In a move that's sure to astound the dozens people who read Buzzfeed for its book reviews, the site has announced that it will no longer publish negative reviews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/opinion/banning-the-negative-book-review.html?_r=0
This reminds me of the endorsements on LinkedIn, and I'm sure it will have the same effect.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Nice guys DO NOT finish last, but here are some good tips if you're worried about it
I'll never believe that you have to be mean or hurtful to get ahead in life. But here are some good tips to keep from being a doormat, too. Not a perfect list, for sure, but still worth a read.
For example: Working to please the boss. That's important, but most of the time the boss only has a limited understanding of what they want, especially in a professional situation. If the boss has any leadership talent she will hire people who know their field best and therefore create the best output possible, and she will give them a good bit of autonomy. The boss doesn't need to know every aspect of your job to be a good boss... So work to a professional standard to please yourself.
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE JUST STARTING OUT AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING YET - and YOU know who YOU are...
Ignore what I just said: please your boss. Otherwise, you'll never get to the "professional autonomy" phase of existence. Understand?
For example: Working to please the boss. That's important, but most of the time the boss only has a limited understanding of what they want, especially in a professional situation. If the boss has any leadership talent she will hire people who know their field best and therefore create the best output possible, and she will give them a good bit of autonomy. The boss doesn't need to know every aspect of your job to be a good boss... So work to a professional standard to please yourself.
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE JUST STARTING OUT AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING YET - and YOU know who YOU are...
Ignore what I just said: please your boss. Otherwise, you'll never get to the "professional autonomy" phase of existence. Understand?
Scientists kill world's oldest living creature in order to figure outhow old it was; see Heisenberg, Werner
It's been discovered that the world's oldest living creature was older than originally thought, but it also comes out that to measure its age it had to be killed - Heisenberg was a genius!
That sounds a little like "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".
That sounds a little like "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".
Update:
We find out today that they DIDN'T kill it to find out how old it was-they killed it as part of a global warming study.
Oh, that makes it OK I guess...
Just saw this piece from 2009 where Freeman Dyson disagrees with the climate change models.
Wow, I never thought I'd see THAT happen!
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/
Just saw this piece from 2009 where Freeman Dyson disagrees with the climate change models.
Wow, I never thought I'd see THAT happen!
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
WebMD was paid to promote the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)
The popular Web site WebMD has been 'outted' for taking Federal government money to promote the ACA.
Saul Alinsky would be proud, as would P.T. Barnum.
Saul Alinsky would be proud, as would P.T. Barnum.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Eyewitness to history: Gun confiscation in Nazi Germany
Interesting article in The Washington Times about gun confiscations from German Jews after Hitler ascended to power. I think there's a new Step 1 in the playbook, though (Step 1 used to be registration). The new Step 1 is "reduce the availability of ammunition for private handguns by crowding out production with government contracts." That, or "demonize private gun owners through misrepresentation and bias in the complicit national media."
These days calls for more registration come after massive efforts to make gun owners into kooks and paranoid types who should feel guilty for endangering civilization. The 2nd Amendment is, after all, so terribly out of date.
I guess we'll have to call for people to register their blogs (plus, every blog post should have a 5-day waiting period, just in case they contain "fighting words.") You know, that 1st Amendment is, after all, so terribly out of date. Along with many of the other ones - after all, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate drone technology, did they?
These days calls for more registration come after massive efforts to make gun owners into kooks and paranoid types who should feel guilty for endangering civilization. The 2nd Amendment is, after all, so terribly out of date.
I guess we'll have to call for people to register their blogs (plus, every blog post should have a 5-day waiting period, just in case they contain "fighting words.") You know, that 1st Amendment is, after all, so terribly out of date. Along with many of the other ones - after all, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate drone technology, did they?
Friday, November 8, 2013
Cliff Stoll was right...it's just the WAY it failed that hasn't become obvious
Back in 1995 Cliff Stoll* wrote in Newsweek about how the Internet wasn't going to go anywhere (Boing Boing talked about it here.) I've mentioned this before - Stoll was right. His book Silicon Snake Oil still has lots of valuable insight for those of us contemplating the future of the Web.
When people talk about the success of teh Intarwebs they point to online banking and Amazon and Facebook and Google (and MySpace used to be on that list, with Yahoo search, etc.) Some of those examples are relevant, and others are not. In particular, Stoll's comments about finding dreck on the Internet as sources are still valid nearly 20 years later; unless you know something about what you're looking for to start with, Google is useless for finding new information. Plus, we know that Google feeds the priors of its users.
Why? No referees, no credibility, no continuity or memory of any kind. No permanence - things change daily. For the same reason that Wikipedia is failing, what you can find on the Internet at any given time will eventually be mostly irrelevant. There's just too much noise out there compared to valuable stuff (signal). [Ask Dr. Shannon about that. Entropy is a bitch.] The worthwhile is getting marginalized every day, and the noise is getting noisier.
Facebook? Useful for distributing family pictures, but does it really have any other value? Can you sell it? Not so far. It's good for maintaining some relationships, but you've got to HAVE those relationships first. And nothing beats a good phone call.
