I was reading a piece yesterday that went into detail what some companies are facing as they go out and hired new graduated college students. They found that the 'kids' were lacking in various skills that they should have acquired in college. Mind you....we are talking about four-year university graduates. The piece discussed the problems of analytical concepts, project design, time-line construction, teamwork, etc. All of these....used to be taught at least in some marginal way, and you'd finish college with a basic understanding how your skills would fit into a commercial company.
The humor part of this....which is left out of the news piece....is that this 21 or 22 year old 'kid' is standing there and all happy that HR hired him for some $40,000 a year job, and then he likely discovers the the next week as he shows up.....he's automatically signed up for five seminar episodes taught by some fifty-year old individual from some private firm, and discussing this mystery thing called 'project management'.
A whole week will pass with 'Professor Bob' talking about this big science agenda called project management. The kid will be amazed at all the facets and benefits of project management. Then at the final hour of the class....the 'kid' will ask why they don't teach something like this in college? 'Professor Bob' will just grin and tell the kid that in the 1970s and 1980s....it was a regular part of any business degree, and that they've weakened the whole program to such an extent....that your degree is mostly worthless.
A week or two will pass, and another three-to-five day seminar will occur. Over that year, the company will waste at least thirty days of work production in getting the 'kid' to a level that they are beneficial to the company.
So the question is....is a bachelor's degree really worth the $50,000 to $90,000 that it cost today? If you get hired and they automatically revalue the degree to a three-quarter situation....did you get cheated out of the full value of the education? Does the college even care?
Wednesday, 28 March 2018
Monday, 26 March 2018
The 12-Cent Interview
I sat and watched through part of the Sixty Minutes with Stormy and Anderson Cooper, and then I stopped to look at a frame picture of Anderson Cooper with perfect sized eyes...flip forward 3 seconds, and here is Stormy....with seriously dilated eyes.
What gets you to that stage? Typically cocaine or opiates.
Then this odd thing comes up in this taped conversation.....some ten-month 'affair'....yet she suggests only one bedroom romp. Ten months.....one romp?
In Alabama, you'd tell this story over at the general store, and someone would typically stop you and ask if you pulling their leg. Yet Anderson kept looking real intent and glazed over.....ready to believe just about anything.
The other odd thing....you come to some point of pinpointing all this stuff that Anderson is getting out of her, and then you come to realize....well, we aren't talking about 2016, or 2015, or 2014, or 2013, or 2012, or 2011, or 2010, or 2009, or 2008. If the romp did occur.....it somehow goes back to 2006/2007 era.....eleven or more years ago.
So all this hype....from a washed-up adult-film actress with a drug habit...from a supposed fling nearly eleven years ago, and dragged out into the public scene by a nearly washed-up Sixty Minutes guy?
If this is really nifty stuff....with public appeal....could we have the dozen-odd ladies that Bill Clinton did it with as well? Most of them weren't even paid for their services....like Stormy got the front-money from the Trump lawyer, and later from the Sixty Minutes crew.
What gets you to that stage? Typically cocaine or opiates.
Then this odd thing comes up in this taped conversation.....some ten-month 'affair'....yet she suggests only one bedroom romp. Ten months.....one romp?
In Alabama, you'd tell this story over at the general store, and someone would typically stop you and ask if you pulling their leg. Yet Anderson kept looking real intent and glazed over.....ready to believe just about anything.
The other odd thing....you come to some point of pinpointing all this stuff that Anderson is getting out of her, and then you come to realize....well, we aren't talking about 2016, or 2015, or 2014, or 2013, or 2012, or 2011, or 2010, or 2009, or 2008. If the romp did occur.....it somehow goes back to 2006/2007 era.....eleven or more years ago.
So all this hype....from a washed-up adult-film actress with a drug habit...from a supposed fling nearly eleven years ago, and dragged out into the public scene by a nearly washed-up Sixty Minutes guy?
If this is really nifty stuff....with public appeal....could we have the dozen-odd ladies that Bill Clinton did it with as well? Most of them weren't even paid for their services....like Stormy got the front-money from the Trump lawyer, and later from the Sixty Minutes crew.
Friday, 23 March 2018
CNN at the Airport?
It's come up in the last couple of days as a major topic.....as various folks are peeved and fed-up with CNN being the only option at airports across the nation.
Having traveled a good bit over the past decade, I'm one of those who had to sit there and endear CNN.
In the 2008 to 2012 era....I didn't mind CNN that much although if this was a four-hour wait (like at some Raleigh Airport), then I came to some point where my patience was running out. Summer of last year, I had two hours of waiting at Nashville, and another three hours of waiting at Atlanta....where CNN was the only thing possible. You could sense various people sitting there and in a fairly angry mode over what was coming across.
