Richard E Reed

Someone is shy

Richard E hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Thomas Goetz: It's time to redesign medical data
Why are people afraid of the general populace getting data in a format that an be easily digested? It is usually an issue of retention of power and control. Remember that once it was thought necessary to keep Bible reading and study in the hands of the professionals. Giving the public access to their lab data in an instructive format leading to useful action empowers the patient and increases the potential for positive action. Doctors are not these massive databases of medical knowledge. Their education and continued study of medical issues is largely colored by classes, literature, and sales rep visits all slanted toward product acceptance and sales. We see this in the emphasis on product based treatment over prevention. No matter how much knowledge a doctor has, conjuring up the best solution will be based on his most recent and frequent exposure to information, and that data is often slanted toward product placement. A doctor friend of mine was fond of reminding himself and others that doctors will not make a correct diagnosis unless he thinks of it. The same is true of treatment. What the medical practitioner thinks will most commonly be swayed by what has most recently been impressed on his attention. Giving the patient access to his results and potential corrective action can only be useful unless that action has been co opted by the pill and product pushers
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Sugata Mitra: Build a School in the Cloud
The research included subjects in which students had no natural interest, such as the microbiology question. It included areas where there was already media immersion, such as Italy. Many comments appear to have overlooked these facts. I taught in one room private schools for 10 years. I had all 12 grades and no assistants. I took the children on a half day field trip in the local area studying flora, fauna, and the environment. Once a month we had a full day major field trip. I used student progress to show myself each student's weaknesses and where I needed to remedy my educational failures. There were no grades given, but I was certain that every student exceeded his expected progress in every subject every year. Each Friday every student would give an oral report to the whole classroom on something studied that week. I asked thought provoking questions to stretch their thinking, such as: "What is the largest number you can write with nothing but three digits? Think hard." To show the correct answer here I have to use two symbols since I can't write it as I would on the blackboard: 9^9^9, a very large or tremendously large number depending on the order in which one parses the powers. Any student leaving my school advanced an additional grade or grades. A complementary development that could meld with Mitra's cloud is Negroponte's OLPC. Combining the two would allow the granny cloud to immediately spread across the world. As Clarke told Mr. Mitra, when a child gets interested in something, learning happens.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim
(continued from last entry) The public rallied around FDR and his policies, electing him to an unprecedented four terms. FDR said in the same speech, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." There was an attempted assassination after his first election, and an attempted coup d'etat followed shortly thereafter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot Today wealthy corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in basically idle funds to limit the present recovery, citing economic insecurity. The only real insecurity is whether their friends in politics will give them the further advantages they seek. They could take that money and hire 10 million unemployed Americans at an average salary of $40,000 for five years. With a job stimulus factor of a mere 1,2 this would put 100% of our unemployed to work, enabling them to spend freely and return the investment manifold. FDR forced this exchange by raising the top marginal tax rate to 90% and using the funds to build the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, and the creation of suburbs. That policy funded the freeway system, NASA, and the creation of the internet. These and other projects created millions of private sector jobs. The "other 99%" and the "occupy" movements can easily overcome monied interests and force our politicians to again appropriate the funds to do projects that will catapult us into another growth and prosperity period such as that we experienced from the 50s through the 70s. If you are worried about high taxes on the wealthy stifling the economy, read the litany of dire predictions made by right wing politicians when Clinton raised taxes in 1993. They predicted recession, jobs death, and out of control national debt. Then look at the reality of strong economic growth, job prosperity, and budget surplus after his 8 years.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim
We should be instructed by the past. The distribution of wealth and income in the 1920s was similar to what it is today, and was largely the cause of the Great Depression. Henry Ford said, "If I pay a man enough to buy my car, he will buy my car." Nick Hanauer said at TED that the rich do not create jobs. Jobs are created by a public with the interest and ability to purchase product. As the depression stifled our country a politician from the privileged class emerged. He spoke like Lessig, saying of the wealthy class and corporations, "They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." FDR October 31, 1936. Speaking of Woodrow Wilson FDR said he "knew that the new power was financial. He saw, in the highly centralized economic system, the despot of the twentieth century, on whom great masses of individuals relied for their safety and livelihood, and whose irresponsibility and greed (if it were not controlled) would reduce them to starvation and penury." He made it his purpose to correct that massive imbalance and return power to the people. As he ran for his second term he said in the speech quoted above, "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master. " History shows us this plan was fulfilled. The spread of wealth and income of the 1920s was changed from L-shaped curves to relatively gentle slopes between the 1950s and the 1970s. The 1969 median US income was a full 1/3 of the highest percentile. The median wealth was 30% that of the top 1% bracket. Inheritance taxes and a top marginal income tax rate of 90% helped to bring about this reversal of fortunes.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Are we on the brink of creating a human-like digital mind?
