How do we know?

The question pertains to both the before and after of any situation. Several things are of concern here, such as believability, trust, and more.

Let's take the 'after' part first, as we have said before that we do not have 20-20 hindsight, in many cases, though our 'ex post facto' state may be wiser (not necessarily, to which any thoughtful human will attest). This New Yorker article ought to help understand some of the issues. The Atlantic had a similar one (Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science), recently.

Now, on the before side, it's not easy either. The qualification, frame, ramification triad and undecidability apply, for the most part.

---

Now, we have another thing to ponder, especially when putting our seats on an airplane. But, as with all things technical, worrying about some of these things is just too difficult. Full speed ahead (paraphrase, as the context also demanded to ignore the torpedoes).

But, is this not true: any successful, democratic society requires a knowledgeable populace? Of course, there is the issue that we cannot let paralysis come from analysis.

---

So, in this case, we'll look at the issues from several sides even though one player says that it's of no concern. Expect the discussion here to continue, in a supportive role, while the video is analyzed.

Remarks:

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

Then, that same issue of the New Yorker has an article about the hypocritical mantras of 'free markets' that we're subjected to (Enter the dragon).

12/18/2010 -- On the finance side, Martin Weiss reminds us that Big Ben has grown the money supply by 1.2T the past couple of years. Then, he lowered the cost (interest) while giving bunches of money to the banks. These guys then loaned the money to us at a high rate of interest. And, pulled in the bucks. Of course, Ben had taken 1T of toxic assets off of their hand and put it on our backs. Finally, those jerks are getting paid big bonuses this year. We should have nationalized, yes, indeed.

Modified: 12/20/2010

Knowledge and compilation

As mentioned last time, we need to continue to discuss what motivates this blog in a constructive manner. Three years ago, a post looked at 'oops, loops, and oops. To belabor the obvious (nod to the Devil's DP Dictionary description of computer science), let's look at these three and then point to literature.

Why the use of "Consideration of 'oops, loops, and oops (at times, poops)" in the label?

• 'oops - ah yes, as in hoops, referring, of course, to the operationalistic nature of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for us and of things in general. That is, action is the orientation. How do you like your daily 'oops jumping?
• loops - again, tomorrow is the future extension of today as was today for yesterday and so forth. Is it not that texting drivers take advantage of the fact that all of their faculties are not demanded to cope with driving tasks, in most situations, and then consciously direct part of their remaining facilities to a distracting element all the while assuming that they can swap back to full attention if such is needed? That whole idiocy is such a good example of the latent risks that can develop into problems that it'll continue to appear here. Now, is it not true, too, that they know this about driving because of the familiarity? Did I hear you say, loop?
• oops - to err is human; to be stupid about risk is what? Yet, error is for us to manage (to wit, what we see with information theory). Actually, if we took an error-based view as the underlying framework, it would be very interesting indeed. Of course, that would be an operational ('oops and loops) stance, as you know.

---

We don't need to mention poops, except in passing. How many instances can you pull out of your memory of some adult behaving like the diapered set (not talking Depends)? The real irksomeness? That we are then expected to clean the crap for these people.

---

So, raising our sights, we need to look at what 'compiled' might mean to the subject. Those who are computer literate might see the metaphor's appeal. It actually goes deeper. Just consider this ACM biblio list of citations on one paper.

The mere fact that we can compile suggests a lot. Basically, learning is the key. And, do we not learn via loops (iteration, etc.)? Is it ever over (hubris says yes)?

Notice that the inverse of compiled is deep. That is, consider how the concept of 'analysis paralysis' came to be. As a species, without compilation, we would have all frozen into some type of catatonic-like state long ago. Fortunately, there are embedded circuits to rely on, plus we have techniques, such as filtering, that are both part of our apparatus collection and of our acquired knowledge.

What all of this means will require a parallel development on the truth engineering side. However, the problems are deeper than those suggested in The Black Swan. Yes, we mis-use Gauss' work as we do a myriad of other mathematical ideas. That is one thing to continue discussing since it allowed the best and brightest to lead many on perdition-laden paths.

Remarks:

01/01/2011 -- 'compilation' was, earlier, in the mind (called learning) and in our artifacts, such as written material. With the advent of the computer, the ways to compile knowledge increased dramatically. What did not increase, though, was an appreciation of the underlying faults of those types of artifacts. So, there will be an ongoing effort, in that regard, to bring this to the fore.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Oops types

So, we need to address this issue so that we can motivate solutions. That is, yes, the tone here will turn from taking potshots at oops and the oops'ers toward a more constructive bent.