These days, I tend to look for a seat that has no view of the TV....and find a newspaper to read over. If they've got the sound pumped up.....I go and look for some airport person to whine about the sound.
How many folks would prefer to see CNN gone from the airport? No one does statistics on stuff like that. My guess is that fifty to sixty percent would like to see it gone. Some would like to see all TVs completely gone. Some probably would like to see just Animal Planet type shows on the air, or some travel documentary pieces.
In a way, it's driving some folks nuts. It'll trigger a political conversation, and get people hyped up right before a flight....aggravated and frustrated at the absolute wrong time. I'm surprised that some mental health freaks haven't invented a new syndrome word for CNN at the airport.
Having traveled a good bit over the past decade, I'm one of those who had to sit there and endear CNN.
In the 2008 to 2012 era....I didn't mind CNN that much although if this was a four-hour wait (like at some Raleigh Airport), then I came to some point where my patience was running out. Summer of last year, I had two hours of waiting at Nashville, and another three hours of waiting at Atlanta....where CNN was the only thing possible. You could sense various people sitting there and in a fairly angry mode over what was coming across.
These days, I tend to look for a seat that has no view of the TV....and find a newspaper to read over. If they've got the sound pumped up.....I go and look for some airport person to whine about the sound.
How many folks would prefer to see CNN gone from the airport? No one does statistics on stuff like that. My guess is that fifty to sixty percent would like to see it gone. Some would like to see all TVs completely gone. Some probably would like to see just Animal Planet type shows on the air, or some travel documentary pieces.
In a way, it's driving some folks nuts. It'll trigger a political conversation, and get people hyped up right before a flight....aggravated and frustrated at the absolute wrong time. I'm surprised that some mental health freaks haven't invented a new syndrome word for CNN at the airport.
Tuesday, 20 March 2018
California, Divisions, Fake Solutions, and the Six State Idea
I could probably make this a 100-page thesis type project but I'll try to limit myself to sixty lines.
The first time I ever made it into California was a western-US drive which I had mapped out in 1981. I had three weeks of leave from the Air Force and $3,000 in cash to splurge on this 'expedition'. I crossed over the border near Baker, California....about an hours drive west of Vegas. I made my way down to the Santa Monica area....got on Highway 1, and spent seven days traveling up the coastal highway.
The adjectives to use for Highway 1? Majestic, monumental, and grand.
Except for a side-trip to San Diego and Hollywood in the 1990s, I've never been back.
I worked with various characters who grew up in California or spent part of their lives there. The topic of conversation would come up and you tended to get four references to the state:
1. Most who were there in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s....all describe the state like some classical Hollywood movie. Almost 99-percent of these people would be considered die-hard fanatics of their version of California. In their mind, the state no longer exists.
2. The folks who grew up in the shadow of LA. These are mostly the people who grew up there in the 1980s or 1990s....saw the community go through negative periods, and would question why any idiot would stay there today.
3. The San Francisco crowd. This crowd will go and describe to almost the exact day where good and bad....met, and ended (November 1975). The mayors election that brought Moscone into power would be described for years as a politically rigged election and set into motion the tail-spin. To be honest though....Democratic mayors had been the trend since 1964.
4. The folks who grew up in northern California. This crowd will harp on clean air, great landscapes, and quiet solitude. They also will let you know that they are conservatives.
So here's the reality of what's happened in the past fifty-odd years. Urbanized LA has become a political machine with guaranteed votes for the Democratic Party. Urbanized San Francisco has become a political machine with guaranteed votes for the Democratic Party. The northern third of the state, and San Diego (leading east to the AZ border) is mostly Republican-type voters.
You hold a state election, and the bulk of the power (probably 65 to 70 percent) will stay in Democratic hands. That's the simple truth.
The state is in serious financial trouble, and can't find any solution. Adding to the pain is that the fact that people are leaving the state now....something that no one would have suggested back 25 years ago. Between crime, taxation, and dwindling resources....the state has no future to brag about.
So, some people would like to split it up.....a minimum of two states, to a maximum of six states. I've looked at the maps. Using the six-state formula, you can figure that four of the states will be conservative type states. Silicon Valley and West California would be extremely Democratic in nature.
The harm brought by this idea? The huge tax income from Silicon Valley and LA? It wouldn't be shared any longer with the rest of the state.
