I have for many years been a member of SET – the Society for the Elimination of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms).
SET is an advocate for TAE – Total Acronym Eradication.
In addition to being a founding member of SET, I am also a SVP (Senior Vice President).
I helped found SET after realizing that I had bought something at EMS (Eastern Mountain Sports) for use in EMS (Emergency Medical Services).
This, of course, called to mind one of my favorite lines from the movie “Good Morning Vietnam”: “Since the VP is such a VIP should we keep the PC on the QT?”
While I was at CMU (Carnegie Mellon University, not to be confused with Central Michigan University), or more accurately while I was at CIT (Carnegie Institute of Technology, one of the colleges that make up CMU) one of the senior SCS (School of Computer Science, another of the colleges in CMU) professors was asked what he thought the fundamental limits of computer science would be. He thought for a moment, then answered “there are only 17,576 possible three letter acronyms.” It is my opinion that he was at least partially serious.
Boeing, of course, is extremely fond of acronyms. We use AP for Air Plane, or A/C for Air Craft. L/N for Line Number. AOG for Aircraft On Ground (which means it has been grounded, and thus an urgent situation, not that it is just unloading at an airport). Every airline has a three-letter customer code. Even airlines which only have two words in their name. Boeing itself, of course, has BCA (Boeing Commercial Aircraft), BDS (Boeing Defense and Space), and EOT (Engineering Operations and Technology) divisions.
I half expect that at some seniority level (say, 25 years with the company) I will be taught the secret handshake and told that Boeing is actually an acronym – Bringing Overall Engineering Into a New Globe or something. Perhaps Big Overbearing Executive Idiots... or perhaps we shouldn't go there.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Happiness
A reporter on NPR today noted that the object of the things government does is to make people happy.
While I can’t refute that many politicians and bureaucrats might claim this is the case, I don’t believe that is, nor should it be, the case.
The purpose of government is not to make us happy. The purpose is to make us safer, and to do things that we could not effectively accomplish as individuals. The actual reason governments do things is almost always to help a politician get re-elected or to allow them to do something that will make THEM happy. Of course, it probably helps your chances of re-election if your constituents are happy, but big campaign contributions help more.
There’s a quote attributed to Henry Ford, along the lines of “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted faster horses.” The goal of government should not be to give people what they WANT. It should be to give them what they NEED – even if they don’t know they need it. What the people, inevitably, WANT is bread and circuses – for free, of course. What they need are standard weights and measures, clean water, armed forces, etc. Sure, if you ask people “do you want those” they’ll usually say yes – but if you just ask them what they want they’re unlikely to make the top ten.
Yet another quote is often told as a joke about a French political activist who sees a crowd running by. He runs after them, saying “I must see where My People are going so that I can lead them!” This is, in fact, a good way to get elected. It is NOT leadership. It is NOT what governments should do. What a leader would do is say “I know that you’re running this way, but here’s why you really want to run the other way instead.” A successful leader gets the crowd to go in a direction they weren’t already going. This seldom makes people happy in the short term, and in the long term they usually forget that someone else got them going in a better direction. So it has nothing to do with happiness.
What is good for us often doesn’t make us happy. Taking nasty-tasting medicine doesn’t make you happy – but it makes you healthy. Getting your vaccinations doesn’t make you happy. Eating healthy food doesn’t make you happy. You only get happier about these things if you can connect them with their long term benefits. In government, the long-term benefits ought to be the primary objective; make the investments that private industry won’t make because they won’t pay off fast enough. Maintain the military in peacetime so that it is ready to win when war comes. Build GOOD roads that will last and require less maintenance in the long run. People waiting months while a new 100-year bridge is built would be happier if a 10 year bridge was slapped together. At least for one election cycle.
I think this is part of the key problem with our country as it is today – we confuse the way things are with the way we want them and the way they should be.
While I can’t refute that many politicians and bureaucrats might claim this is the case, I don’t believe that is, nor should it be, the case.
The purpose of government is not to make us happy. The purpose is to make us safer, and to do things that we could not effectively accomplish as individuals. The actual reason governments do things is almost always to help a politician get re-elected or to allow them to do something that will make THEM happy. Of course, it probably helps your chances of re-election if your constituents are happy, but big campaign contributions help more.
There’s a quote attributed to Henry Ford, along the lines of “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted faster horses.” The goal of government should not be to give people what they WANT. It should be to give them what they NEED – even if they don’t know they need it. What the people, inevitably, WANT is bread and circuses – for free, of course. What they need are standard weights and measures, clean water, armed forces, etc. Sure, if you ask people “do you want those” they’ll usually say yes – but if you just ask them what they want they’re unlikely to make the top ten.
Yet another quote is often told as a joke about a French political activist who sees a crowd running by. He runs after them, saying “I must see where My People are going so that I can lead them!” This is, in fact, a good way to get elected. It is NOT leadership. It is NOT what governments should do. What a leader would do is say “I know that you’re running this way, but here’s why you really want to run the other way instead.” A successful leader gets the crowd to go in a direction they weren’t already going. This seldom makes people happy in the short term, and in the long term they usually forget that someone else got them going in a better direction. So it has nothing to do with happiness.
What is good for us often doesn’t make us happy. Taking nasty-tasting medicine doesn’t make you happy – but it makes you healthy. Getting your vaccinations doesn’t make you happy. Eating healthy food doesn’t make you happy. You only get happier about these things if you can connect them with their long term benefits. In government, the long-term benefits ought to be the primary objective; make the investments that private industry won’t make because they won’t pay off fast enough. Maintain the military in peacetime so that it is ready to win when war comes. Build GOOD roads that will last and require less maintenance in the long run. People waiting months while a new 100-year bridge is built would be happier if a 10 year bridge was slapped together. At least for one election cycle.
I think this is part of the key problem with our country as it is today – we confuse the way things are with the way we want them and the way they should be.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
From the Frontlines: Ursulmas
The feast of St. Ursul of Aquaterra was once again celebrated this year with violence and commerce.
Hmm. Maybe the mainstream holidays aren't the only ones becoming commercialized... :-)
This year for the first time in at least five years the main activities were split between two halls (so with the archery/thrown weapons we had three locations). It is my opinion that this didn't work very well; not enough cross-traffic between the fighting (heavy, rapier, and YAC were located in one hall) and the rest (merchants, A&S, etc.).
Lord Nigel, our current Baronial Bardic Champion, however, was an overachiever again and got a number of bards to perform in pre-scheduled slots on a 'stage' (backdrop, seating, and everything) throughout both days. Wanting to encourage this, I did a slot Saturday and one Sunday (30-40 minutes each) despite having the tail end of a cold. The audiences were small (about a dozen people at peak for either of my performances) but responsive. I hope we do it again next year.
House Weir (which has near-complete overlap with the Emerald Rain dance troupe) did a static display instead of dancing this year; everything a moorish woman would have had with her while traveling. Most of us pitched in something as well as the documentation for it (clothing, jewelry, food, furnishings, etc.). Somewhat to my surprise we won Best Static Display. I'd half forgotten there WAS a Best Static Display award!
I participated in the youth scavenger hunt, composed a story tying the various stages of it together (made a knife at A&S, went to Thrown Weapons to try it out, hurt myself and needed a Chiurgeon, etc.), and at the end each person got to make a quickie copy of a period board game (I chose an Roman form of tic-tac-toe). It was quite fun though I got a few odd looks.
All in all a good event, but I really hope we can re-unite the two major sections in one place next year.
Hmm. Maybe the mainstream holidays aren't the only ones becoming commercialized... :-)
This year for the first time in at least five years the main activities were split between two halls (so with the archery/thrown weapons we had three locations). It is my opinion that this didn't work very well; not enough cross-traffic between the fighting (heavy, rapier, and YAC were located in one hall) and the rest (merchants, A&S, etc.).
Lord Nigel, our current Baronial Bardic Champion, however, was an overachiever again and got a number of bards to perform in pre-scheduled slots on a 'stage' (backdrop, seating, and everything) throughout both days. Wanting to encourage this, I did a slot Saturday and one Sunday (30-40 minutes each) despite having the tail end of a cold. The audiences were small (about a dozen people at peak for either of my performances) but responsive. I hope we do it again next year.
House Weir (which has near-complete overlap with the Emerald Rain dance troupe) did a static display instead of dancing this year; everything a moorish woman would have had with her while traveling. Most of us pitched in something as well as the documentation for it (clothing, jewelry, food, furnishings, etc.). Somewhat to my surprise we won Best Static Display. I'd half forgotten there WAS a Best Static Display award!
I participated in the youth scavenger hunt, composed a story tying the various stages of it together (made a knife at A&S, went to Thrown Weapons to try it out, hurt myself and needed a Chiurgeon, etc.), and at the end each person got to make a quickie copy of a period board game (I chose an Roman form of tic-tac-toe). It was quite fun though I got a few odd looks.
All in all a good event, but I really hope we can re-unite the two major sections in one place next year.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Women in Combat
The Pentagon just announced that it is opening up the ground combat arms to women. I think this was a bad decision.
My concern however, is much less about the women than the men.
Male decision making ability goes down in the presence of women. Combat requires quite a bit of decision making – dig in or advance? Flank or assault? Dodge left or right? Press the attack or withdraw? The male members of a mixed unit will thus be less effective than if they were in an all-male unit. “Less effective in combat” of course, leads directly to higher casualties.
The problem remains even if the women are segregated into their own units – the commander of the next higher echelon still has to make decisions about them. Less of a problem then if the women are actually present, of course, but still a problem. And how will the neighboring units (some of them inevitably all-male) react?
Then there’s the elephant in the room – pregnancy. Women in the military do get pregnant despite the best efforts of birth control, regulations, separation off-duty, and everything else that has been tried. If a woman in a support role becomes pregnant she can generally be replaced with minimal loss to unit cohesion. Combat units, however, need to be very closely tied together. Short term replacements (even, as demonstrated painfully during WWII, when they themselves are veterans) die at a MUCH higher rate than those fully integrated into the unit. Do we mandate abortions for women who become pregnant? What if the woman in question doesn’t want an abortion? Do we limit combat positions to women willing to have abortions if they become pregnant? What if they change their mind?
Finally, there’s the companion to the elephant; the practical bottleneck to producing the next generation are women, not men. A man can conceive hundreds of children (allowing just one per day) in the same time a woman can carry just one to term. A woman’s biological ability to put her genetic material into the next generation is a long term process. A man can do so while on a 24 hour pass. The women who are willing and able to ‘stand between their loved home and war’s desolation’ are among the ones we’d most like to pass their genes onto the next generation… and just about the least able to do so while doing their job.
It has been argued that women are already on the front lines of the current war (as the current war has no ‘rear area’). This is more the exception than the rule, but let’s stipulate it for now. We are also assured that the current war is ending Real Soon Now. The next war’s character is unknowable. Counter-insurgency seems like a reasonable guess, but even counter-insurgency missions often have secure rear areas.
Of course, the nature of the current geo-political situation means the US is unlikely to be endangered by a decrease in the effectiveness of its military forces any time soon. In fact it would be years before even the total elimination of the US military would present a serious risk to the continental US (or, at least, one more serious than already exists). Once the decision to put women on the front line is implemented, however, it can not easily be undone (see the notes about unit cohesion). If we do find ourselves in a ‘war to the knife’ twenty years down the road (or a hundred, if you prefer) we will likely be outnumbered – counting on superior skill and decision making for our survival.
We might be doomed by men making decisions about women under fire.
My concern however, is much less about the women than the men.
Male decision making ability goes down in the presence of women. Combat requires quite a bit of decision making – dig in or advance? Flank or assault? Dodge left or right? Press the attack or withdraw? The male members of a mixed unit will thus be less effective than if they were in an all-male unit. “Less effective in combat” of course, leads directly to higher casualties.
The problem remains even if the women are segregated into their own units – the commander of the next higher echelon still has to make decisions about them. Less of a problem then if the women are actually present, of course, but still a problem. And how will the neighboring units (some of them inevitably all-male) react?
Then there’s the elephant in the room – pregnancy. Women in the military do get pregnant despite the best efforts of birth control, regulations, separation off-duty, and everything else that has been tried. If a woman in a support role becomes pregnant she can generally be replaced with minimal loss to unit cohesion. Combat units, however, need to be very closely tied together. Short term replacements (even, as demonstrated painfully during WWII, when they themselves are veterans) die at a MUCH higher rate than those fully integrated into the unit. Do we mandate abortions for women who become pregnant? What if the woman in question doesn’t want an abortion? Do we limit combat positions to women willing to have abortions if they become pregnant? What if they change their mind?
Finally, there’s the companion to the elephant; the practical bottleneck to producing the next generation are women, not men. A man can conceive hundreds of children (allowing just one per day) in the same time a woman can carry just one to term. A woman’s biological ability to put her genetic material into the next generation is a long term process. A man can do so while on a 24 hour pass. The women who are willing and able to ‘stand between their loved home and war’s desolation’ are among the ones we’d most like to pass their genes onto the next generation… and just about the least able to do so while doing their job.
It has been argued that women are already on the front lines of the current war (as the current war has no ‘rear area’). This is more the exception than the rule, but let’s stipulate it for now. We are also assured that the current war is ending Real Soon Now. The next war’s character is unknowable. Counter-insurgency seems like a reasonable guess, but even counter-insurgency missions often have secure rear areas.
Of course, the nature of the current geo-political situation means the US is unlikely to be endangered by a decrease in the effectiveness of its military forces any time soon. In fact it would be years before even the total elimination of the US military would present a serious risk to the continental US (or, at least, one more serious than already exists). Once the decision to put women on the front line is implemented, however, it can not easily be undone (see the notes about unit cohesion). If we do find ourselves in a ‘war to the knife’ twenty years down the road (or a hundred, if you prefer) we will likely be outnumbered – counting on superior skill and decision making for our survival.
We might be doomed by men making decisions about women under fire.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Is Facebook worth it?
Sure, it is a way to keep in touch with people. Find out what they're thinking, doing, or planning. For a fairly introverted person like me it has the advantage that I don't actually have to talk to them to find this stuff out.
Occasionally I use it to ask for advice. Often I even get useful advice that way.
But the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. Despite my efforts to use FB's filters, I mostly see junk. Poorly written and/or ignorant political posturing (including plenty from people nominally on 'my side' of issues) seems to be the dominant life form even now that the election is over.
I've considered a merciless pruning of my friend list (do I really care what someone I haven't seen since high school is doing? Not really)... but that would be a lot of work. It doesn't help that I've now got a bunch of SCA folks friended; often I don't remember their legal names. Further complicated by friends with similar names, and the fact that no one seems to use a straight face shot of themselves as their profile pic. I'm very afraid of deleting someone because I don't recognize their name or profile pic only to find I've deleted my Baron.
A much easier solution is just to stop visiting (perhaps deleting my account, perhaps not). Then, however, I lose what little signal I was getting. Along with the cute cat pictures - they probably don't count as 'signal', but they're fun.
Sure, it is a way to keep in touch with people. Find out what they're thinking, doing, or planning. For a fairly introverted person like me it has the advantage that I don't actually have to talk to them to find this stuff out.
Occasionally I use it to ask for advice. Often I even get useful advice that way.
But the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. Despite my efforts to use FB's filters, I mostly see junk. Poorly written and/or ignorant political posturing (including plenty from people nominally on 'my side' of issues) seems to be the dominant life form even now that the election is over.
I've considered a merciless pruning of my friend list (do I really care what someone I haven't seen since high school is doing? Not really)... but that would be a lot of work. It doesn't help that I've now got a bunch of SCA folks friended; often I don't remember their legal names. Further complicated by friends with similar names, and the fact that no one seems to use a straight face shot of themselves as their profile pic. I'm very afraid of deleting someone because I don't recognize their name or profile pic only to find I've deleted my Baron.
A much easier solution is just to stop visiting (perhaps deleting my account, perhaps not). Then, however, I lose what little signal I was getting. Along with the cute cat pictures - they probably don't count as 'signal', but they're fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
