Tom D

I have an interview tomorrow; I'm pretty sure they will ask me the question above.

Some options:

Dogbert - 'Sometimes I work too hard'

Partly true - 'I'm not very good at defending myself from criticism'

Also partly true - 'I care a lot about the quality of my work, sometimes that slows me down'

Very true - 'I have a hard time communicating with people who don't listen well'

Red herring - 'I'm partly color blind and sometimes my UI designs have funny colors'

Gaming the system - 'I'm too honest'

I can think of several processes that could have created these meteoroids: 1) from space debris colliding and accreting, 2) from the break-up of some larger object, 3) and directly from supernova debris.

Hypothesis 1 seems unlikely to have separated iron and nickle from the other space debris, unless magnetic attraction played some role.

Hypothesis 2 seems plausible if the object that broke up were large enough to used gravity to sort elements according to density, such as on earth where the densest matter has moved to the core. But if that is the case, then these iron-nickel meteoroids should contain other dense materials, such as calcium.

Hypothesis 3 would make sense if a supernova explosion resulted from a star with significant quantities of iron/nickel in the core, and the core was not utterly fragmented.

Tails serve several purposes, the most obvious of which is balance. Since balance is more difficult for bipeds than quadrupeds, it seems like a tail would be particularly useful for bipeds.

Though arms are pretty good for balance, humans like to use their arms for tasks like carrying babies, spears or other weapons, making it more difficult to use arms for balance. Is two million years too short a period to evolve tails?

Throughout history, some propaganda campaigns have failed; others have helped one group achieve their goals.

The goal of war (or other efforts) is generally to convince your enemy to submit; thus offensive propaganda can make it more likely that your enemy will do so, while defensive propaganda can make it less likely that your people will. Your enemy can be killed, or he can change his mind.

Propaganda can be a more cost-effective and humane means of fighting a war, but in order to make that determination, its effectiveness must be measured.

Some propaganda efforts have been failures (example: US sponsored television Al-Hurra); others have been somewhat successful (radio stations inciting violence preceding and during the Rwanda Genocide). We could construct an index to rate their effectiveness.

For propaganda directed at your own people, effectiveness can be measured by polls, but what attitudes would you measure? Against an enemy, what techniques besides prisoner interrogation?

At least on the surface, TDD seems to require additional work, because you need to write tests, etc.. Presumably this work is justified because it saves work later on.

If someone told you the amount of work required to write tests wasn't justfified, as many newbies do, what would you tell them? Hopefully you wouldn't say to write lots of tests because everyone else does it, but rather because you have some evidence.

Can you cite any studies showing work savings?

Realistically, there are probably some cases where the amount of work is not justified, and others where it is completely justified. Obviously, the cost of any errors would have a strong impact on this, since some errors (imagine code controlling an airplane) are very expensive while others may have little cost.

Further, TDD becomes more useful as team size grows. That may or may not be enough to justify its use.

Besides citing any studies, what are the determining factors for making TDD worthwhile?

I have heard that, according to chaos theory, we cannot rule out the possibility that planets could be ejected from the solar system.

Even without chaos theory, the math required to predict a system this complex, for any significant length of time, is quite complex.

Within two standard deviations of a planet's projected position, how far in the future can we predict it's future position? Is there any way to measure the prediction's degree of certainty?

Patience and tolerance for ambiguity are important traits for life. They are important in my trade, computer programming, but also in any aspect of life where dealing with new and difficult concepts is important.

It seems that many people have a character flaw: they'd rather have a simple wrong answer *now* than investigate more deeply and get a better answer. They can't stand not having an answer for a problem, and that makes them jump to the first conclusion that vaguely fits. Once they are emotionally invested in an opinion, they will defend it.

I believe that humans have the ability to learn character traits, and that a wise parent would want to teach their child important character traits. Teaching children by example is good, but I believe there are more direct methods.

What is an outline of a program to teach such traits to children? At what ages should it be applied? How would you measure progress?

Would they stop supporting him if he were proved

- to be a child molester?

- ate his own children?

- spat on the Koran?

My guess is that the Palestinians would support him no matter what attrocity he commited.

Reminds me of Pablo Escobar, the famed cocaine sumggler, who dontated a few soccer fields to the poor, thus gaining their unending support.