Don I am not selling anything. If you visited the SAM site you will note the articles appeared in a magazine decades ago. I have long since retired. I have a long career in data processing, designing algorithms in the 1950s when punch cards were in vogue. I learned programming on the PDP 8 and 11 computers in machine language. Shortly after the introduction of the 6502 I developed external circuitry that used unused code bytes to allow that processor to have 64K of programming and 64K of data. I did sell the original program adapted to basica when that program was introduced for the original IBM PC. The fact is, the SRC technology of operant conditioning is a perfect modality for computers to be self taught. The most difficult problem is the provision and measuring of contingencies that allow the computer to self develop. If you are literate in computer soft/hardware and have a real interest in AI I suggest you attempt to apply the techniques that teach frogs to weight lift, sea animals to put on amazing shows at zoos and theme parks, and even train insects to perform unexpected behaviors.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
How can we best engage college students in the idea of learning instead of just getting a degree?
I wish this was after my first comment, where it belongs. By the way, over the years I have been employed as a teacher in private schools whose students were accredited by the respective states and countries where I taught. I have edited a newspaper and worked as a salaried copy writer for magazines. I functioned as a salaried researcher in applied science, as the data processing manager for an auto parts wholesaler, managed a branch for that wholesale business, and never once was asked about my educational background. I was generally hired away from my current employer by one of his associates or friends who became aware of my job performance. Drive, your own thirst for knowledge, and your personal desire to improve yourself and anything you touch will hold you in good stead with whatever endeavor you have decided to pursue. Formal education will open many doors for you, but personal excellence cannot be overestimated. I have a young acquaintance without a high school diploma or even a GED who landed a job during the height of unemployment as dishwasher in a newly opened restaurant. After a year he is being groomed as a cook and assistant manager. The owner has even spoken of opening a new branch with him in charge. Hard work, dedication, and loyalty still go a long way toward personal success.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
How can we best engage college students in the idea of learning instead of just getting a degree?
The raison d'etre and modus operandi of colleges mitigate against a desire to learn. These institutions are designed to deliver a series of studies some other person has decided should be of interest to a student and the mastery of these subjects is but a step toward a goal of employment that a student needs. Furthermore, these studies proceed at a pace that may not even closely approximate the learning abilities of the student. Today that student has far more efficient, specialized, and relevant means to acquire whatever knowledge that captures his interests or needs. We must differentiate between "formal" learning and practical individualized education. Everyone is learning in every moment of their waking, and sometimes even their sleeping, hours. Much of that learning is incidental to their everyday environment, but they are also acquiring knowledge that satisfies their curiosity and the incidental encounters that spark their interest. Look at how rapidly students learn the skills, niceties, and accepted language distortions of texting and tweeting, for example. Unfortunately, with the explosion of information and the burgeoning of tools that replace once required learned techniques much of formal education has become irrelevant. Software can design a building to my liking and guarantee it will meet all physical constraints required as it complies with all codes. Word processors can guarantee correct spelling and acceptable grammar in what I write. Calculators can apply geometric, algebraic, and calculus operations without my needing to know how those things are done. Google can translate articles written in any foreign language. Even my cell phone can translate conversations I may have with others who do not speak my language. Formal education need to be modernized to the world in which it operates. Otherwise it is just a ticket an antiquated system forces one to buy to get many jobs in the work place.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
There are three known facts of physics that appear to fully explain the orbits of captive bodies: the laws of inertia, and the force of gravity. Science uses these, and only these, to explain orbiting bodies. Arguing from inertia and gravity we are able to place bodies in permanent orbits. Either these calculations work by a serendipitous accident or they are a valid explanation of orbiting bodies. We can orbit an object at any height above forces that retard the motion of an object by simple formulas based on these laws and gravity. A glancing passage of an object approaching a space body is easily explained by the same calculations. As that object nears a space body in a path that will not directly lead to impact, if its velocity equals or exceeds the escape velocity for that body it will continue on a course that was briefly altered by the space body. Where is any conflicting evidence that forces us to regard this as an incomplete or incorrect explanation. It is incumbent on you to provide evidence that the currently accepted explanation is inadequate. Present that evidence.
Noface
Richard E Reed
Posted over 1 year ago
Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
Why are you questioning the position of science. You seem to be in agreement. Science says the pull away is from centrifugal force which can be shown on multiple instances on any scale where we have control. Science further says that a pull inward is due to gravity which can be shown by an apple dropping on ones head. We can further show that the pull of gravity even in very near proximity can be overcome for a short period of time by providing sufficient velocity to an object moving parallel to the earth's circumference. We can further show that this parallel movement will be maintained so long as we input enough force in the direction of motion to overcome resistances such as atmospheric drag. If the force is greater than the drag the orbit will depart from parallel in a direction of a larger radius. If it is less than the drag the orbital radius will decrease. Calculations can be made for any altitude above the surface of the earth to determine the speed necessary to exactly maintain an orbit. This is routinely done for man made satellites. There is a special case that we find desirable for a variety of reasons where we wish a satellite to maintain a position exactly over a point on a straight line from the center of the earth, through a point on the surface and to the satellite. The exact altitude and speed to maintain a satellite in this position which balances the pull of gravity and the opposite pull of centrifugal force is readily calculated. For the formula and typical answers see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090928065616AATBurU . This is common knowledge and readily available. Everyone knows that the altitude must be exact, the rotation must be in the direction of the earth's rotation, and the speed must also be correct. If geocentricity is not required then the only calculations necessary are for the correct altitude and speed. If you slow down an object rotating around the earth, regardless of its altitude it will crash.