| Friday,
February 25, 2011
Argument from Implied Authority
Penny McCracken saying she
worked "for two separate companies which built nuclear power plants" implies
but does not say she was in that part of the companies and thus implicitly
has an informed opinion. I suspect almost any large company in the aerospace
industry will have some link to some nuclear work.
I have found anti-nuclearists regularly claiming to
have worked in the nuclear industry while being ignorant of the subject. Mrs
McCracken is probably not inventing here but her argument would have been
stronger if she had actually produced some argument against nuclear, apart
from the Japaneseness of a producer, rather than making an argument from
implied authority.
Neil Craig
I have no idea why she opposes nuclear power; but
then I don't hear many rational arguments on the subject, As I relate in
Step Farther Out, California's leading anti-nuclear "Small is Beautiful"
leader used to boast that "The only physics I ever took was ExLax." I do
not hear many rational discussions of the demerits of nuclear
power, and except for Access to Energy there aren't many explications of
the reasons why nuclear power is desirable. As I said before we invaded
Iraq and continue to say, had we put the estimated war cost of $300
billion into US energy development we would not have to worry so much
about the Middle East. As it happens the cost was -- surprise! -- a
multiple of the $300 billion, with no real end in sight. I would prefer
private energy development, but the TVA provides a model of a Federal
energy agency that actually works. The important thing is that energy
prices are a major factor in economic growth, and everyone knows it.
It is not my job to marshal the arguments against
nuclear power. The anti-nuclear people are so successful in the wonderful
American public school system that it is now simply assumed that educated
and intelligent people are against nuclear power. This is a great
accomplishment, for which the American people have paid a great deal of
money, and will continue to pay it in pensions to those who achieved it.
So it goes.
========
The Law of Least Usefulness
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
This email refines the Peter Principle by adding a
time-minimization law; this I then combine with the Iron Law of Bureaucracy,
and from this derive the Law of Least Usefulness.
The Peter Principle states that any employee in a
hierarchy tends to rise to his level of incompetence, when he then stays;
therefore hierarchies tend to accumulate incompetent employees. Dr. Peter's
logic is impeccable; but more can be added to it.
For there are many positions within the hierarchy
where the employee can be incompetent; and perhaps many other positions
where the employee would be competent, above that employee's equilibrium
level. Of all the possible incompetence levels, the employee achieves the
first one in line, and then stops.
Therefore the employee not only achieves an
incompetence level, he or she does so as quickly as possible .
I call this the "Speedy Peter Principle", namely: Any
employee in a hierarchy tends to rise to a level of incompetence, and do so
as quickly as possible.
Now consider the Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Any
bureaucracy tends to be ruled by those who put the bureaucracy's interests
ahead of its purpose.
The Peter Principle says that hierarchies tend to have
incompetent staff; the Iron Law says that hierarchies tend to have corrupt
leadership; and to these we can add a time-minimization law: this yields the
"Speedy Iron Peter" (SIP) Principle: Any hierarchy tends to become corrupt
and incompetent as quickly as possible.
Let Usefulness = Competence + Integrity + Time : then
the SIP Principle implies the LOLU: the Law of Least Usefulness.
P
===========
Cool effect with two cans and some sand.
Hi Jerry.
An unexpected physical affect when trying to burry
some cans in the sand:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/
2011/02/convince-your-friends-youre-a-ge.html?ref=hp
Cheers,
Mike Casey
=========
Perfect answer
Hello Jerry,
I just read your response to Penny McCracken and given
its brevity, you couldn't have said it better.
One additional thing should be made clear however.
While Penny and many other 'grass roots' protesters
are both sincere and adamant in their objection to Yucca Mountain, the
handling of nuclear waste is an excuse for the organized opposition to
nuclear power, not a reason.
As you are aware, the opposition to nuclear power is
to the power part, not the nuclear part. EVERY form of energy exploitation
meets with vehement opposition, always instigated by the same individuals
and organizations. With nuclear, since the actual production of energy has a
history (at least outside Communist countries) of being clean and safe, the
opposition is focused on waste disposal while blocking all efforts to
reprocess the spent fuel and make the problem essentially go away. The true
agenda is made especially obvious when sites like Yucca Mountain are blocked
because they cannot 'guarantee' absolute safety against all conceivable
catastrophe, natural or manmade, for 100,000 years, while the waste awaiting
the approval of Yucca is being stored in the open air, with no obvious
consequences to anyone.
While Penny is clearly not an idiot (quite the
contrary, based on her history and her letter) as 'idiot' is usually
defined, I think that in the context of 'fighting Yucca along with others
far more educated and capable than herself' the term 'useful idiot' would
apply. Maybe it would help if she would investigate the curricula vitae of
those august individuals and groups 'leading the charge', rather than just
soldiering on in the shadow of their brilliance.
Bob Ludwick
==========
The Mob is in Trouble
Jerry:
While I share your disgust with the tactics being
employed in Wisconsin and Indiana by the losers of the elections to nullify
the results, I'm not so pessimistic. In the past, discussions of how big
government should be and how much citizens should pay in taxes to support it
have been abstract. While defense contractors and Wall Street bankers were
vilified, public employees were viewed as sympathetic. My impression is that
most tax payers and voters are beginning to view the Unions, the Democrat
politicians and more importantly the public employees with increasing
hostility. Most believe govt spending is excessive and now realize that
public employees are by far the biggest expense. The public employee Unions
can riot all week, but the tax payers who are far more numerous can counter
riot on the weekends. Also, if the losers of an election insist on
nullifying the ballot box, a significant number of citizens will decide that
it is not illegitimate to resort to the bullet box. The police might take a
dim view of that. However; given all of their whining about how they are
outgunned by the criminals when officer homicide rates have been at historic
lows, I don't think most police would have the scrotum to fight a civil war.
Jim Crawford
I do not think the US is in danger of that kind
of street fighting -- yet. But economic despair can lead to a number of
changes. And the quality of the schools needs to be factored in. Not many
know the relevant history.
===========
Must Be Said
Jerry,
This event could not pass without my comment:
<snip> King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced
financial support measures, worth an estimated SR135bn ($36bn), in a bid to
avert the kind of popular unrest that has toppled leaders across the region
and is now closing in on Libya’s Muammer Gaddafi.
The measures include a 15 per cent salary rise for
public employees to offset inflation, reprieves for imprisoned debtors, and
financial aid for students and the unemployed. </snip> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b02f1ffa-3f62-11e0-8e48-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Er5cELt6
So the King--in his infinite magnificence and wisdom,
praise be unto he who makes the desert winds blow--decided to give back some
taxes to the people. That's a fairly clever strategy--for him personally, I
mean. Any sane king with the money these guys should hold would have a
copious supply of wealth that will all be squandered anyway. As an aside, I
am not sure the last ditch effort to get into banking is going to save the
House of Saud. However, with much cash the king can appease the mob for a
time--likely long enough for the king to pass through the veil and join the
dead. This is why I suppose this king is making a wise decision.
This king does not have the presence the old king did.
When you saw the old one, he felt like a king. This one still feels like a
prince, and I am not noticing most of the other princes--save for Bandar
Bush. I wonder what the rest of the leadership in the House of Saud looks
like and I wonder if they will have the resources to appease the crowd when
they get to be King Abdullah's age. This could be the end of OPEC. Of course
oil prices will go up in the short term, possible 200 dollars a barrel. Gas
prices could be 4-5 USD by the end of the year, and new fields could open
here increasing oil company profits. But, the end of OPEC could be the end
of expensive oil. Let's keep our fingers crossed... --------
BDAB, Joshua Jordan, KSC Percussa Resurgo
My advice would be to do what it takes to be
energy independent; even if that means some belt tightening while we do
it. It will still be less expensive than the kind of imperialism we seem
doomed to engage in now.
============
re: 'Learn Chinese'
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
In the last of your responses to Petronius on
Wednesday (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2011/Q1/mail663.html), where
he suggests that we build century ships to the newly discovered planets, you
in turn suggest: "Learn Chinese."
If one wishes to learn to speak Mandarin Chinese, may
I suggest this:
http://fsi-language-courses.org/Content.php?page=Chinese
In addition to giving free PDFs and MP3s of the rather
extensive public domain Foreign Service Institute course in Mandarin, it
also gives links to lots of supplemental material, not limited to the MIT
OpenCourseWare Mandarin Course, and the Defense Language Institute courses
in Mandarin and Cantonese.
Of course, if you'd rather learn Cantonese, so as to
be more comfortable speaking with natives of Hong Kong Luna (when that gets
operational), may I suggest this:
http://fsi-language-courses.org/Content.php?page=Cantonese
More generally, http://fsi-language-courses.org/Content.php
has put together a large set of FSI language courses for forty-three (yes,
43) different languages, from Amharic to Yoruba.
And if that is not enough for you, I've recently found
a website where one can download the materials from a number of Defense
Language Institute courses:
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16633&PN=3
Of course, it might also be reasonable to learn how to
read Chinese, but at present I have not been able to find good and free
online resources to do so. If you or your readers are interested, though,
and if that changes, I would be happy to share what I find with you, and
them.
Hoping this e-mail finds you well, I am
Very truly yours,
Bernard Brandt
Thanks
=============
COBOL and Fire Fighters
Jerry,
Your commenter Brian P wrote
"A quick scan of COBOL job openings on careerbuilder
bears this out; the openings are limited compared to those with modern
languages and skill sets.
I would therefore urge a young developer to learn
object-oriented languages and to pay special attention to web services and
architecture. Also app development for smartphones and Ipads. That is the
future of computing. Cobol is the past. That is my professional opinion
based on 17 years as a professional software engineer. "
With respect, I've made a fine career in systems
administration by not following the herd. When 'the future' was NetWare, I
had a series of well-paid positions working with Banyan VINES. Then I was
told 'the future' was Windows NT and I jumped into the supposedly dying
world of unix. Being contrary has kept me employed and well-compensated
since 1991.
There is an economic principle here whose name escapes
me - but think of firefighters. You've got your basic city and county guys,
anyone who is physically able can do the job. The pay is low. Next up your
specialized jobs, HAZMAT, smoke jumpers require more experience, more
education. Pay is better. At the pinnacle was Red Adair. There was only one
of him, and he could command whatever price he wanted.
-- Brian Dunbar Geidus
"Display some adaptability"
Well, I haven't been advising people to learn
COBOL -- indeed I haven't thought about it for a while -- but I
woujld like to see more work done on developing easier to use programming
languages. There used to be a lot more effort directed at that.
Half the people are below average. That probably
does not apply to those who read this site...
===========
Pace Petronius, redux.
I've spent a lot of time in the Middle Kingdom
[China], and I've a pretty good feel for the country and its culture.
1. There's more to life than 'stability'.
2. Except for the part about revolution, the rest of
the 'heir apparent's' statements are patently false (Google News is your
friend).
3. My objections are about far more than 'minutiae'.
I fear that he's correct in his apparent belief that
this model is in fact the future of the human species. I'm just glad that
I'm more than halfway through my probable lifespan, so that I hopefully
won't have to live long enough to see it become a reality.
-- Roland Dobbins
History has a habit of surprising us, and selling
the US short has never been a way to get rich. The American people remain,
if somewhat submerged.
============
Evolution of Mental Disorders
Jerry:
You wrote:
<quote> I have long intended to write an essay on the
subject. Hereditary schizophrenia makes no evolutionary sense. Senile
dementia might even have a positive effect since in times of food scarcity
one ought to have the good grace to die when one's grandchildren reach
adolescence, or sometimes even earlier. Dementia praecox -- juvenile
dementia -- has an enormous evolutionary burden, so much so that one
suspects infection rather than genes are at work. Infections can run in
families too. <end quote>
That's puzzled a number of people, but I think a lot
of these puzzles can be addressed in terms of cost/benefit analysis.
There's a story: two men walking in the forest are
confronted by a hungry bear. One turns to run. The other shouts, "What are
you thinking? You can't possibly outrun a bear!"
The reply? "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only
have to outrun *you*."
Evolution comes up with solutions that are good
enough", not ideal. Evolution doesn't pick the ideal solution unless it's
forced to, or unless the absolute best solution is the first "good enough"
solution it stumbles across in its random walk across the fitness graph.
So the mutations that cause sickle-cell trait are
preserved as a way of protecting against malaria, even though some of the
population will die from sickle-cell anemia. On balance, more of the
population survives to reproduce, and the gene continues.
In other cases, stuff happens, and it costs more in
resources to prevent the marginal cases than would be gained. I believe the
error rate in copying DNA is about one per million base pairs. It's that low
due to various proofreading and error-correcting mechanisms. More hardware
could reduce the error rate further, but would consume resources better
spent elsewhere.
If Cochrane's notions of "overclocking the brain" are
true, we have a situation where the population derives benefit from a
certain number of individuals with higher intelligence, and this benefit
outweighs the cost of a smaller number who die young from certain hereditary
diseases. Could the same thing be happening with autism and schizophrenia?
Homosexuality would appear to be evolutionarily
disadvantageous. By definition, if you don't pass on your genes, your
fitness is precisely zero. (And yes, homosexuals do reproduce, though
probably at a lower rate than the surrounding population.) Maybe there's a
benefit to having a small fraction of the population carry any genes that
predispose to homosexuality. Or maybe it's the result of a genetic glitch
that hasn't been worth the resources to fix over evolutionary time. I don't
know, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Maybe autism and
schizophrenia are glitches that occur in human brains, and the mechanisms
that prevent them are "good enough" in an evolutionary sense.
This also applies to various conditions that represent
the extreme ends of a normal distribution. Most people are distractable to
some extent, and people with ADD are more so than most. Maybe we need a
certain number of very distractable people (successful entrepreneurs have a
high rate of ADD), or maybe it's just not worth the resources needed to
narrow the range.
Or, maybe it wasn't worth the resources to fix the
problem and the problem later turned out to be a useful answer to some other
issue -- a lot of evolution involves "exaptation", adapting an existing
structure to serve a novel function.
Evolution, like every other scientific principle I've
encountered, is very simple in concept, but can be fiendishly difficult when
you get in to the details.
.................Karl Lembke
=====================
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
