Archive for July 2011

had a day

July 31, 2011

where the world should have passe don
and we should have stayed in bed
just delete it from the records.


nice combo

July 30, 2011

exhaustion and up at 4am.

protested today

July 28, 2011

not because I am a socialist.
I;m not.
I just want checks and balances to allow the market to work.
Will post more on this.

more reading

July 28, 2011

Essays on the Theory of Constraints (ISBN 0-88427-159-5).
First essay. 7th through 9th section.
First, looks at Army Structures – which means groups need to work together, hence discipline is the correct tool, with very specific, defined instructions.
Second, looks at Religious Structures – which means individuals need to achieve their own goals, hence guidelines are the rule. A code.
Eli writes “the conceptual solution adopted by the religious organizations is clearly superior to that adopted by army organizations.” (p.11)
He claims that this is because the inherent conflict between local and global optimums is simply eliminated in the religious structures. I highly disagree. It is only superior in relation to a goal. If your purpose is ONLY to synchronize, or the RISK to allow the lowest levels to decide/figure things out is way too high AND/OR the information level needed to operate is too great for it to be shared with the person in operations (since the amount of information needed for operating is high, such as completing army maneuvers) the army structure could be BETTER.

ANYHOO…he then goes on to speak of the problems with relying on computers without taking the responsibility of asking the appropriate questions.
What is not presented yet is the question of – a) when is it appropriate to leave the management up top (like the army) and when isn’t it? b) What should a company do, since it needs to do both – be an army and a religious insititution? and c) why isn’t this conflict shown?!?!


some of them want to use you

July 28, 2011

some of them want to be used by you

HK – my soap opera

July 27, 2011

Some people like The Bold and The Beautiful
Some people like Lost
I like Hell’s Kitchen.

A good TV show it is not.
A good cooking show it is not.
A good ANYTHING it is not.
Except maybe a mild escape from reality for some 15 minutes a week (yes, I skip the repeated bits, the intro and some of the bickering in the rooms.)
The show this week was lousy, lousy, lousy.

And yet, I will watch the show through.

New Terminology

July 26, 2011

In looking at the notion of “new knowledge” (see HERE), I have come across a side question – the notion of a new term.
I am looking at a development in the workings of logical trees, which I have not found in the literature. Does a new term need to fit all four of the definitions Eli gave? The four criteria are: New, yet continuous; enhancing existing knowledge (power); scope; based on recent developments.
Re the first – of course, it must be. If it is not in sync with all developments to date, it will not fit. This is not to say that the term cannot make other ones less important or highlight problematics in other issues, but yes, it should be continuous.
Re the second – power – I do not think it has to enhance ALL knowledge, but the power it brings must have significant impact. So, basically yes, but the framework is slightly smaller.
Re the third – scope – as I just said, the size is smaller. A term fits its framework. Eli was looking at expanding the entire knowledge base. In this case, I am looking at enhancing one tool. It could have an effect in other places, but its direct scope is limited. So, yes and no. Full scope for its framework. 😛
Re the fourth – based on recent developments. I see no NEED for this, but it has to be relevant. For it to be a healthy development, I think this is a good idea. Maybe a sufficiency issue – but not a necessity.
Hmmm…Three out of four ain’t bad, right?