Nothing within the Constitution really allows for this, and you could sense that the Democratic Party itself doesn't want this to come up. But the bigger question is.....if you allow them to split up....why not allow Missouri or Michigan to do the same thing? Let's be honest.....NY City ought to be a state by itself.
All of this keeps people busy and talking about something.....that will never be allowed. That's the whole dynamic to this game. Course as each passes and financial woes escalate....you have to wonder.....where exactly will the solution be found?
The greatness of the state? Highway One. Even today.....you could spend a week going up the state and seeing all the fantastic landscape. It would be so easy to sell the state on just the landscape.
The first time I ever made it into California was a western-US drive which I had mapped out in 1981. I had three weeks of leave from the Air Force and $3,000 in cash to splurge on this 'expedition'. I crossed over the border near Baker, California....about an hours drive west of Vegas. I made my way down to the Santa Monica area....got on Highway 1, and spent seven days traveling up the coastal highway.
The adjectives to use for Highway 1? Majestic, monumental, and grand.
Except for a side-trip to San Diego and Hollywood in the 1990s, I've never been back.
I worked with various characters who grew up in California or spent part of their lives there. The topic of conversation would come up and you tended to get four references to the state:
1. Most who were there in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s....all describe the state like some classical Hollywood movie. Almost 99-percent of these people would be considered die-hard fanatics of their version of California. In their mind, the state no longer exists.
2. The folks who grew up in the shadow of LA. These are mostly the people who grew up there in the 1980s or 1990s....saw the community go through negative periods, and would question why any idiot would stay there today.
3. The San Francisco crowd. This crowd will go and describe to almost the exact day where good and bad....met, and ended (November 1975). The mayors election that brought Moscone into power would be described for years as a politically rigged election and set into motion the tail-spin. To be honest though....Democratic mayors had been the trend since 1964.
4. The folks who grew up in northern California. This crowd will harp on clean air, great landscapes, and quiet solitude. They also will let you know that they are conservatives.
So here's the reality of what's happened in the past fifty-odd years. Urbanized LA has become a political machine with guaranteed votes for the Democratic Party. Urbanized San Francisco has become a political machine with guaranteed votes for the Democratic Party. The northern third of the state, and San Diego (leading east to the AZ border) is mostly Republican-type voters.
You hold a state election, and the bulk of the power (probably 65 to 70 percent) will stay in Democratic hands. That's the simple truth.
The state is in serious financial trouble, and can't find any solution. Adding to the pain is that the fact that people are leaving the state now....something that no one would have suggested back 25 years ago. Between crime, taxation, and dwindling resources....the state has no future to brag about.
So, some people would like to split it up.....a minimum of two states, to a maximum of six states. I've looked at the maps. Using the six-state formula, you can figure that four of the states will be conservative type states. Silicon Valley and West California would be extremely Democratic in nature.
The harm brought by this idea? The huge tax income from Silicon Valley and LA? It wouldn't be shared any longer with the rest of the state.
Nothing within the Constitution really allows for this, and you could sense that the Democratic Party itself doesn't want this to come up. But the bigger question is.....if you allow them to split up....why not allow Missouri or Michigan to do the same thing? Let's be honest.....NY City ought to be a state by itself.
All of this keeps people busy and talking about something.....that will never be allowed. That's the whole dynamic to this game. Course as each passes and financial woes escalate....you have to wonder.....where exactly will the solution be found?
The greatness of the state? Highway One. Even today.....you could spend a week going up the state and seeing all the fantastic landscape. It would be so easy to sell the state on just the landscape.
Cambridge Analytica Analyzed
I sat over most of yesterday evening reading through the various bits and pieces of this 2016 election story involving Cambridge Analytica and
So ten observations:
1. While everyone is hyped up and talking about Cambridge Analytica being the ONLY company doing this.....that's mostly a laugh. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of companies....which use social media data to predict trends with customers and the public. This is simply one of many.
2. Was Trump the first to use their services? No. Ted Cruz laid down $3-million for a brief period of 'customer support'. Ben Carson briefly used the services.
3. Facebook acting all shocked? About the most fake 'shocked' that you can get. Their whole future profit situation is dependent upon having stupid people post things, chat about friends, and take stupid pictures.....which can be viewed and 'graded' in some way. Then Facebook sells that information to someone for a bit of money for profit. If they yank this data collection business out....their profits drop and they marginally can survive.
4. Lobbyists have used various data sets over the past two-hundred years to get an advantage for products, referendums, and candidates. It's just that now.....in 2018....it's so easy to slip info on 100 million people and in a month...come up with positions that might entice 10-percent of the group to vote on something differently.
