The most powerful woman in the world...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
Next: Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Sep 2006 07:48 In article <9eVNg.3$45.146(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <ee8j0p$8ps_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <ebHNg.44$b5.46(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <1158101637.503114.93370(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Edward >>Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> writes: >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> In article <1157904416.697779.207410(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >Edward Green wrote: >>>>> >> ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of >>>>> >> Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the >>>>> >> University of Leipzig. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of >>>>> >> thermodynamics. >>>>> > >>>>> >Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership >>>>> >competence. >>>>> > >>>>> >James Earl Carter was a BS nuclear engineer from the US Naval Academy. >>>>> >>>>> I always thought that a cause of his adminstrative problems was >>>>> due to his science training: he required all the details which >>>>> can bog you down w.r.t. decisions if you're the head of anything. >>>> >>>>I don't know if that has any correlation with scientific training: >>>>that's "micromanaging", and it's quite possible to do this without any >>>>scientific training at all. >>>> >>>>I also wouldn't put a naval "nuclear engineer" on the same page as a >>>>doctorate in physics: his was a very goal directed and pragmatic kind >>>>of technical education. >>>> >>>And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all >>>the details" is quite false. >> >>Point. >> >>> On the contrary, it is a matter of >>>recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored. >> >>Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at >>all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time. >> >When you enter a room in your house, do you've to check every item to >verify that it is in its right place, or do you just glance around, >noticing when soemthing is out of place? If nobody else lives there, a glance is necessary. If other humans are involved, a more careful scan is required. > >So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to >avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise. >I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior >experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on >these only. If it works, fine. Right. > If a serious discrepancy shows up, >the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may >be relevant. But, Mati, isn't the other word for politics decrepancy? It sure seems like the job is juggling descrpanies all the time. In the case of politics, those details are human-based and subject to change depending on the phase of the moon. And sometimes, a "no" about one thing is a 180 degree turn of the same thing in a different department. For instance, we bought tape drives from STC, put our logo on it and sold them with our systems. One day, STC had reps in the north end of our building, signing a deal with us. They also had reps in the south end <ahem>discussing a lawsuit about the same thing. Meanwhile, the VP could be making a decision that countered both. I can imagine that foreign policy combined with national politics combined with local politics combined with the lastest bullet shot by our military would produce a bigger spaghetti mess. If you're a detail President, you would need to know the whys and wherefores of each instance. This takes time even if your staff has prepared a Reader's Digest version of the novel. Note that I'm still trying to figure out how a country is run. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Sep 2006 07:52 In article <ee8h78$mrd$1(a)news2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, gunnar.kaestle(a)gmx.net (Gunnar Kaestle) wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Did it say what her expertise was? Perhaps a better question is >> whether she's theorist or experimentalist. > >Analysis of the mechanism of breakup reaktions with single bond breaking >and calculation of their rate constant based on quantum-chemical and >statistical methods > >Titel: Untersuchung des Mechanismus von Zerfallsreaktionen > mit einfachem Bindungsbruch und Berechnung > ihrer Geschwindigkeitskonstanten auf der > Grundlage quantenchemischer und statistischer Methoden >Verfasser: Merkel, Angela >Erscheinungsjahr: 1986 >Umfang/Format: V, 153 Bl. : graph. Darst. ; 30 cm >Hochschulschrift: Berlin, Akad. d. Wiss. d. DDR, Diss. A, 1986 >Sachgruppe: 30 Chemie Thank you. I don't know, and don't seem able to guess, what the project was. Here's my guess: she took H-O and various other compounds that had two elements connected with one bond and meausured the energy required to sever each bond? Was she created a table like those I have in my CRC? I guess I don't know what the reference to statistics means. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Sep 2006 07:57 In article <C4gOg.7$45.92(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <eeb9cq$8qk_001(a)s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <rmVNg.4$45.58(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <ee8j4b$8ps_002(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>In article <1158103280.048027.246320(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>tadchem wrote: >>>>>> Edward Green wrote: >>>>>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of >>>>>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the >>>>>> > University of Leipzig. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of >>>>>> > thermodynamics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership >>>>>> competence. >>>>> >>>>>Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position >>>>>of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA. >>>> >>>>I used to think so, too. I don't know anymore. >>>> >>>Judging based on the technically educated people I knoe, most of them >>>are quite poorly qualified for positions of leadership. >> >>Yea, the ones I knew could lead unofficially but quit when the >>politics became the number one item on each agenda. However, >>the way we seem to train those MBAs and lawyers today omits >>physical laws and concentrates on spin bytes. The reason I used >>to think tech people would be better is because they know the >>limits of the universe. > >That's true, but ... > > But then there is that pesky problem >>of pleasing all people all the time...or appearing to do so. >> >....or at least pleasing enough people, at any given time, to be able >to keep going. That's where the real problem is. Especially in a society that has elided "the pursuit of" from modifying happiness as a Right. > >Clausevitz, who is still one of the greatest authorities on war ever, >wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is >not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in >the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people >being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc. So, when this >is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military >(Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it >doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more >complex it is within the framework of an open society. I have imagined. I have also added this as a constraint to all of my hypotheses. I get one illogical hole plugged up and these people produce a brand new one that has such a different shape that my old plug configuration can't fix it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Sep 2006 08:08 In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0609140550280.1256(a)serene.st>, "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>> And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all >>> the details" is quite false. >[cut] >>> On the contrary, it is a matter of >>> recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored. >> >> Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at >> all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time. > >Yes, it takes time, but often very little time. To look at the details of >the details is what takes lots of time. > >In my when-I-had-more-time chess-playing days, perhaps the deepest (ie the >most moves) combination I ever played was 7 moves deep (ie 7 moves each, >and that's what I analysed). I usually find that about 3.5 moves, given 3 >or so plausible moves each player each time (already a severe pruning of >details that can be ignored) is about as far as is practical. Oddly, this >7 move combination - which was a queen sacrifice, so I felt I should make >sure it was productive - was in a 10 minute game (ie we each have 10 >minutes on our clocks). This was only possible because the main line was >very straight-line - if my opponent took the queen, the best move was >very obvious for about those 7 moves - no branching. Again, this is >pruning of details. The biggest pruning was not looking in detail at the >possibilities if my opponent didn't take the queen. At first glance, it >didn't look like it would be a bad position, and given the psychological >element that my opponent would think it a blunder on my part, and was >skilled and experienced enough to be likely to see the possibility of a >queen capture, it just wasn't worth the time to analyse in detail - this >was rejected in seconds, as it needs to be in a 10 minute game. However, this think has to be done consciously. You can't submit it to the back brainstem and have it pop out the answer. Science training doesn't allow this method; people are taught to dismiss this kind of answer unless it can be physically demonstrated. I would think that politics and stuff cannot be demonstrated on paper. That's why certain politicians can't make any decision without an opinion poll to give them the answer; they've lost all political instinct (or never had it). Please note that instinct is defined as a black box process; you put some data in and an answer pops out. > >This is the paradox of science. Some attention to detail is required. New >advances arise from anomalies. Too much attention to detail means that >nothing gets done. Right. >This is just a reprise of the ultraviolet paradox! >There must be some cut-off point beyond which it doesn't matter, else >approximately all effort is wasted on details that don't matter. It's easier to identify the superfulous in science than it is in politics. At least, for me, this is true. In politics, every last thing seems to have a bearing. /BAH
From: mmeron on 15 Sep 2006 19:01
In article <eee3u0$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <9eVNg.3$45.146(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <ee8j0p$8ps_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>In article <ebHNg.44$b5.46(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>In article <1158101637.503114.93370(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Edward >>>Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> writes: >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> In article <1157904416.697779.207410(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> "tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Edward Green wrote: >>>>>> >> ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of >>>>>> >> Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the >>>>>> >> University of Leipzig. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of >>>>>> >> thermodynamics. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership >>>>>> >competence. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >James Earl Carter was a BS nuclear engineer from the US Naval Academy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I always thought that a cause of his adminstrative problems was >>>>>> due to his science training: he required all the details which >>>>>> can bog you down w.r.t. decisions if you're the head of anything. >>>>> >>>>>I don't know if that has any correlation with scientific training: >>>>>that's "micromanaging", and it's quite possible to do this without any >>>>>scientific training at all. >>>>> >>>>>I also wouldn't put a naval "nuclear engineer" on the same page as a >>>>>doctorate in physics: his was a very goal directed and pragmatic kind >>>>>of technical education. >>>>> >>>>And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all >>>>the details" is quite false. >>> >>>Point. >>> >>>> On the contrary, it is a matter of >>>>recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored. >>> >>>Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at >>>all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time. >>> >>When you enter a room in your house, do you've to check every item to >>verify that it is in its right place, or do you just glance around, >>noticing when soemthing is out of place? > >If nobody else lives there, a glance is necessary. If other humans >are involved, a more careful scan is required. > No, not really. If you've a mental picture of how things are supposed to be, a quick glance will suffice to notice changes. >> >>So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to >>avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise. >>I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior >>experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on >>these only. If it works, fine. > >Right. > >> If a serious discrepancy shows up, >>the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may >>be relevant. > >But, Mati, isn't the other word for politics decrepancy? It sure >seems like the job is juggling descrpanies all the time. > Sigh. Politics may be dealing with discrepancies, but it doesn't mean that everything is a discrepancy. In fact, nearly everything isn't. By and large, things are working. It is the same in every area. Thousands of planes take of and land every day, safely. Some two hundred million cars go on the road every day, in the US, and 99.9999% of them returns home, safely. Knowledge that things go wrong is not an invitation to treating everything as a disaster in making, as such attitude is safe paralyzing. >In the case of politics, those details are human-based and subject >to change depending on the phase of the moon. And sometimes, a >"no" about one thing is a 180 degree turn of the same thing in a different >department. > >For instance, we bought tape drives from STC, put our logo on it >and sold them with our systems. One day, STC had reps in the >north end of our building, signing a deal with us. They also >had reps in the south end <ahem>discussing a lawsuit about the >same thing. Meanwhile, the VP could be making a decision that >countered both. > >I can imagine that foreign policy combined with national >politics combined with local politics combined with the lastest >bullet shot by our military would produce a bigger spaghetti >mess. If you're a detail President, you would need to know >the whys and wherefores of each instance. This takes time >even if your staff has prepared a Reader's Digest version of >the novel. If you're a "detail President" and want to know the whys and wherefores of each instance, then you're a disaster, period. This simply cannot be done. You're dealing with reality and you've to make real-time judgements and decisions. This precludes any possibility of tracking all details. > >Note that I'm still trying to figure out how a country is run. > A country is not run, it just runs. There is no central administration assigning tasks to everybody in the country and monitoring performance (and there'll better not be). There are some operations within each country that are run on a country wide basis and this is all the government runs. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |