M
Michael Terrell
Guest
You should know. You are a prime example.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
server
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:23:48 -0500, Joe Chisolm
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:30:52 -0700, jlarkin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.
The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.
Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa
60 cases a day reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed
to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect
a two-digit fatality number.
Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.
And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.
The area around Yosemite had no reported deaths and few known cases.
They just tested the sewage and found lots of viruses, panicked, tested
a lot of people, and found a bunch of cases. But still no deaths.
There could be a couple of explanations of why we have more cases and
fewer (or zero) deaths per case, but this group is hostile to ideas so I
won\'t suggest any. Keep talking about masks.
The death rate and infection rates are inflated. Florida clinic reported
98% infection rate but on checking the real value was 9.4% - not a
simple decimal point error. In Washington state a gun shot fatality
was listed as C19 caused. Who knows how many other \"errors\" there are
from the reporting clinics and hospitals. The C19 numbers
are completely unreliable. Officials are also trying to measure
a single data point while changing 2 variables. Then blame the
data point increase on one of the variables without accounting
for the change of the other one.
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
S
server
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:23:48 -0500, Joe Chisolm
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:30:52 -0700, jlarkin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.
The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.
Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa
60 cases a day reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed
to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect
a two-digit fatality number.
Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.
And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.
The area around Yosemite had no reported deaths and few known cases.
They just tested the sewage and found lots of viruses, panicked, tested
a lot of people, and found a bunch of cases. But still no deaths.
There could be a couple of explanations of why we have more cases and
fewer (or zero) deaths per case, but this group is hostile to ideas so I
won\'t suggest any. Keep talking about masks.
The death rate and infection rates are inflated. Florida clinic reported
98% infection rate but on checking the real value was 9.4% - not a
simple decimal point error. In Washington state a gun shot fatality
was listed as C19 caused. Who knows how many other \"errors\" there are
from the reporting clinics and hospitals. The C19 numbers
are completely unreliable. Officials are also trying to measure
a single data point while changing 2 variables. Then blame the
data point increase on one of the variables without accounting
for the change of the other one.
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
S
server
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:23:48 -0500, Joe Chisolm
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:30:52 -0700, jlarkin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.
The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.
Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa
60 cases a day reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed
to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect
a two-digit fatality number.
Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.
And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.
The area around Yosemite had no reported deaths and few known cases.
They just tested the sewage and found lots of viruses, panicked, tested
a lot of people, and found a bunch of cases. But still no deaths.
There could be a couple of explanations of why we have more cases and
fewer (or zero) deaths per case, but this group is hostile to ideas so I
won\'t suggest any. Keep talking about masks.
The death rate and infection rates are inflated. Florida clinic reported
98% infection rate but on checking the real value was 9.4% - not a
simple decimal point error. In Washington state a gun shot fatality
was listed as C19 caused. Who knows how many other \"errors\" there are
from the reporting clinics and hospitals. The C19 numbers
are completely unreliable. Officials are also trying to measure
a single data point while changing 2 variables. Then blame the
data point increase on one of the variables without accounting
for the change of the other one.
Yeah, the data is a mess, and the maximally alarmist numbers make the
headlines.
Fear, hysteria, politicking, opportunism, fame and fortune, expertise,
we have them all. People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. Or book advances.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
S
server
Guest
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full..pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full..pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full..pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable. The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???
You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.
You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.
In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.
Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.
They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???
You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is
Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. âA microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensorâ Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).
The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.
24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.
Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..
You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
I remember those days. And the LISP crowd, and programs that can be
written, but cannot be read.
What I meant that the academic area called Computer Science, for which
one could get a degree, had not been invented. Computers were of
course far older. I got a Masters in CS in 1981.
Joe Gwinn
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:43:02 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.
True for some people, false for many more.
Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.
You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.
Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.
\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y
Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml
Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.
It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.
In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!
OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.
I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.
Not if you were in HP!
HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.
HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.
I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.
He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"
What I decided to do was walk out.
Snap!
I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".
Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.
I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.
I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.
I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.
I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything. Computer science had not yet been invented.
Not exactly true. I did Theory of Computation Part 1 in 1967 as a graduate student. It didn\'t go all that far into computer science, but Turing\'s name did crop up from time to time, and it was taught by professional computer scientists, rather than mathematicians who specialised in numerical analysis (though that was where they mostly came from).
The proposition that LISP would save the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)
might have been around - LISP was invented in 1958 - but you need a lots more mass memory than was economically feasible at the time to have long enough lists to process to any effect.
I remember those days. And the LISP crowd, and programs that can be
written, but cannot be read.
What I meant that the academic area called Computer Science, for which
one could get a degree, had not been invented. Computers were of
course far older. I got a Masters in CS in 1981.
Joe Gwinn
J
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
I remember those days. And the LISP crowd, and programs that can be
written, but cannot be read.
What I meant that the academic area called Computer Science, for which
one could get a degree, had not been invented. Computers were of
course far older. I got a Masters in CS in 1981.
Joe Gwinn
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:43:02 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.
True for some people, false for many more.
Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.
You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.
Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.
\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y
Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml
Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.
It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.
In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!
OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.
I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.
Not if you were in HP!
HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.
HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.
I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.
He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"
What I decided to do was walk out.
Snap!
I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".
Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.
I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.
I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.
I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.
I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything. Computer science had not yet been invented.
Not exactly true. I did Theory of Computation Part 1 in 1967 as a graduate student. It didn\'t go all that far into computer science, but Turing\'s name did crop up from time to time, and it was taught by professional computer scientists, rather than mathematicians who specialised in numerical analysis (though that was where they mostly came from).
The proposition that LISP would save the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)
might have been around - LISP was invented in 1958 - but you need a lots more mass memory than was economically feasible at the time to have long enough lists to process to any effect.
I remember those days. And the LISP crowd, and programs that can be
written, but cannot be read.
What I meant that the academic area called Computer Science, for which
one could get a degree, had not been invented. Computers were of
course far older. I got a Masters in CS in 1981.
Joe Gwinn
J
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.
True for some people, false for many more.
Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.
You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.
Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.
\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y
Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml
Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.
It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.
In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!
OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.
I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.
Not if you were in HP!
HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.
HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.
I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.
He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"
What I decided to do was walk out.
Snap!
I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".
Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.
I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.
I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.
A very sensible response of course.
\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.
If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.
One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.
I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.
My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
J
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.
True for some people, false for many more.
Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.
You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.
Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.
\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y
Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml
Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.
It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.
In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!
OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.
I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.
Not if you were in HP!
HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.
HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.
I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.
He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"
What I decided to do was walk out.
Snap!
I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".
Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.
I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.
I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.
A very sensible response of course.
\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.
If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.
One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.
I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.
My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 1:38:47 PM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, that\'s nonsense and confusion. The exponential model (not just growth, but diminution in the
same model) represents the compound-interest-like behavior of spreading a disease.
But, it\'s not a model that matches exp(t); you can\'t exponentiate a time, or any
number with units, only unitless numbers.
The model is exp (ln(R) * t), in a sense; for any given replication rate of cases, there\'s
a trend. When the R value is greater than one, it\'s positive growth When the R value
is less than one, it\'s negative growth (exponential decay). Same model, still exponential,
but \'t\' is not the sole variable to be considered.
The \'R\' gets changed by circumstances we don\'t control (acquired herd immunity) as well
as those we do control. Exponential (and exponential growth) with a constant= R was
never the model being used. R was always a variable. No one ever expected years of
exponential growth, that was never a consequence of the model.
Honestly, how many times, in how many different ways, do we have to go over this?
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
....
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
Obviously, that\'s nonsense and confusion. The exponential model (not just growth, but diminution in the
same model) represents the compound-interest-like behavior of spreading a disease.
But, it\'s not a model that matches exp(t); you can\'t exponentiate a time, or any
number with units, only unitless numbers.
The model is exp (ln(R) * t), in a sense; for any given replication rate of cases, there\'s
a trend. When the R value is greater than one, it\'s positive growth When the R value
is less than one, it\'s negative growth (exponential decay). Same model, still exponential,
but \'t\' is not the sole variable to be considered.
The \'R\' gets changed by circumstances we don\'t control (acquired herd immunity) as well
as those we do control. Exponential (and exponential growth) with a constant= R was
never the model being used. R was always a variable. No one ever expected years of
exponential growth, that was never a consequence of the model.
Honestly, how many times, in how many different ways, do we have to go over this?
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 1:38:47 PM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, that\'s nonsense and confusion. The exponential model (not just growth, but diminution in the
same model) represents the compound-interest-like behavior of spreading a disease.
But, it\'s not a model that matches exp(t); you can\'t exponentiate a time, or any
number with units, only unitless numbers.
The model is exp (ln(R) * t), in a sense; for any given replication rate of cases, there\'s
a trend. When the R value is greater than one, it\'s positive growth When the R value
is less than one, it\'s negative growth (exponential decay). Same model, still exponential,
but \'t\' is not the sole variable to be considered.
The \'R\' gets changed by circumstances we don\'t control (acquired herd immunity) as well
as those we do control. Exponential (and exponential growth) with a constant= R was
never the model being used. R was always a variable. No one ever expected years of
exponential growth, that was never a consequence of the model.