5. Will some idiots from the UK or US political establishment go after Cambridge Analytica? More than likely....but they will simply shut down their UK office and move to some country like Czech or Switzerland.
6. If you were really furious and wanted to make an effect against them? Delete your Facebook, Twitter, social media accounts.....and just live a simple quiet life.
7. Oddly, among the millions of accounts on Facebook, there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of accounts that lead back to 'Hank' the dog, or 'Cindy' the cat. So as Cambridge Analytica does its magic....somewhere in the middle is dog and cat information.
8. What did Cambridge Analytica really tap into? Anger and frustration existing. Something that Hillary and the Democratic Party probably weren't willing to pay a company to tell them that bit of information.
9. Are CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, or MSNBC any different? They are relying upon a psychological profile of the viewers/readers, and they hope enough will be around to view their product. So far, MSNBC and Fox have been correct. The Post is marginally profitable and require cash infusion from their owner. CNN? It's on the line of starvation.
10. Is there anything illegal about what Cambridge Analytica did? No. There might be new laws made but they will be crafted carefully around what Facebook desires. Is there anything unethical about what they did? No....they took public information that people wanted to share. From my home state of Alabama....I would take a guess of the 4.87-million people in the state....probably around 2.5 million have an account. Most folks in the state under the age of thirty (probably 95-percent) have an account. You can walk around and find various people in your community who aren't part of the data collected by Cambridge Analytica.
While journalists want to hype this and make you worried....the question...worried over what? You put all this data in public forums to be read....what did you expect would happen with that data?
So ten observations:
1. While everyone is hyped up and talking about Cambridge Analytica being the ONLY company doing this.....that's mostly a laugh. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of companies....which use social media data to predict trends with customers and the public. This is simply one of many.
2. Was Trump the first to use their services? No. Ted Cruz laid down $3-million for a brief period of 'customer support'. Ben Carson briefly used the services.
3. Facebook acting all shocked? About the most fake 'shocked' that you can get. Their whole future profit situation is dependent upon having stupid people post things, chat about friends, and take stupid pictures.....which can be viewed and 'graded' in some way. Then Facebook sells that information to someone for a bit of money for profit. If they yank this data collection business out....their profits drop and they marginally can survive.
4. Lobbyists have used various data sets over the past two-hundred years to get an advantage for products, referendums, and candidates. It's just that now.....in 2018....it's so easy to slip info on 100 million people and in a month...come up with positions that might entice 10-percent of the group to vote on something differently.
5. Will some idiots from the UK or US political establishment go after Cambridge Analytica? More than likely....but they will simply shut down their UK office and move to some country like Czech or Switzerland.
6. If you were really furious and wanted to make an effect against them? Delete your Facebook, Twitter, social media accounts.....and just live a simple quiet life.
7. Oddly, among the millions of accounts on Facebook, there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of accounts that lead back to 'Hank' the dog, or 'Cindy' the cat. So as Cambridge Analytica does its magic....somewhere in the middle is dog and cat information.
8. What did Cambridge Analytica really tap into? Anger and frustration existing. Something that Hillary and the Democratic Party probably weren't willing to pay a company to tell them that bit of information.
9. Are CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, or MSNBC any different? They are relying upon a psychological profile of the viewers/readers, and they hope enough will be around to view their product. So far, MSNBC and Fox have been correct. The Post is marginally profitable and require cash infusion from their owner. CNN? It's on the line of starvation.
10. Is there anything illegal about what Cambridge Analytica did? No. There might be new laws made but they will be crafted carefully around what Facebook desires. Is there anything unethical about what they did? No....they took public information that people wanted to share. From my home state of Alabama....I would take a guess of the 4.87-million people in the state....probably around 2.5 million have an account. Most folks in the state under the age of thirty (probably 95-percent) have an account. You can walk around and find various people in your community who aren't part of the data collected by Cambridge Analytica.
While journalists want to hype this and make you worried....the question...worried over what? You put all this data in public forums to be read....what did you expect would happen with that data?
Sunday, 18 March 2018
How McCabe Royally Screwed Up
Over the past couple of months, I've been this Andrew McCabe story a good bit. My speculation was that he would be fired....it was just a matter of when.
So what did he royally screw up?
At some point in mid-September 2016, it came to his desk.....that another copy of the Hillary emails existed.
The odd thing now occurs.....for about five to six weeks....he keeps his mouth shut and refuses to brief his boss. Well....he says that now. I'm not exactly buying into this part of the story.
Yes, there on the laptop of former US Representative Anthony Weiner....were copies under a folder which connected back to Hillary's top aid....Human Abedin.