We can talk three basic oops types, for now. There will be more which then will be categorized, analyzed, and smoothed (nod to the fact that underdetermination is the main thing, folks) out (we cannot remove wrinkles of many sorts).

So, for the first type, it would be a purely human affair, like the hubris we see with the CEO crowd (not all, just those with the biggest egos and pockets). But, there are other types. Is not the saying, to err is to be human? Does that not imply that none of us are without some fault and mangling ways?

In regard to that, the CEOs ask for their comeuppance several ways which we can discuss at length (but will not, given the new spirit). Trash talking gamers might be another category, but that brings in a whole set of other issues.

So, we have human error.

Then, for the second type, we have artifact oops, such as computer, or system, error. Mind you, system would imply products of all types. So, engineering has been working for eons on improvements. And, we see processes in place to help ensure better lives from use of the results. Some of this is just plain common sense, yet a lot of it had to be mandated by government actions (thanks, CEOs - oops, there I go again -- the new spirit will eventually win out here, it is guaranteed - oops, again).

Many product makers think about safety and minimizing harm from failure. Those who think forwardly in computing are looking at what would be involved with error-correcting systems. Mind you, communications has worked on this for years, with various types of checks and fix ups. But, as we ascend the conceptual tree (and complicate contexts), it becomes more of a problem, especially since undecidability is at the core. There have been means proposed, discussed, and implemented throughout the years. In fact, default logic, for one, was motivated by these concerns.

So, those are two types of oops: the wetware type and the hardware type.

What then is the third type? Well, sci-fi aficionados will get a metaphor of the borg. What we have, folks, is that ubiquitous computing has permeated human affairs to the deepest level and across the board. And, the growth proceeds both in depth and in breadth. There is no sense in being alarmed, as this progress was an inevitable consequence of the enlightenment switch that was thrown a few centuries ago.

It is that third type of oops that we'll focus on in 7oops7. Plenty harp on what others do wrongly, that seems to be a human trait. There is a saying about this that involves glass houses (find it, if you must). Many suffer from hardware (all types) failures. What is problematic there is that many providers of these things like to blame oops type 1; it's called user error.

Now, to be complete, we need to mention software. You see, with computation, even hardware can be parameterized. So, we will place software oops into the type 2, as then oops type 2 would actually be any type of system error.

So, we will look at oops of this third type, yet that we can differentiate between oops type 2 and oops type 3 is not always easy (here we need to link to discussion of cyber-physical issues). Come to think of it, what we might think of as oops type 1 could very well have some oops type 3 in it (that is, someone (CEO) takes a stance based upon they're told by a techie who is off the mark).

The main thing to remember is that oops type 3 deals with humans dealing with systems. This can range from comic (Chaplin's guy) to tragic (too many, and too depressing, to itemize). These types are going to become more of a concern (already were, but now cannot be ignored) as we proceed with the 21st century.

Aside 1: That examples of oops type 3 will be heavily computationally flavored is only the result of the growing ubiquity. In many cases, we might discuss things that are mechanical or other.

Aside 2: it might be fun to look at what the human-machine interface people have defined over the years in terms of oops, such as usability.

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Two oops are of interest here. One deal with a product, namely one of these types handled by Sealy. Now, another was related to computing, namely mad-house rush, on the web, to be first in line to receive something (Dr Oz). We saw mayhem this past fall in situations where people had to fight to get one of a limited number of goods (black friday). So, is that the point, the settos? If so, tsk?

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

12/14/2010 -- One necessary topic will be compiled knowledge.

Modified: 01/15/2012

As if by ...

... magic. Yes, technical people laugh about this. What management does is put things together (resources), mix them, and then expect some output of note. As if by magic, essentially.

Why? They do not appreciate that it's good people (who are not just a resource, you fat cats) who make things happen. And, leaning on them to do the impossible can only go so far, you top-down thinkers who believe that you're John Galt [], or something similar.

This type of fat-cat creep-ness screwed up the financial world. We would expect those dealing with matter to be above this crappy game.

Does Jim M. (who?, figure it out) seem to be like that? Now he's saying that that the production projection line will be shallower and longer than he said before. Say what, guy? Any reasonable person knew that years ago; you're just now admitting the reality.

Oh, I know. You guys went off to South Carolina in a union busting mode. That was going to work? Like magic?

That last successful program, identified with the triple numbers, was the culmination of a long string of work. It was within the same milieu (product, design, and process spaces), you see. That is, as one works issues within some domain, one gets better. Yet, any relaxing of basic ASSumptions can perturb such as to cause divergences that are not pleasant. Good people scramble to put things back in order. And, do so (that's why they get good pay - not to your level, though, Jim M (and your ilk)).

By the way, some do appear to work magic. That is, from the outside it seems so. Yet, on analysis, there is a basis of solid knowledge, good methods, constrained expectations, practical sense, etc. I'm not talking the sleight of hand, Jim M. That cannot fly.

The new thing (project rolled out as an empty potemkin liner back in 2007) threw caution to the wind, relaxed along all axes of decision, brought in the unknowable by out-housing, listened too much to the modelers who said that the computational framework was (would be) wonderfully effective, allowed the risk guys to run rampant with their little fantasy (yes, you all know who you are - your numeracy led us to (and led us along) perdition laden paths), and so forth. It is a litany too long to even consider here, right now.

You see, Jim M, you would do more service to the world to learn about undecidability and how it applies even to how we handle matter than to keep your coif out of the wind, preen for the cameras, bask in your tub of money, calmly talk to the Street (Wall more than Main - yes?) as if you know what's up (did you not say things in that forum before and then have an announcement within days that would have some wondering how can this be? talk but not walk the talk?) or whatever it is that you top-level guys do (as you think of yourselves as kings of the rest of us).

We can use linear logic, and its extensions, to help the world learn the proper lesson. It has to come from the engineering camp. Jim M, you are running what was once a top-notch engineering firm that produced highly-engineered products. You came in the clean up the ethics. How did you actually help the problem-ridden program?

Remarks:

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

Modified: 01/17/2013

Finance and pay

Well, it's bonus time, again, on the Street. Yes, as in Wall, not Main.

Oh, the argument goes. If we don't pay the best and brightest, they'll go elsewhere.

Let me categorically say, as I've said before, what these types have wrought is not necessary. We can stop the whole futures market, for instance, and start over with something better.

Why? We need to shore up the utility aspect of banks, that is the plumbing. All else is speculative and necessary only to those who want to suck money from the pockets of the hapless into their own. It's called near-zero, folks.

But, Congress had a chance with the last downturn. Politics, and the power of big bucks - as in banks arguing for their bonuses, got in the way.

Will there be another chance, ever? Perhaps after a few more bubbles, but I'm too old to see that. Right now, I'll continue to argue the concept of 'simple living' as needed by those who touch money and control the flow.

Guess what? Big Ben almost makes it; but, his current digs are palatial. I'm sure that it'll grow on him like it did King Alan.

It is still the fact that the basis used by the best and brightest to demand their bucks is a house of cards. That computers are at the core will become problematic probably sooner than later.

Who will suffer this next time?

Remarks:

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/30/2010 -- Best and brightest, yeah!

Modified: 04/01/2011

Product safety

A new connotation can be made about this concept given the event of last week (trial explosives found in cargo shipments).

The cost of safely moving products? Was this even considered in full or did the model assume an ideal, and unrealistic, situation?

Is this not an oops or what?

Does not making it at home (not out-housing) become more feasible when the true costs are considered? As with any abstracted model, the 'pure' theory of international trade does not take into account any human quality. No, people are modeled as rational agents. Now, that's fine, except whose rationality is taken to be the model?

Sheesh, everyone papered over with some type of mediocre view. Is this not how business runs? Is it not why employees are considered just a resource pool only there for exploitation?

Oh, yes, the one star? The CEO, of course.

'market' ideology is like any other that makes a bunch of assumptions that match up with the belief system. Again, whose belief system?

What we need is a mindset that considers all aspects, albeit with rankings and risk analysis. Actually, the basis would be science and engineering. But, a heavy emphasis on people would be part of the system, to boot.

Now, how to attain such is the problem that will continue to be the focus.

Remarks:

11/08/2010 -- A technical look is necessary.

Modified: 11/08/2010

The market

In the area where I live, the Republican candidate for one position persists in using the phrase 'the market' which grates on my sensibility.

Why? What the hell is 'the market' to which he, and many others, refer? The ca-pital-sino that we see everyday?

Actually, if I step back a bit, I can see that many who argue for capitalism are also believers. Or, that is their claim. One has to wonder what they believe given that their actions are many times counter to the 'spirit' of Christ (assuming Christian leanings, we're talking US of A, okay?).

