but, at the time, we had extensively networked Lisp machines to play with - ah, what fun! ... little C++ was a new-born at the time, comparatively). Believe it or, I was able to keep using Lisp/C up until about 10 years ago. In the meantime, I had touched many of the emerging methods (leaning toward Python - it has a huge baggage set that comes with it, though).

The point? As I re-acquaint myself, there are some differences in platforms and nuances of syntax, but here is a truism that needs some discussion.

    Know one, know them all
           (corollary - 20% knowledge can, many times,
                                     get 80% of the work done)


It gets me when job descriptions filter strictly by language. Why? It's, essentially, discriminatory by setting limits that have no basis (beyond short-term considerations). Over my years, I have seen lots of people move back and forth between languages (including being dropped into the production environment that is new to them). In fact, we successfully taught Lisp to engineers so that they could code their own rules and heuristics. It worked. With the decline in the Lisp machine, we lost our good interactive environment. Yet, this worked. So, I must admit, it was good to see the interpretative approaches emerge with the web.

The largest stumbling block in training seemed to be the transition to structures related to object-based (behavioral) views. But, even there, six months of exposure could really help.

09/28/2012 -- Nice little issues continue to be ignored.

Modified: 03/03/2014


Friday, August 31, 2012

Five years

The blog started in 2007 with a few seeds. Then, the list was amended somewhat the next couple of years. Judging by the links that can be found on the post, many of the topics were covered.

The topic of "oops" was the original focus, as in the adage: it's human to err. In fact, if one doesn't err, one isn't doing anything (others doing the work for you). Or if you're doing something, you're expert and paying attention. Of course, one might not be paying attention while doing something (like the people, not all young, who are acting idiotic while carrying a smart device -- all sorts of things to discuss here. Another way to not err is whe one is merely re-playing the past (not essentially bad in itself, as a honed check-list is an intelligent approach to complicated tasks). Of course, some are just lucky (this runs out).

Re-play is used in the sense of action. We can make product more robust and fail safe. That has proven to be difficult for humans (and some products).

Now, following up on the re-play, everyone likes to have their script written, from time to time. You can differentiate people by how much of this they do. The independent, and those who pay attention (in tune with reality in which we find ourselves), are not script followers, so much.


The basic motivation, in the beginning, was a program that exclaimed being ready to test, then rolled out a shell product, and spent time trying to recover from the problems that ensued. Eventually, those who were problematic moved elsewhere, and the project did deliver. There continue to be issues, though.


Given the delivery, the urge to discuss things may have dropped, somewhat. So, that brings up the future. The related blogs looked at finance/economics and truth engineering. What ought to be the focus here?


09/01/2012 -- Following up on the mention of the idiotic behavior associated with the "smart" devices (or so-called) that making people dumb themselves down (yes, consciously), there is an oops of a young guy sticking his head out a bus opening (essentially, an emergency exit). The bus was moving. The story says that the teens took to twitter (twits, indeed) as if this is something that we ought to consider normal. Gosh, just so much to discuss about these types of things (and related issues). Question: given that twit-villes, and their actions, are a type of convergence (in the cloud, ephemeral except for the fact that there are many types of deleterious side-effects - far beyond what we can perceive with our materialistic blinders, at this moment), what do you have with a large (very, as in, slew) collection of idiotic thoughts pulled together in some type of approximation of coherence? Intelligence?

Modified: 09/01/2012

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Relativistically speaking

Oh? Well, in part, it's a continuation of the prior post's ruminations. In part, it is much more. In our truth searching, we've come across the notion of 'monolith' which is everywhere applied (densely). Looking down that path brought up a whole set of issues pushing us back toward the modern basis of mathematics.

That subject is everywhere (no lie)  under appeal, as in it being THAT to which people look for support for their argumentation and/or demonstrations (lordie, lordie -- the financial idiots used their faculties to cover their shenanigans -- and still are doing so  -- picking our pockets through wizardry). And, Krauss, et al, appeals. Even Dawkins. If this subject is so important, then we ought to get back to proper consideration of it. You think?

So, we've been doing that. And, one observation was that having a mathematician expand upon some application is nice as he/she will, no doubt, bring in motivations and the work done to date, albeit that a proper cover would never end (yes, keep reading -- not unlike that the meanderings of these blogs seemingly have some random basis).

Yet, to move forward (say, in a lecture), the mathematician would overlook explicit specification of justifications and their qualifications. That is, resorting to hand-waving (yes, bosses - let me explain this to you) would be the rule of the day.

On the other hand, if what you are looking at is what is behind the model (as in, what it is that mathematics is being used to grapple with), then you want the explanation to be done by someone of the domain even if that person may not demonstrate the niceties (as in, that which the mathematician shows so well -- writing the symbols, providing quick demonstration of the operative aspects, et al) of the math expert; in doing so, you would get some notion of what the problem entails and of the why's of the solution approaches. So, if you're dealing with something like quantum physics, let the physicist talk.


A case in point might be string theory which is a modern apparatus. Its inception resulted from someone trying to extend Albert's (yes, AE) thinking using his imagination (we'll look at this further, at some point). Interesting, to say the least. There have been many starts (perhaps, both false and otherwise) and re-starts over the years. The Lord knows that oodles of papers (and books) have been written on the subject. And, interpretations? Ah, not a few.

But, at its core, do we really know any more? (... philosophical question that I am, and others are to boot, allowed to ask ... not being anthropic, but because something works does not mean that it's right (wait!, for the finance people, lining their pockets is the sign of success even if they pull the world into flames while doing so) and the quasi-empirical issues are still open -- in other words, insights today that seem to provide the right view, or is supposedly reinforced by nature, could very well be leading us along some perdition-laden'd path, examples abound, ...)


Anyway, under FEDaerated (and truth engineering) it was said that we'll be more technical (and academic). Well, that applies here (and under FEDaerated), to boot. Now, such a change might mean that, at some point, there may be cause to write mathematically, however before such a point comes we will be writing, in heavy language, about motivations. And, such a task looms large and looks to be of an extent that is beyond brief (as in, how much attentive time can you give?, yes, the quick mind (shallow thinking) has been re-enforced by computation and the breadth provided by the 'cloud' which can be so enamoring - siren, indeed -- the bane thrown on all of us by those who are numeracy'd). But, then, complexity has been handled many times by smart boundary conditioning; who is to say that such won't apply here?


08/06/2012 -- In the mode of exploring foundation'l issues, again.

07/23/2012 -- Having mentioned string theory, it follows that I would start to mention names. Susskind, of course, comes to mind. His interest, of late, has been to explain the approach and its effectiveness (leading, naturally, at some point, to looking at quasi-empiricism, again). Too, though, the intersection of thinking (and, in particular, the growing reliance on our creation (mathematics)) and life needs some attention. A quick search on Leonard brought out this side which will become a reference: Edge.

Modified: 08/06/2012

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Retrospectively speaking

Jon is gone (flightblogger). He started his blog not long before this one. Similar subject, except he was a little more specific in focus. My interest was, and still is, truth engineering. The TE blog predates this one by one month. The idea was to look at the general issues related to computing and to discuss these with some notion of contribution to the general welfare. Of course, what was taken as the generality was the human condition of being prone to err (especially, those who are in the position of blaze out). And, this blog came about as there was the program for motivation. Hence, 7 oops 7. We'll go more, below, into what was the common interest that helped get the Jon's and my blogs started.

Jon's blog was picked up by a publication firm later that same year. This afforded several things to Jon and the firm (will look at this some later time). Needless to say, Jon's blog had a lot of readership and was there with the news during the 787 recovery process. Of course, now that the work of the program is oriented toward delivery issues, Jon is off to better things. His blog? Not as active (for several reasons that would be interesting to consider).

787 recovery? Yes, 2007, specifically 07/08/07, was when a 'potemkin' event took place that, in retrospect, is still not believable. What were they thinking? But, we'll leave that for another time. Let me quote from a recent article which appeared first in a Seattle paper (mind you, there is now a final assembly plant that is not in the SEATAC area -- who would have known in 2007? -- so, sarcasm out of the northwest would be expected): Jones said the plane rolling out Friday had fewer than 100 jobs incomplete, a very small number. In comparison, when Boeing rolled out the very first Dreamliner in 2007 in Everett, the plane was a shell with a few fake surfaces painted to look real. That plane didn’t fly until 2 ½ years after rollout.

Ignoring, for now, who is Jones and what plane (787, of course, but what number?) is rolling out, we can see that the first plane (in a state that was long way from being operational) was used for a media event that was highly touted and attended (as if the thing was going to be in the air in a matter of weeks -- in fact, delivery was planned for mid-2008). Too, there were reports in papers, at that time, that the snap-together approach was ready to go (the pieces to be joined had been designed by disparate firms -- across the world, mind you -- so as to be brought together in a matter of days -- the pieces were fully stuffed, it was claimed). All sorts of things can be pulled together to sketch the message and mindsets of that time which was five years ago (and what happened afterwards - such as pulling back work, building a new assembly plant, and more). Too, thanks to the new media, we can trace what happened the past few years as the program turned itself around (including some of the engineering issues that were resolved).

Aside: much water has passed 'neath the bridges, if you would. There was a major recession caused by financial mismanagement. Its effects are still being felt. And, a certain banker still thinks that he's the 'last man' standing. At that time, Facebook was relatively unknown. Since then, it has boomed (as in, having the record for the number of users - huge number). An IPO is planned which is making some go gaga. Are we better at things like 'risk' and other management? Well, again, are we?


In 2007, new media (including social) was still an unknown entity used by few. The effects of these new methods have become phenomenally distributed widely. Too, though, all of the issues are still there. Jon's emphasis was semi-journalistic, and he had sources that may, or may not, have been reliable. Some of these seem to have been within the company. The Company, itself, started a blog to give its message. And, we know that FB has become a medium for corporate expression. What major company is not represented there (well, many actually)?

The past two days have given us another look at risk and its management. In 2007, prior to things unfolding, those in the game were talking as if a downturn was not ever going to happen. No, we have things under control was the message, and the feeling, albeit the unraveling went much deeper than many had allowed for. The blogger felt like old Rip as he caught up with what he had ignored (in his interest in cyber matters) for so long (a bunch of idiots had screwed up the world, essentially).

So, we'll have to keep revisiting computability issues (and the underlying mathematical paradigm). Of course,  even with all of the problems there has been strides forward. One might say that the success can be measured by its associated grief (let's take the LT 0.001 and GT 9.999, as an example -- the haves have been very successful in bloating their smelly selves -- the have nots did not see the looming troubles -- we'll be getting back to all this, again and again).


As we said before, "we're not back" except for retrospective concerns that relate to larger things. What does that mean? Engineers know what they're doing. Management is mostly the issue. Zuckerberg will see this. In a company with a long history of engineering success, there ought to be rewards for those of that mindset (though, things, like IPOs, dazzle some). And, processes that accrue results ought to be favored over hype (somehow, new media seems to be more this than of any substance).


09/16/2013 -- So, the five year retrospective time. Business week devotes a whole issue. It will be interesting to read all of the perspectives, WSJ, FT, etc. We will have to say some things about Raytheon's push out of Hawker and its subsequent bankruptcy. Like Spirit's split from Boeing, wishful thinking on the part of management and the company led to problematic results (for a lot of people).

09/21/2012 -- To err is human; but, to be human is to be error-prone. We can 'hope' that if we're careful, we'll not get bit. It (as in __it) happens, goes the saying. Now, computers are error prone, to boot. Just in a different manner than we are, yet there is an overlap which we'll get to.

08/24/2012 -- Jon reports that there have been seventeen 787s delivered so far, each costing Boeing about $100M. The question is when will the company meet the break-even point.

05/31/2012 -- Today, the module left the ISS, got itself out of orbit, jettisoned as required, got through the heat of re-entry, and parachuted itself down. Successful, in other words, completion of a test shot that also performed (functional orientation during test, we'll look at that further). Essentially, SpaceX demonstrated a way to get material up to and down from the ISS. We'll be watching now as they go toward manned attempts.

Modified: 09/16/2013

Friday, May 4, 2012

Unknown unknowns

Yes, that type of discussion (unknown unknowns) did take place in about the same time frame as the company emerged from a deal with a whole bunch of debt on its back. The deal took place in another era, it seems in looking back. But, were lessons learned (see Financial Amnesia)? Just like with houses seen as ATMs, some of the thinking then thought that those who could were allowed to pull enormous amouns of money from out of a company (leaving behind, yes, debt -- some type of payout for the special folks and an onus (read larger than life) for the less fortunate).


The news of the recent filing brings to fore another set of chapters (pun intended). For instance, those in the town were you find the company, who had tried to work out supporting arrangements (tax relaxations, bonds, etc.), heard of the pending filing through reading the WSJ. It remains unclear how the fallout from all of this will affect those who have worked at the company or who have pensions or any number of other things. GS (do you have to guess?), or course, declined comment.


Early introduction
The debt cannot be wished away or swapped (one news source said that some swap deal had been done). Gosh, using that 'swap' word brings up the bedevilment that continues. Oh yes, remember. One, very large company, who had loads of promises on their books (oh yeah, we'll cover you if needed -- they said), were not to be seen when things hit the fan (yet, in their 'trading' heyday, there were bonuses paid up the wazoo). Do I have to say this aloud (sufficient are three letters, okay? -- the extent of their toxicity is still an unknown)? Ah, they were following the whims of the best-and-brightest.


So, we're just going to bring forward, for now, posts from the past that are pertinent (since the company involved was mentioned).
  • June 2, 2008 -- yes, oops are more prominent than not. For so long, and for so many, the pangs were just taken by those who had no control over the situations. Has it ever been any different? Near zero, folks, with sacrifices all around (the 0.1% are the ones who are good at sloughing off pain from their arses -- if you want one distinguishing feature of the type). 
  • October 26, 2008 -- leveraging as a game, essentially. How was filling the pockets of some through the debt of others seen as smart? Oh wait, that was the way? People need to wake up to this fact; interminable servitude is one result. 
  • November 12, 2008 -- notice that this was before the bottom. Actually, the problem was there from the get-go. Some of these deals did fill some pockets (to a very large extent) for awhile.  
  • March 24, 2009 -- yes, the extent of pain felt by others from the effect of your actions needs to be part of the near zero equation (describe an associated meme to get the truth processed, perhaps). 
  • January 15, 2012 -- Well, Mitt will bring us closer to seeing what goes on behind some of the doors. Yes, he made his money doing deals like this. Doesn't seem to have any conscience pangs? But, then, confession is of another faith (is it not?).  

Nothing anti-business ought to be construed (or mis-construed) from these postings. Rather, the notion is to make the realities more clear. That is, the Main Street influence that goes on after Wall Streeters (and their ilk) spend their bonuses on luxury items needs to be better understood. Somehow, these issues are not seen due to colored glasses (why else the popularity of those WStreet movies that glorified greed and arse'arity?).


And, have we not bound into debt our, and our's, progeny's future? We'll get back to that.


05/29/2012 -- Jamie's bank in the news, again.

05/28/2012 -- Can we tell if we're on a limb

05/14/2012 -- GS and Onex are out, according to this report. Something else of recent interest is Jamie's bank losing some money. Ostensibly, they're taking risks to get gains greater than cost of capital. Sheesh, guys, Ben is giving you almost free money. Why not just admit that it's the thrill of the gamble? 'bet' being using in business? And, no one seems to barf at that idea.

05/05/2012 -- The theme will continue. A note to add, now, is that something to discuss is how Ben's largess helps with the debt loading.

Modified: 05/29/2012

Thursday, March 15, 2012

New era

What does the title mean? Well, we'll use the forced migration of OfficeLive users to Office365, or wherever they choose, as a means to discuss several things. It's not that the move was forced that is the issue; rather, it's the short time frame allowed. Some may have gone too far in their dependence upon what they did with OfficeLive (to run their business - you would think that Microsoft would appreciate this), yet their efforts ought to be applauded as they are indicative of what people can do with computing if given the chance.

Theme: How do we protect the 'jewels' (all sorts of connotations, folks) from those who like to twist, tangle, and otherwise mangle such? As we all become more dependent upon computing, we will have to exercise rights (are these even being defined?) and responsibilities in order to not allow those who would want to do so to trample on human dignity (ah, Facebook is an example -- more than metaphor).

Background: OfficeLive offered a free site, originally, and the means to build a website. Many took up this offer. The one problem, that I see, is that most of the technical issues were covered due to the tools provided. It is one of these that is a real sore spot (see Reactions).

Later, the registration was billed, for a nominal fee granted ($15 vs the $35 of Melbourne IT).