Did Saddam donate billions in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians? What entity actually does do that?

Did Saddam increase the chances that Palestinians would have peace? What entity actually does that?

1) I am against any kind of tax *increase*.

2) I oppose any rapid changes that cause economic disruption.

3) I am against doing nothing!

Americans complain about high gas prices while paying about half the price paid by Europeans. Notice that most Europeans drive fuel-efficient vehicles, while Americans drive miniature dinosaurs for purposes of conspicuous consumption or social conformance.

The more we waste gas:

- The more depend on foreign oil

- The more we empower despots in oil-rich middle eastern kingdoms

- The more likely we are to risk our troops overseas

- The more we risk global warming

- The less we leave for our children

Principle: whatever is subsidized increases, and what is taxed decreases. Suppose we

1) Decreased income taxes

2) By the *exact* same amount we increased gas taxes

3) Over a 5 year period

Results:

1) Incentive for entrepreneurs to develop prototypes for alternative energy

2) Fewer gas hogs

3) More oil for our children

What do you think?

- It costs $25,000 per year to incarcerate someone.

-That's money we must pay in extra taxes

- It costs approx $2,500 to send someone to school for a year

It seems plausible that someone who can get a job is less likely to commit a crime and go to taxpayer funded prison. The less I spend on taxes the better!

If educating people helps reduce my tax bill, then I'm in favor of any innovative and efficient ways of reducing it.

Is there some way to motivate kids to stay in school? In my experience, people are more powerfully motivated by incentives than punishment. In fact, it is fairly obvious that criminals are not deterred by punishment.

There could be all kinds of ways to identify and fight the problems that induce kids to drop out of school. We could have counseling programs, special schools, even cash bonuses for kids that might drop out for economic reasons.

http://www.changingminds.ws/04_results/04.html

http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/spring_96/page6.html

What's your solution?

The suspected correlation is broader than I suggested above.

Beyond economic insecurity, I also think that general dissatisfaction with life, or a sense of victimhood, can make people more willing to adopt views with a reduced burden of proof.

Thus, a happy, content person appears to be more reluctant to adopt ideas that have low levels of proof, such as conspiracy theories or sweeping generalizations about group of people and their intentions.

For example, I have heard commentators observe that the Islamic world is rife with conspiracy theories, and it seems clear to me that many Muslims somehow feel victimized by the West.

Could it be that people who are struggling with life are grasping at straws for ideas to explain their circumstances, so desparate that they are willing explore ideas beyond reason? I have heard parents of autistic chidren express similar views.

If you agree, can you suggest why a possible cause? Samples from history which support your conclusions are welcome.

There is a term 'innumeracy', defined as "the inability to deal with simple mathematical concepts". Yet it doesn't seem to describe what I am observing.

Example 1:

- A recent debate on the health effects of soda pop - my opponent claimed an exaggerated diuretic effect from caffeine.

- Regardless of your views on soda pop, my point is that my opponent only had two modes of quantification: 100% and 0%.

- My rejoinder: to understand the effects of caffeine, you need to *quantify* their effects on the human body, something he apparently was incapable of contemplating.

Example 2:

- I posed a question "how much does x affect y in today's society". The responses were from two camps: 1) x has no effect on y, and 2) x completely controls y. No middle ground, i.e. no quantification.

Briefly: some can't quantify observations. And perhaps they don't belive in predictability of the universe - the core of math.

If this phenomenon is worth discussing, we need a pithy term - what should it be?

For example, kids graduating high school these days have no training in how their credit rating works, how to get a mortgage, how to invest. They don't know how to advance their careers, how to hold a marriage together, how to raise children.

Thinking about the recent cover story in Time magazine, they don't know how to assess risk in the modern world. Judging by the popularity of some conspiracy theories, they haven't learned to think carefully about events in the news.

Our educational curriculum was designed in the 19th century and hasn't changed much since. Back then, young adults didn't have as many choices, they had more support from family and community, and were less likely, for example, to move a few thousand miles from where they grew up.

What kinds of classes would you suggest to bring our education system into the 21st century?

Unvaccinated children cost us in two ways:

1) When they get sick, they visit tax-subsidised hospitals

2) When an epidemic breaks out, un-vaccinated people continue to spread the disease to the rest of us.

The issue of mercury in vaccines has been scientifically studied and found to be a fantasy. Regretfully, many parents will believe anything when they are worried about their children, regardless of the lack of scientific proof.

There has been enough time to consider the extremely remote possibility of vaccines possessing bad side-effects - now let's act before we suffer the consequences of ignoring science.

What type of law should we create to resolve the issue?

Potentially, societies that have accepted strangers into their midst have adopted a mindset such that they are willing to accept not only strange cultures, possibly their ideas too. So multi-cultural societies might be readier to adopt new ideas.

On the other hand, there may be backlashes in some societies. Apparently, subgroups within the sometimes majority may feel threatened. And possibly the majority group in the society may feel that their way of life is superior, since obviously the immigrants admire it enough to move there.

Can you cite some examples of societies which support your hypothesis?

First of all, let's clarify my position: I support traditional hunting and fishing, and champion the concept of sportsmanship and stewardship of natural resources. I enjoy eating meat, and appreciate ecology and the natural beauty of fauna. Traditional hunting has many beneficial aspects.

Private hunting reserves - game ranches - deer farms: these are commercial sites where "hunters" pay to kill captive animals. Presumably the outcome is guaranteed by the proprietors.

A fighting cock has a chance to survive. A captive bear has a chance to kill one of its attackers. These barbaric "sports" have been outlawed for centuries in most places.

What could be the motive to "hunt" captive animals, other than the joy of seeing something die? Do you think of someone as more manly who kills captive animals on hunting ranches? Am I missing some redeeming aspect of this activity?

Maybe by releasing their agression on an animal, they avoid doing so on a fellow human? Or does it stimulate it?

Here's the link to the article, take a look yourself!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061029/sc_afp/britai...

Global warming may cause a global recession due to droughts, refugees, etc. Are you ready to be laid off or take a pay cut if it happens?

According to the article, every dollar spent fighting global warming saves $20 in the future; that's a pretty good return on investment. Can you think of any other investment in our economy that has such a good pay off?

Do we actually know how effective this is, or is it just something that everyone says you should do because it is common knowledge"?

"Common knowledge" has been proven wrong many times in the past - for example, we don't try to cure diseases by blood letting any more. It takes carefully designed experiments to determine the truth of these things.

Note that there are zillions of viruses in a cough, and it doesn't take too many to cause a disease. Obviously, covering your mouth while coughing only stops a fraction of these viruses from becoming airborne.

Does anyone know of a study considering the efficacy of covering your mouth to prevent coughs from becoming a disease transmission vector?

Human evolution has ceased - for there to be natural selection, there must be survival of the fittest. Today, everyone survives, at least long enough to pass on their genes.

I posit that many of us have genes for selfish behavior; those genes made sense in the Stone Age. Maybe rape or genocide genes too.

Don't believe me? Answer this question: why are men 25% bigger than women, on average? Answer, because our ancestors competed for breeding possibilities, and the bigger men won out, even though there is a penalty for larger body mass.

Though the evolution of behavior traits has ceased, some believe the evolution of behavior ideas is still going on - memetics.

After consideration, I don't think *ideas* are strong enough to overcome our natural tendencies. If it were otherwise, there would be no religious wars.

Colonize the galaxy? Plausible, even if all we do is send our genetic material. Once started, a chain reaction completes the process in blink of an eye.

What should we do?

Obviously, if we wait until we are 100% sure, it will be too late!

Can you think of a situation in your life where you are willing to act before you are 100% certain? Is your action wise? Should people buy insurance?

Uncertainty Example: Expected Payout in Poker

Suppose you are a gambler faced with this scenario:

-- The pot is worth $100.

-- It costs you $10 to bet.

-- Your odds of winning are 11%.

Is this a good bet? Answer: yes, because on average, you make more money than you lose.

Why does it make sense to invest even if the odds are against you? Even though you don’t win most of the time, when you do win, you win enough to offset your average losses.

What does the question above illustrate? Is it a good bet to prevent very costly events, even if they aren't 100% certain?

Suppose Global Warming would cost $500 trillion, and also suppose it is 50% likely: how much would you spend to avoid it?