What happened in this period of five or six weeks? It's virtually unknown. He's never talked about keeping the secret and I seriously doubt that he kept the secret. My guess is that he told the boss (Comey), and probably Hillary Clinton.
All of this would have been fine, if Hillary had won. Yes, IF she had won. No one would be talking about this today and McCabe would have gotten a promotion somewhere in the middle of this mess.
But Trump won, and an IG investigation occurred. In the end....they asked for McCabe for a sworn testimony, and he basically lied.
At that point, I think he was finished with the position and just hopped that something would delay his being fired.
His expectation now? He might wait out the remaining Trump period (3 years or 7 years) and hope that someone will come in and offer him a job with a pardon.
So what did he royally screw up?
At some point in mid-September 2016, it came to his desk.....that another copy of the Hillary emails existed.
The odd thing now occurs.....for about five to six weeks....he keeps his mouth shut and refuses to brief his boss. Well....he says that now. I'm not exactly buying into this part of the story.
Yes, there on the laptop of former US Representative Anthony Weiner....were copies under a folder which connected back to Hillary's top aid....Human Abedin.
What happened in this period of five or six weeks? It's virtually unknown. He's never talked about keeping the secret and I seriously doubt that he kept the secret. My guess is that he told the boss (Comey), and probably Hillary Clinton.
All of this would have been fine, if Hillary had won. Yes, IF she had won. No one would be talking about this today and McCabe would have gotten a promotion somewhere in the middle of this mess.
But Trump won, and an IG investigation occurred. In the end....they asked for McCabe for a sworn testimony, and he basically lied.
At that point, I think he was finished with the position and just hopped that something would delay his being fired.
His expectation now? He might wait out the remaining Trump period (3 years or 7 years) and hope that someone will come in and offer him a job with a pardon.
Thursday, 15 March 2018
The DNA Story
It's an odd science story, which make people go and ponder upon things.
After Scott Kelly went off into space for roughly eleven months.....he returned. He has a twin brother. DNA-wise, the two should match up very closely. After the trip though....they took another DNA test of Scott, and came to this odd conclusion.....SEVEN percent of his DNA changed after this trip. The general things that changed? The immune system, DNA repair structure, bone formation networks, hypoxia and hypercapnia.
If Scott had made two or three trips over a decade period? There's probably a heck of a lot about the DNA structure of Scott that would be totally different.
So, we come to this topic of science conversation. Any serious space travel....means that your DNA changes....for better or worse. If you did go off on some seven-year adventure....you would return in a very different way, with probably more than a quarter of your DNA revamped, and it would lead to general expectations going to some far extremes.
But using this same logic....it means that some other folks (aliens, if you like) are stuck into this problem as well, and if they went off on some great fifteen year expedition....their DNA wold be modified and changed as well. In fact, if you hauled a dog aboard the space ship....you'd find their DNA swapped around and changed as well.
While the PhD guys avoided the topic....you'd sit and pause over the next issue....plants have DNA as well. If you blasted a dozen plants into space for a year....would all of them be altered as well? The odds are....yes.
The odds of vast space travel ahead for humans? Once you admit that your body is undergoing constant 'renovation' upon itself, and medical folks can't predict how they'd treat these things while on a voyage....the idea of vast space travel will likely go away.
After Scott Kelly went off into space for roughly eleven months.....he returned. He has a twin brother. DNA-wise, the two should match up very closely. After the trip though....they took another DNA test of Scott, and came to this odd conclusion.....SEVEN percent of his DNA changed after this trip. The general things that changed? The immune system, DNA repair structure, bone formation networks, hypoxia and hypercapnia.
If Scott had made two or three trips over a decade period? There's probably a heck of a lot about the DNA structure of Scott that would be totally different.
So, we come to this topic of science conversation. Any serious space travel....means that your DNA changes....for better or worse. If you did go off on some seven-year adventure....you would return in a very different way, with probably more than a quarter of your DNA revamped, and it would lead to general expectations going to some far extremes.
But using this same logic....it means that some other folks (aliens, if you like) are stuck into this problem as well, and if they went off on some great fifteen year expedition....their DNA wold be modified and changed as well. In fact, if you hauled a dog aboard the space ship....you'd find their DNA swapped around and changed as well.
While the PhD guys avoided the topic....you'd sit and pause over the next issue....plants have DNA as well. If you blasted a dozen plants into space for a year....would all of them be altered as well? The odds are....yes.
The odds of vast space travel ahead for humans? Once you admit that your body is undergoing constant 'renovation' upon itself, and medical folks can't predict how they'd treat these things while on a voyage....the idea of vast space travel will likely go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)