There is a lot more to discuss, but, for now, we'll just look at one business issue. I got a notice about a month ago that I needed to transition off of OfficeLive. The deadline was April 30, but the counsel was to be off by the end of March. The site would support access until the end of April. One carrot was a six-month trial (free) with Office 365. So, I signed up and started to research what was behind a migration (hosts, software, tasks).
  • Aside: Mind you, for a lot of those folks who built their business methods around their OfficeLive site, it's becoming a stressful situation; ah, ought they not to have believed that Microsoft would look out for them?
Finally, this week, I started to attempt the movement. One thing that was clear is that we're not in the old days of HTML (and its extensions) anymore. I knew that. In fact I'm happy for this chance to catch up on what the young ones hath wrought, so to speak. Another thing is that it's obvious that flash (as opposed to substance) is more important than real content (my favorite site - please notice the older format, yet the subject matter is non-trivial).

Office 365 would continue the non-techie mode. In fact, the web page builder was very similar (making me wonder why a more automated process wasn't available). Too, I looked at other providers, especially those offering Linux (I worked for years in Unix). And, I liked what I saw, but I was going to attempt Office 365 (while trying to keep their costs within some reasonable bounds - unknown at this point how much the monthly rate would be).

So, yesterday, I told OfficeLive to move my registration to Melbourne IT. I then got an account at Melbourne. Everything was fine. Too, I first put the TXT record (rather than the MX). Later, I saw that in one place the instructions used 'or' and in another it used 'and' which are different, folks. I tried to cover the bases by doing both of these. Then, when I tried to get Office365 to confirm my registration, it barfed. The writeup says that this might take 15 min to 72 hours. Well, it's obvious that the problem rests with Microsoft's process, why haven't they listened to complaints? (See Remarks, 03/15/2012, that after 48 hours, the thing still cannot confirm that I own the domain - yet, where is there someone to talk to me to override, or otherwise force, the thing to work?)

Reactions: What complaints? This site here is one example. Notice, when you look at these complaints, that people are following a documented process, without any clear feedback, and stumbling. That is to be expected. Yet, on closer look, instructions do vary by site. One complaint said that the video to be used did not agree with the written instruction.
  • Aside: My role, when working, was Technical Fellowship in Advanced Computing. I've been using the Internet since the late 70s, in fact, I have worked at the low-end protocol level, with graphics, and algorithms. I've been doing the WWW since the days of Mosaic. Yet, here I am blindly trying to get Office365 to work [since there is no feedback except what instructions say is supposed to happen].
Notice that people complain of iterations, and error. And, not being listened to. Continually. Why? We'll look at that more closely, okay, and get back to you on the reasons.

Thoughts: I wouldn't be complaining if Microsoft had thought to ease the transition from OfficeLive to Office365. Why couldn't the former had told the latter that I owned the domain (after all, it was registered under OfficeLive at its inception and since) so as to let me add the domain on the latter and get busy with the manual transition (yes, cut and paste, folks, from the former to the latter -- ah, thank you, Microsoft)? For that matter, why wasn't there a tool suite to assist in the transition?


There are more important things to do than help MS chase their problem causes. Other posts on this subject will look at different aspects. We really need to be more cognizant of some core issues of computing, folks. And, we can't leave that whole bit of truth engineering solely up to the vendors.


05/31/2016 -- Continuation of the theme.

08/23/2012 -- Had a similar problem (that is, semantics changing without user's awareness) with Google which it took me a day to resolve (on my own - without much help from traces left on Google's self-help areas) and much angst (have content there, made me anxious, will look to make sure that anything critical in the cloud is under more control by me). Will document this in another post.

05/05/2012 -- MSOL sites still there. So, went to check. Sure, enough. Some haven't converted and are having the same problems mentioned here two months ago. Of course, many say that they're losing money, to boot, having put reliance (albeit, unwarranted) on MSOL (lots to talk about here).

03/19/2012 -- I see that Evan replied, on 3/15, to my 3/14 post. This note here is sort of a closure for me as I've moved on. Notice that the suggestion to me was to see if the TXT record was there (what?). It was there. I put both it and the MX there on 3/13. The question is: Why couldn't the Office365 process see this record? But, then, notice, too, that the suggestion to me is to change the DSN name server on my record to the Office365 server. Why this? The content won't be there at the new site until I move it (manually from OfficeLive) which I cannot do until I get Office365 to recognize ownership (that was the hangup, I could not even start to do the manual move). So, I'm to point to a non-existent page (oh yes, that's what the 404 is for). You see the cycle (and why some were turmoil'd)? I still wonder about the motivation for the manual approach (punitive? for using OfficeLive?) to the transition. It's as if we all have unlimited time to play with issues (well, I'm going to do that anyway in order to talk more specifically about issues that have been too long overlooked).

03/18/2012 -- For one thread, evidently, some progress was reported, as of today, thirteen days out [try longer, from 2/5 to 3/15]. For my domain, I tried the confirmation again, and it didn't work. The Melbourne IT record was fine and has been since 3/13/2012. So, what is the issue? Perhaps, in time, the problem will be resolved; one hopes so for future customers. Ciao.

03/16/2012 -- The domain (see experiment, prior Remarks) that was moved already has its new address known throughout the web (less than 12 hours). The domain that is being confirmed by MS? Still says that it cannot confirm (black hole, wouldn't you say?).

03/15/2012 -- Posted at MS Forum at 825 pm, CDT.

FYI. After waiting for 48 hours for the confirm process to work, and without any insight provided by MS, I took another domain and transferred it to another provider (not MS) just to see what would happen. The whole process was done in a minute, Melbourne was updated, and the change started its propagation across the web.

That type of response is what I had expected two days ago from the MS system. It's obviously their oversight at some point in their process. The domain that I was trying to work through Office365 is still hung on looking for confirmation.

From my queries, it looks like their 15 min to 72 hours is way out of line. And, their letting people iterate through that long period time after time is just plain madness. That people would go through this shows how much they value their content. And, MS ought to recognize such.

So, if MS is going to do a Cloud thing, will they provide the proper level of support? And, 'proper' needs definition. Come talk to me, MS, if you don't understand.

03/15/2012 -- 345 pm, CDT, I've been pushing the button every once and awhile for 48 hours. The result? Sorry, we can't find the record you created from Office365's process. This is obviously their error. Sheesh. One provider says that they get responses in 1-24 hours. It is unusual to wait longer.

03/15/2012 -- Microsoft ought to extend the time-out for OfficeLive so that we, mere mortals, can get the move done. After all, we have other things to do than play with Office365 all day.

03/15/2012 -- Comment on Facebook, yesterday. When I put something similar at the Office365 page, they deleted the thing.


Office 365 -- yes, Microsoft

They want OfficeLive (Microsoft) members off and over to 0365 by the end of April (a mere six weeks). Yet, people are having problems moving content. Here is one interchange copied from a forum on the matter.

JMS:  (in response to seeing people write that they've tried to get out of a confirmation cycle for days and weeks):

Echo, echo, ... Yes, tell someone you have a problem, then they tell you that you have the problem.

This confirmation problem is an oversight by our beloved MS. Yesterday, I told OfficeLive that I was moving one domain (oh, and I have to do this for multiple domains?). Using my Melbourne account, I have everything in order (TXT and MX -- one place said 'or' another said 'and' what?). Well, it's been over 24 hours and still no confirmation. I've pushed that stupid button numerous times.

The problem? I can't start to move my content over until I add the domain. And, you can't add the domain until it's confirmed. Idiotic process. MS (this is to you), why did you not allow OfficeLive to tell Office365 to allow us to start our build? Too, someone, please, debug this stupid protocol. It is ridiculous to say to make a change, then wait for 15 min to 72 hours to know if you did it correctly.

That, MS, is worse than the days of queuing up with a card deck in order to get a few seconds of computer time.

The deadline of April 30 was way too short of a time. Too, you ought to have facilitated the move a little better for the OfficeLive users. All you would have had to do was move files and modify configurations files. Sheesh.

One response:

I've never come across such a shambles in my life!

The official techies seem to have a dozen pre-written help articles with a few links in for good measure, to just cut & paste willy nilly?



Motivation for this post: I put a comment at Office 365 earlier (FB, of course). They deleted the thing.


Modified: 05/31/2016

Monday, March 5, 2012

Financial amnesia

Actually, there are all sorts of amnesia; this, in part, leads to the bad guys' success (pulling the wool). Who wants to be eternally watchful (and fearful)? Are there not environments where we can trust those there?


Lil Timmy had his say, recently, in the WSJ: Financial Crisis Amnesia. He's right, in a sense. But, does he not know that many remember that he was the head guy there in NY when things were building (boiling) up to the precipice (we've said it before, house of cards)? He doesn't look at questions, such as this: is it only males who run after risk (adrenaline junkies) without due attention to the impact on others?