Now, if they would say that we have Capitalism by Revelation, then we could talk about how this came about. That, of course, would lift Adam Smith to the level of a Prophet. Gosh, he's rolling in his grave about now.

If we don't have capitalism from a prophet, from whence do we have that which Adam used 'invisible hand' to describe as he tried to explain some phenomenon via metaphor? Do these modern folks really think that Adam, whose work was about 400 years ago, can be used now given all that we've learned?

That is, Adam as an example of his time is okay. Adam as chief revealer of economic truth is not.

Some gloat that 'the market' is more efficient than other means. Yet, from whence will they show proof for their position (beyond offering those who exploited the system to the state of fat cast at the detriment of the many?)? Some use suspicious means to model what might be called a market, we think that we can show. The approach has to be constructive. The first 'revelation' is that there is no 'the market' despite all the mania that we see daily.

Yet, there is a systematic way that we could provide a just economy. But, it would take more work (not labor, that's a role) that many may want to offer.

Of course, all this economic flimflam accompanies oodles of oops.

Remarks:

10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

Modified: 10/26/2010

Facebook, as metaphor

Note (11/18/2022) -- FB, now Meta, is following predictable tracks. We'll be observing and commenting more closely, from outside the monolith, of course. See Remarks, below. Also, the posts that get references in this work will be cleaned up (normal little typos, stale pointers, etc.). 

---

Metaphor of what? Well, The New Yorker had an article on Mr. Z which was a great read. Since he does represent the epitome of the generation (and just not because of his wealth), his thoughts are of interest.

You see, the ubiquitous nature of computing was seen before [now], by some of us [who were looking at the future of computing]. Yet, insights due to being immersed already in the technology from day one [as in, from youth] are not what the older wave [as in, those who paved the way] sees. Mind you, not talking age, as even 30-year olds are not privy [to whatever appeals to incessant enthrallment with the glowing tube -- err, screen].

---

The generation gap is real [always was]. But, would it not be nice for the younger set to, at least, acknowledge [each new generation rests upon its own foundation] that what they were immersed in was the result of the work of many [Newton's comment applies, shoulders of giants]? It [anything that appears to be a basis for progress] was not just something that emerged by itself (oh yes, that is the prevalent ontology of the best-and-brightest, some, that is [some, meaning, of course, secular reasonists], that we're just something that 'emerged' from nowhere [to wit, Krauss,et al] (albeit over a long period of time and during completely random events [oh, I know, only partly random]) -- so why wouldn't the kids pick up on that [mis-use of Markov, to boot]). Rather, people, of talent, somewhat like the Mr. Zs of the time, worked with what they had to improve matters.

---

So, of what is Facebook going to be a metaphor? Well, whatever it is that is pulling attention to those little boxes [existential smashing of the spirit, probably worse than altering the mind with excessive mineral, or herbal, intake] such that people [dumbing themselves down]  run around like zombies mindless of their rude intrusions [physical presence talking, looking middle distance, close to the personal space -- overbearing, to the max] on the peaceful lives of those [what happened to civility?] who are unlucky enough to be in their presence [luck of the draw, more now of these than ever].

You see, Ford and GM are bringing Facebook to the auto experience [or so we hear]. Mind you, how much attention will the driving responsibility get [we already know about this from ample evidence via the texters who cannot put aside that part of their brain -- for even a moment]? Of course, they could also put into place the heads-up technology so that there can be some attention paid to the people (walkers) or other cars who might be in the way.

---

Or, there would need to be more real-time warnings. Imagine this: driving down the road, engaged in Facebook (or some ilk of a similar nature) with a small screen showing what lies ahead (of course, one could glance out the windshield from time to time, if one chose - but, hey, the legal profession just might make it a crime to be in the area of a moving car (as a pedestrian) thereby increasing the probability of an accident -- that is, blame the victim-ness). And, don't you think that the screen would have to be real-time and not propagated through the delays of the internet and its servers?

This could work with heads-up, assuming proper training, sensors, and the like. But, how long would it take, and how many lives, to shake out the bugs [FB, et al, push out for real tests, it's atrocious that the populace gets to guinea-pig new products (as in, shunted test periods in order to rush to market)]?

---

Mr. Z sees Facebook as a new layer (as in the context of strata) that is everywhere and always present. Does this sound like a possible modification to the communications model (orthogonal dimension - spirituality? - jest, in part [not really, see 01/05/11 Remarks, below])?