Twitter? What happens when teenagers get tired of it (maybe, let's say, when they get REAL JOBS and don't have time to keep up with vapid 140-character nothings all day)?
Do Twitter and Facebook play a role in some economic system that's emerging? Not yet. As with so many other fads (Farmville, anyone?) they are most likely to join MySpace in the dustbin of the Web. If they disappeared tomorrow, what would we be left with? [more free time - that we would likely NOT spend in Eisenhower's Quadrant IV].
Nothing is permanent or reliable on the Internet. This is considered the new normal. Mankind doesn't function well on a shifting foundation.
Update 11/13/13:
The more I think about it I'm led to the conclusion that the Internet actually reduces our critical thinking ability as a society. There's probably some research out there that demonstrates it - maybe it's a noise effect, or a cognitive overload problem...
When people talk about the success of teh Intarwebs they point to online banking and Amazon and Facebook and Google (and MySpace used to be on that list, with Yahoo search, etc.) Some of those examples are relevant, and others are not. In particular, Stoll's comments about finding dreck on the Internet as sources are still valid nearly 20 years later; unless you know something about what you're looking for to start with, Google is useless for finding new information. Plus, we know that Google feeds the priors of its users.
Why? No referees, no credibility, no continuity or memory of any kind. No permanence - things change daily. For the same reason that Wikipedia is failing, what you can find on the Internet at any given time will eventually be mostly irrelevant. There's just too much noise out there compared to valuable stuff (signal). [Ask Dr. Shannon about that. Entropy is a bitch.] The worthwhile is getting marginalized every day, and the noise is getting noisier.
Facebook? Useful for distributing family pictures, but does it really have any other value? Can you sell it? Not so far. It's good for maintaining some relationships, but you've got to HAVE those relationships first. And nothing beats a good phone call.
Twitter? What happens when teenagers get tired of it (maybe, let's say, when they get REAL JOBS and don't have time to keep up with vapid 140-character nothings all day)?
Do Twitter and Facebook play a role in some economic system that's emerging? Not yet. As with so many other fads (Farmville, anyone?) they are most likely to join MySpace in the dustbin of the Web. If they disappeared tomorrow, what would we be left with? [more free time - that we would likely NOT spend in Eisenhower's Quadrant IV].
Nothing is permanent or reliable on the Internet. This is considered the new normal. Mankind doesn't function well on a shifting foundation.
So, here's to Cliff Stoll, prophet of teh Intarwebs. We ignore his warnings at our own peril...
[*Note: Cliff Stoll wrote "The Cuckoo's Egg" first, about catching a hacker. It's standard Greybeard 101, but really interesting stuff. If you don't understand everything in that book, how could you call yourself a SysAdmin?]Update 11/13/13:
The more I think about it I'm led to the conclusion that the Internet actually reduces our critical thinking ability as a society. There's probably some research out there that demonstrates it - maybe it's a noise effect, or a cognitive overload problem...
The latest reason that "Johnny Can't Learn" - he's an introvert, from Faculty Focus
In the long list of reasons why "Johnny Can't Learn," I thought we'd heard it all - he's a non-traditional student, he's a first-generation college student, he's got test anxiety...you name it. Of course there are legitimate concerns regarding these characteristics (although nobody seems to pay attention to them when they're inconvenient*). But the move to "active learning" in classrooms, which was brought on by the call for new approaches in the classroom since lecturing was just the same old thing, has caused a look at how introverts might deal with speaking up in class and ad hoc groups and the like.
Guess what? Introverts may not like active learning. The problem comes in determining whether Johnny is an introvert or whether Johnny just didn't do his homework and assigned reading. Having insisted upon active learning for most of my two decades in the college classroom, I can tell you there are more introverts than ever before.
Maybe there's an introvert epidemic!
Maybe this nation needs to devote resources to curing introversion.
Also, from experience these students seem to be MORE introverted immediately following a test, or when the material gets harder later in the semester.
*It seems that some kinds of students don't do very well in an online learning environment, according to the Community College Research Council in February of this year. Don't tell the administrators.
Guess what? Introverts may not like active learning. The problem comes in determining whether Johnny is an introvert or whether Johnny just didn't do his homework and assigned reading. Having insisted upon active learning for most of my two decades in the college classroom, I can tell you there are more introverts than ever before.
Maybe there's an introvert epidemic!
Maybe this nation needs to devote resources to curing introversion.
Also, from experience these students seem to be MORE introverted immediately following a test, or when the material gets harder later in the semester.
*It seems that some kinds of students don't do very well in an online learning environment, according to the Community College Research Council in February of this year. Don't tell the administrators.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The troubles with Wikipedia
As I've maintained for a while, Wikipedia is useful for casual things, and sometimes as a starting place, but rarely is it reliable for important information. This article on Technology Review makes it clear that the Wikipedia model is not sustainable nor is it reliable. Very interesting.
I guess there may be economic reasons behind these issues...
I guess there may be economic reasons behind these issues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)