Somehow, the type of short-sighted-ness shown by certain types (and, that the best-and-brightest, God help us, wrought) is an integral part of mankind's makeup. One of the things that we've railed about is that 'leaning' reduces memory, similarly. That is, things are cut to the quick so as to optimize some stream of activity without regard to side-effects (oh, I know, making money is the game -- or, running after the chimera).


I saw a cartoon that depicts the situation of business (in its usual sense): large boat, two rowers (there were other seats for additional rowers - but, of course, leanness threw them out) trying to move the big thing.


Cynicism? No.


We'll need to address amnesia (call them cognitive holes) under truth engineering.


01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

05/22/2012 -- FB will be a focus for discussion.

05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.

Modified: 01/15/2015

Sunday, February 5, 2012

The best and the brightest

As a prelude, this post is precipitated motivated by a comment to the Fraud Power II post of 01/14/2012. I realized that there has been no discussion of this topic for awhile (05/08/2009). It needs to be addressed, again.

Aside: all three blogs have used the term, for various purposes: 7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated.


Who are these to whom the Title refers? Well, the intersection of these sets (of course, best and brightest) has been the bane, many times, of the world since the beginning of time. You see, the un-best, and the un-brightest, have a smaller sphere of influence; in short, their troubles impact a smaller bunch. The best and brightest? We'll go on about how these are defined, but, in general, have not the widest types of havoc been wrought by these (without any doubt)?

Now, to be fair, plenty of the best-and-brightest actually are worthy of our attention and affection.


Okay, just to remind you: of late, the best-and-brightest took their balls home since the game that they defined, and instituted, became so confounded by their wrong choices that they did not know whom to trust (and, not trusting others comes first from not trusting yourself). Yes, the financial failings all trace back to silly games by those who ought to have known better. We'll, of course, characterize this further.

Aside: we still see the problems, and Ben isn't helping. A recent WSJ had several letters that pointed out the problems that will come from Ben's stance of sacking the savers. It's nice that the letters were written and that the WSJ printed these. But, will Ben learn?


So, what makes for the brightest? Too, ought not 'best' be an ex post facto determination? How much ought to have been 'raked' back during the errant times (oh, you know, being paid big bonuses for building a house of cards that failed inevitably)? Why not tie remuneration to long-term results rather than to the short-term rush after rent?


As for the 'brightest' side of things, that, too, is problematic, to wit[,] discussions about g-loading, et al. As we know, a lot about smarts (including to be rich is to be smart) is cultural. It's interesting that a culture free test is visually based. Too, the hardest of tests has no time element; in fact, one takes it home (but, then, if it does measure [in] the upper realms, to whom would one turn for help?).


Somehow, the past couple hundred years has led toward 'darwinian' ideals, on the one hand. On the other have been extreme views on communal life. One thing that we'll bring in is how we need to somehow balance with more insights related to symmetry. Why is it that only the sciences get to play with the concept? Political polarities can be seen as being related to asymmetry (which isn't bad, necessarily).


Per usual, this will continue. We're dealing with foundational issues here, folks. We're in deep doo-doo since the willy-nilly chasing of the best and the brightest after either their own gain or someone's demise (think of of it, not being a winner, just keeping someone else from winning) goes one daily in an increasingly complex fashion (methinks such is to allow the crooks some relief from oversight -- yes, those of you who talk as if dark pools are a rationally based thing of value of we, the people).

Naturally, near-zero will need, and get, more attention. Yesterday, we saw a game, with a winner and a loser. Too, we saw a level playing field. And, there were rules and regulations enforced. A lot more could be said, but here is one thing: both teams got paid to play (one has more bragging rights, essentially). The rape-and-pillage of modern business ought to be within a similarly bounded scheme. Ah, 'how to do that?' is the question.


09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).

05/04/2012 -- A recent filing relates to this theme.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

03/05/2012 -- As said earlier, edits will be marked.

02/11/2012 -- A few editorial changes (marked thusly). Plus, here is an example of a main issue with the ca-pital-sino, namely stock trading without sense. Given to us by whom? The best and brightest! Out of control

Modified: 09/19/2013

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Fraud Power II

Over three years ago, Sept 2008, we first wrote about the Fraud Power that is inherent in finance due to its acceptance of gaming as its basis. At that time, the focus of the blog was slowly shifting to be looking at both engineering and finance.

The original focus was 'oops (and related) as we see happen with creative efforts and the drive for new products of quality that provide value. That is, if you try to do something, you stand a chance to fail. For some, such expectations can lead to doing nothing. However, most reasonable people take actions with the hope for success. And, engineers learn the ways.


There was (and still is) a whole lot to discuss on that subject from the engineering view. However, engineers go up against nature and can converge to good solutions over time when using the proper resources. In a sense, engineers work on real things (stuff, if you would). Generally, it is management that screws up engineering by bringing in factors that are not real, in many senses. Oh yes, accounting might try to put numbers in order, yet has it not become well-known that many try to book cook (despite regulations, auditing, etc. -- by the way, the main issue is determining value)


So, as a way to go forward a little, let's re-look at some of the bullets of that older post and update the information with what we have learned.
  • * Fraud power -- Finance does not work with real things. Do you think that you could go to the Fed's vaults and actually get your hand on something tangible? Oh, I know, we pass around paper and coin. You do know that such is a small part of the total under the control of the Fed (too, Ben has diluted the value quite a bit the past few years, sacking the saver, using his buddies like Jamie). Now, if finance was directed (first and second derivative) to only doing something real, some of the problems would disappear. Minsky's arguments were along that line. Speculation, in essence, is not needed, in many cases.
  • Yet, finance has gone after this type of thing as if it were necessary. In short, finance for the sake of finance, as if we could eat money, wear it, sleep on it, etc. Get the drift? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. The troubles in Europe may bring forth some insight, as we are in much bigger debt than we think (we sit fat due to the dollar being the prime means of establishing value). 
  • Over the past three years, there have emerged new laws; the OWS came about and is letting us know that people can make their displeasure known; in fact, three years ago, it was as if the fat cats ruled (next bullet). Yet, people like Jamie argue for us to get back to their insane leveraging (which led to silly games). 
  • So, are we any better off? No, the chimera runs every business day. Oodles continue to be raked off. At least, some are talking about how extraction is on the fat cat side (nope, has nothing to do with the 'entitlement' issues that the libertarians like to bring up). There has been a lot of talk; the questions related to actually cleaning things up lag severely. 
  • *  Captains of industry -- The new kings reign over virtual realms that have no solid basis within any geographic, or political, sense. How do we change that? Well, a Magna Charta for these ones which will be enforceable (actually, these folks are worse than old King John). Much to look at here, in time. And, it would be different for the finance, versus those dealing with real stuff, industry. 
  • *  Best and brightest -- If one goes back to the mid-90s, one would see that computer science had an upswing in interest. However, that was before the more mature web, so things must have seemed very boring in compsci. So, the flux went toward finance. I wondered about the motivations, from time to time, until the crap hit the fan. Then, I wondered how was the idiocy left go on for so long. With the downturn, many in the finance world lost jobs. Now, many of those still in the game are making more than they ought. Too, we're hearing complaints about constraints on bonuses, from time to time. 
  • Just lately, there was a report that compsci is of interest again. Why? Those with that type of mindset, and knowledge set, are being offered jobs. Of course, my wonder now is what we'll see in 10 years that is completely messed up. Oh, could the web be any more screwed up? Well, yes (a whole other subject to address, at some point). 
  • One thing that we know is that there is a shortage of jobs. In some cases, they've been pushed off shore. Why? It's easier to screw someone who is distant than the guy down the street. Too, some things, in this country, are still bound with moral characteristics. Elsewhere, not so much. We all know that training is key, in many senses. But, too, that labor is of value and needs respect has to get some consideration. Yes, those who are numerant have overlaid upon the rest of the populace a smelly cloud (noxious to it core). Why? We'll get more into that, but it has to do with misuse of technology. 
Now, the blog deals with oops. As discussions progress in the other blogs, there will be posts here when necessary (as in, it's pertinent, there is a need to look at the oops issues). 


08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper downhe has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'√≠sh).

05/29/2012 -- Jamie's bank in the news, again.

02/05/2012 -- Time to update the theme of the best and brightest.

02/04/2012 -- A little mathematics can be dangerous. Andrey is an example of being mis-used. 

Modified: 08/01/2013