But, he is right that such will come about (Facebook? Mr. Z, consider that as a vanguard, it would not be your thing [new technology is always on the way]). Except, we don't know what this might look like, the rules of the road (etiquette), affects on ourselves (neuropeptidergically) [our bio selves], and much more.

---

We ought to be considering these things with the public (various domains already have an interest - including those of the nefarious intents).

Having Facebook (and, thank you, Mr. Z, et al) as the thing to look at in this regard is apropos to the time and the technology. Given the theme of this blog, 'what oops lurk?' (mind you, Facebook has already face'd a few of these) is of interest. Are they boundless (yes, Mr. Z's quote from classical literature)?

---

By the way, in another context, the question is asked, about unbounded domains and those who seek such (or what the new royalty thinks is without limit): how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss?

Actually, there are more metaphors which we'll be getting into from time to time, thanks to the growing presence of Facebook.

Remarks:

11/17/2022 -- See Quora, Psychether for a discussion that will use these concepts as point-in-time observations. 

04/09/2015 -- We need to get back to the metaphor issue.

11/03/2014 -- Really need to raise this topic back to fore. The viewpoint is from many decades of computing, even more in dealing with "smart" humans, and even more in analyzing systems (their good and bad points). The 80s.

10/08/2014 -- Many, many metaphors.

10/04/2012 -- 1B users, give or take. Too, a re-look.

08/04/2012 -- So, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero. Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

05/22/2012 -- Facebook, again.

05/18/2012 -- Thought for this IPO day, motivated by Borel, et al: forget a million monkeys, how about a zillion+ FB users? What would be the 'remarkable' output of such? Ah, I see? Infinite Monkey Theorem. We'll get back to this theme, later. Given my experience, several things seem to be missing (and, a large IPO does not fill in the gap, folks). For one, we won't converge toward a reasonable architecture (or a number of other properties that we've learned) by happenstance, nor can the hackers lead us to such.

05/15/2012 -- We'll have to get back to the discussion of this important subject. FB struck a nerve and attracted users. Given the market mania that'll be going on for awhile, we will have that sort of thing to look at closely (as in, within the current context of 'near zero' (remember, folks, 2000)). One analysis said that this company was found, and run, by coders. I'm one of those (coder, that is, for over 30 years, in advanced technology, so using modern techniques throughout the time -- by the way, over 50 languages, countless environments, non-trivial applications, and many types of platforms -- it's nice to see the 'app' architecture mature -- wait! wrong word, we're a long way from maturity). It's interesting how the FB milieu is such that they determine the requirements and push out at their will. On the other hand, we could look at serious computing issues where determining requirements, minimizing bad side-effects, and more are of utmost importance taking much time and effort (but, we'll get back to all that). Again, 'metaphor' for what? Not being cynical, I won't put things like dashed expectations, compromised personal information, or a number of other things that we read about. No. I'll leave that for others. FB (and whatever follows) is part of a long evolutionary chain going to where (need to switch to teleological matters, folks) we do not know (yet -- can we ever?).

03/15/2012 -- 'jewels' and computing.

02/04/2012 -- Edited content for readability and for unraveling some confounded-ness. Motivated by a recent read.

02/02/2012 -- FB's IPO. We need to update this in another post, and re-edit this a little for readability.

06/10/2011 -- USA Today reporting on the NHTSA comments on autos as smartphones.

02/27/2011 -- Rick Bookstaber's thoughts on Facebook.

01/10/2011 -- Many ways to connect -- Boston 1775: Because We Must All Be Connected All the Time: "Though I like a lot of people on Facebook, I still have no emotional connection to the service itself besides frequent puzzlement. In contra..."

01/05/2011 -- More than metaphor, actually the growing interest in Facebook depicts a whole bunch of things. However, one has to wonder who may rue what they have let themselves post in this newfound enthusiasm. In a sense, Facebook could be thought of as a limited model of the Akashic, albeit grossly, as there is a growing footprint (increasing set of permanence'd data -of varying degrees of frivolity and triviality) whose ultimate dimensions we can only wonder about. At what point will the thing (applies to the total collection from Internet activity) collapse?

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies

11/18/2010 -- Philip's review of the movie and the comments are worth a read. Indeed, the smartest nerd does not make the most money (is that Perelman's lesson?).

10/29/2010 -- Zuckerberg's public page on Facebook. It's nice that he talks technical issues, somewhat. Initiatives, like Code for America, are interesting and of interest to this blog and truth engineering. This old coder (the oldest around?) wonders how these young guys can flip/flop after the latest technical upgrade without (or what appears to be without) due consideration of ramifications (to wit, backtracking due to criticism after the fact). My message to these young guys would be to allow that an older mind (such as mine) can very well participate and contribute to their progressions. How is it that each generation has, of late, thrown knowledge and caution to the wind and attempted to re-write the world? Oh, code is it?

Adage: the world is being screwed by coders running after money and fame without regard to the consequences of their twiddling ways. (Quants are one example; now, let's add web weebles)

10/26/2010 -- One way to know, the media.

10/15/2010 -- There is much more to Facebook than the rush of fame (beyond the 15 minutes) of having one's face (and activities and thoughts) observable by the world. It can help us learn how computational assistance can augment talents, thereby improving one's being, effectiveness, and much more. After all, capitalists are exploiting this, and us at the same time (to wit: the ca-pital-sino was enabled via computer, colonialism (out-housing) requires a world-wide communication scheme, -- the list is long, people). Let's give the suckers power to withstand the onslaughts of the sack'ers, at the same time, educating Big Ben.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

09/26/2010 -- What was the number? 1/14? That is, taking the current Facebook registration over the world's population, you would show that a very large percentage have signed up. If you dropped those not of age (assuming an almost uniform distribution which isn't the case), you could say that 1/4 of those of rational leanings (again, the behavior of some begs this question) are using the social medium. That points to some type of basic metaphysics (which is where the action is going to be - as the web will enable all sorts of experiments and events that were not possible, nor imaginable, prior to now) in action.

09/21/2010 -- We won't be picking on Facebook, alone, as a whole bunch represent the accumulated notion. We're 15 years, give or take, from that early phenomenon, called Mosaic, and all sorts of things have happened (some good, some not go good). Having been in the technology, but neither immersed nor embedded, from the get-go, almost, what seems imperative for us to learn are the principles of 'truth engineering' (look it up), the first step being the discovery and clarification of these. Facebook can help there. Since it's new, its founder is young, and the strongest analog is that we, the humankind, are like adolescents in this regard (with all due respect to the heads-in-the-clouds, pure mathematicians, logicians, et al) - this is an evolutionary phenomenon and needs to be understood thusly.

Modified: 11/18/2022

Decline and fall

Gosh, some (many?) Boeing engineers are probably sick at the status (Chicago Tribune) of the 747, and the 787. Guess what? Their bosses are probably clueless. Jim M, included.

Yes, farm out work (the proverbial throwing things over the wall) that you don't understand and hope that it'll pay (something for nothing - plus, magic is in the air).

We'll be getting into this with more depth. But, as a prolog, there are oodles of posts here berating the decline of capability, the wishfulness brought on by computation, and the whole notion that one can be successful while relaxing (idiocy to the max) along all axes in a problem solution search.

The world is screwed up. England became a financial center (of course, we know that there isn't much behind that whole notion - see Fedaerated - except movement from one pocket to another - generally, from the many to the few). Professor Wiener thinks that it's due to the aristocratic influence of: wanting something from nothing (get it from the peasants), not doing for self (oh, no way, that is what maids and servants are for), being mostly head-driven (classic cause of egoism and out-of-touchness - as with reality). Yes, we're talking about his thinking as published in 'English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit: 1850-1980'.

Some think that England needs to get back to its engineering glory of old. Yet, a lot of that left the old world (to wit, the influx over the pond), just to get away from the aristocratic mess (yes, some of that was brought to here - why else that CEOs (and other business leaders - political leaders, to boot) think that they're it?).

Actually, we had a generation of the best-and-brightest run after finance. And, what a mess? Thanks, Harvard, et al.

As said before, we need some type of Magna Carta for business. And, we need to run things with people who have taken a vow of simple living and ethics. Yes, indeed!!! We, and the earth, cannot abide these idiots (cartoon - Phila Daily News).

One cause is the ignorance of undecidability and its place, along with the requisite necessity for quasi-empirical views in our work.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he 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'ísh).

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof.

09/21/2010 -- Definitely, there are class divisions, in business. Such as the one who waits out the contract period, gets the contract signed (albeit after a rejection by the union members), and then lays out layoff plans that were known all along. Magna Carta needed, indeed.

Modified: 08/01/2013