Honestly, how many times, in how many different ways, do we have to go over this?
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
....
No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
Obviously, that\'s nonsense and confusion. The exponential model (not just growth, but diminution in the
same model) represents the compound-interest-like behavior of spreading a disease.
But, it\'s not a model that matches exp(t); you can\'t exponentiate a time, or any
number with units, only unitless numbers.
The model is exp (ln(R) * t), in a sense; for any given replication rate of cases, there\'s
a trend. When the R value is greater than one, it\'s positive growth When the R value
is less than one, it\'s negative growth (exponential decay). Same model, still exponential,
but \'t\' is not the sole variable to be considered.
The \'R\' gets changed by circumstances we don\'t control (acquired herd immunity) as well
as those we do control. Exponential (and exponential growth) with a constant= R was
never the model being used. R was always a variable. No one ever expected years of
exponential growth, that was never a consequence of the model.
Honestly, how many times, in how many different ways, do we have to go over this?
J
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.
True for some people, false for many more.
Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.
You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.
Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.
\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y
Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml
Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.
It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.
In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!
OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.
I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.
Not if you were in HP!
HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.
HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.
I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.
He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"
What I decided to do was walk out.
Snap!
I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".
Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.
I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.
I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.
A very sensible response of course.
\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.
If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.
One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.
This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?
I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.
I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.
I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.
My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.
Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.
As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.
Joe Gwinn
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 6:38:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 6:38:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 6:38:47 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research. Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
That paper is hilarious. They declare that the public is so ignorant
that they look at a linear slope and don\'t appreciate that it\'s
actually exponential. What\'s worse, some of those ignorant rednecks
think they actually see a peak and a decline.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Some people, when equations conflict with measurement, still believe
the equations.
The epidemiologists have all but abandoned the exponential growth model for COVID-19.
Not exactly true. Any realistic model has infected people infecting other people, and that\'s an exponential process.
Using the same average number of people infected per infected person - R - for each stage of the process was always unrealistic, and as soon as you can get a handle on the way this changes as the disease progress through the population you can make the model more realistic.
It\'s since been modified by a dispersion factor to account for the fact, determined independently by clinical field work and not a dweeb sitting at a computer, that most people don\'t spread it and a small number spread it like crazy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
âProbably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,â
The models are linear
Taking the k factor - the dispersion in the individual R factors - into account doesn\'t make the model linear. Any model used for short term forecasting is approximately linear over the short term - that\'s basic differential calculus.
and useful for short term forecasting to be used by policy makers to make decisions like this is getting worse, this is getting much worse, this is stabilizing, this is declining.
The decisions are based on what the data means, which is also what gets plugged into any mathematical model.
Every little thing they do on the grand scale potentially costs a gazillion bucks, so the post processed modeling as it \"informs\" the decision making is very useful.
It\'s a pity that you don\'t have clue about what\'s actually going on, and waste our time with verbiage that illustrates this.
Don\'t even try to read the book to me, mental midget. You\'re so far lost by every and anything related to the pandemic, you\'ve become a national embarrassment to Australia.
This from the guy that told us that vaccines that used a virus to generate the protein that was to generate the immune response couldn\'t possible work, because the anti-viral response would stop it infecting enough cells to work.
The fact that the anti-viral response was to be against corona viruses, and the virus being used wasn\'t a corona virus had escaped you, but was obvious even to a mental midget like me.
It is very evident that you have a deluded faith in your own competence.
> No one gives damm about your crap exponential growth model. They do give a damm about techniques to make forecasting linear and therefore usable.
LTSpice exists because it give useful predictions about non-linear circuits..
Linearising problems is always helpful - if you can do it - but it\'s not remotely necessary.
> The main thing they\'re after now is the infection rate which they are attempting to infer from the random testing data. That one tells them how cautious they need to be with allowing the public freedom to congregate.
Anybody sensible is concentrating on contact tracing, which allows you to tell people who might have been infected to isolate themselves until it is clear that they are unlikely to have been infected - which is to say 14 days after the potential infection.
Sufficiently rigorous lock-down can be as effective, but is nowhere near as cost-effective.
Perceiving this does seem to be beyond most US politicians, and quite a few of the people who post here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.
There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)
but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.
> You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.
You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.
In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.
Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.
They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???
There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.
There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)
but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.
> You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is
Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. âA microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensorâ Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).
The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.
24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.
Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..
You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.
You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.
There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)
but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.
> You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.
You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf
Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.
Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.
In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.
Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.
As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.
They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???
There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.
There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)
but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.
> You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.
As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.
Tell us about your career as a scientist.
Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is
Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. âA microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensorâ Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).
The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.
24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.
Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..
You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.
You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney