Connect with us

Engineering Environment

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Matt Meerian, Sep 14, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Bloody smart arse...

    Kevin Aylward
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  2. A combo of Dilbert'esque management and incompetent staff trying to grab a
    little "air" by standing on each others fallen bodies ;-)
    Sometimes - especially if the money is getting tight you will find that your
    enemies are *inside* the organisation and the closer to HQ on gets, the more
    politisized and machiavellian the game gets! The competition is usually easy
    to beat compared to the HQ politicians. Part of your local managements work
    in a large organisation is actually to support friends, punish enemies and
    try to grab as much as they can on the way.

    On the "floor" one always competes in the sense that it's nice to be seen to
    be "clever" - but most places I have been have had a culture where you can
    show your cleverness by helping the less clever amongst the collegues and
    this behaviour is even noticed and rewarded too.
  3. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Hi John,
    Now it goes seriously OT and I am afraid I am guilty of triggering that.
    The apostles do come across quite bluntly sometimes. But when we study
    their words it starts to translate into modern time. The conversion on
    the road to Damascus shows us that it is very possible that a person
    will really bad intents can be turned around. It contradicts much of the
    gene theory where people are simply written off as evil because "it must
    be in their genes". I strongly believe that such conversions can happen,
    and they do all the time. Much of the turn-arounds aren't widely
    published because boasting shouldn't be in the repertoire of a
    Christian. That doesn't mean that we don't fall into bragging anyway
    some times.

    Regards, Joerg
  4. You mean Saul started off OK and doing the right thing - persecuting Xians - and
    then got 'turned evil' and boosted the cult into a worldwide plague.


    The Consensus:-
    The political party for the new millenium
  5. I read in that Joerg <[email protected]
    Oh, there's no doubt about that in my mind. But I regard it as a symptom
    of a certain mental condition. St Francis (of Assisi) is another case.
  6. Too much misdirected energy.

    My philosophy is; living well is the best revenge.
  7. This is quite often what consultants do that employees can't. The
    smarter employees understand this and work with the consultant to get
    things fixed.

    I've never been able to fire a bad boss or shut down a crappy program,
    but many consultants have done so on my behalf.
  8. With all due respect here, you are simply clueless on this. Game theory
    says nothing of the sort. The applicable theory is Darwinian evolution
    of genes and memes. Game theory is an entirely different subject, but
    one that happens to be used in Evolution theory, just like in electrical
    engineering, we use laplace transforms.
    Indeed that can. Unfortunately those that don't take the trouble to
    understand Evolution have no idea on what it explains. Genes don't hard
    code all of human behaviour in the slightest. This is trivially naive
    view. Have a read on my papers, especially, It will explain how
    morals (memes) program emotions (genes) allowing for, in principle, any

    Kevin Aylward
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  9. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Hi Kevin,
    In that paper you write, for example, that emotions must be selfish and
    love is a recognition that someone has something to aid your interests.

    Sorry, Kevin, but that is just one example where I respectfully
    disagree. How, then, do you explain acts of love where people clearly
    expect nothing in return? Such as spending countless hours with a lonely
    dying person until he or she passes away. Such as giving in complete
    anonymity. Such as volunteering in wild animal rescue. I could go on and
    on. Some might do that to lift their self-respect but most don't need
    that. They simply give.

    You can see the same thing in engineering. When someone helps a fellow
    engineer who got stuck, after hours, without even expecting as much as a
    free beer in the pub. Happens all the time. A perfect example is this
    forum. It got many folks out of a pickle because the others freely
    helped them.

    Regards, Joerg
  10. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Hi Kevin,
    Very simpel: Because it wouldn't be fair to others. Companies are no
    anonymous entities. They consist of people working there, people buying
    and using their products, shareholders and so on. All these need to be
    treated fairly. That's got nothing to do with Darwin.

    Regards, Joerg
  11. Yep. They have to be. Emotions are physical gene traits that have been
    well replicated and selected over millions of generations, so under the
    theory, they must be selfish. Its not debatable. Genes satisfy the
    axioms, therefore they must satisfy the conclusions that are
    mathematically derived for *any* trait.

    You may disagree, but you would be wrong. If you had actually read the
    paper and understood it, you will see why what I say is correct. Its
    very simple and not debatable, so long as the human satisfies the
    abstract mathematical definitions, but of course they do, we know
    experimentally that humans satisfy, replication, selection and
    generation properties.
    No problem at all.
    Oh dear... You obviously didn't understand the papers, as this is
    explicitly addressed. Look dude, this is all explainable in the
    approach, if you care to spend a little time on it.
    But he usually expects a return in the long run. For example, suppose
    there is a group of you, meeting down the pub once a week. Now, bob
    goes, fancy a pint Jim. Sure... Now suppose its six months later, and
    Jim has *never* returned the favour, to anyone in the group. Do I really
    have to explain the sort of thing that happens to such a free loader?

    Have a look at
    Then give me an argument, why the argument is false.

    But you really need to understand the structure of the theory, to see
    just why it is a good theory.
    You are simply looking at this, again, with all due respect, from an
    incredible elementary an naive view. You need to do reading on the
    papers to see how this is addressed. There is a lot more going on
    underneath that you are giving credit for. You need to look much more
    deeply at "people freely helping others". Again, is a reasonable

    There's no point in me addressing why you are wrong until you have at
    least a basic understanding of how this is actually addressed, within
    Darwinian Evolution theory. The questions you pose here are 101, and
    easily explainable. You are under the impression that a brief, general
    overall statement contains the full content of the theory. One has to
    walk before one can run.

    I dont think you yet understand the power of the approach. Its outlined
    on the main page.
    1 Simple definitions and some very simple assumptions are made
    concerning the theory.

    2 A simple mathematical argument is then made from the assumptions.

    3 Traits such as emotions, morals and fashions are defined and
    identified as satisfying the assumptions of the mathematics.

    4 Behavior is than deduced from the mathematical results.

    You need to take each bit at a time and show where there is an *actual*
    error in logic to have any hope of showing the approach is invalid, as
    it does indeed, account for all phenomena.

    Kevin Aylward
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  12. I read in that Kevin Aylward
    It's a real theory? Then what are its testable (preferably tested)
  13. And why isnt it "fair". Explain to me *exactly* *why* things *should* be
    "fair". Dont waffel it, give me the *actual* *reason* for your morals.

    Evolution theory explains this trivially,

    "That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most".

    That is, morals are a maximisation process, morals that led to less
    numbers of people having such morals, are simply not observed much.
    Thats why we observe what we do. There is simply no such thing as good
    and bad, its what ever maximises the number of people. Its a tautology.
    If a moral maximises the numbers holding that moral, then dah...that's
    the moral we see cos its maximised compared to others. This is so
    trivial dude.
    Yes it has!!!

    You obviously aren't reading my papers:)

    General Darwinian Evolution is about explaning observations based on the
    3 principles of Replication, Selection and Randam generation of traits.
    These traits can be hardware traits, e.g. genes/nature, or
    software/information e.g. memes/nurture. Any object that satisfies the
    definition of Replicator and Replicant
    ( can be analysed
    with the theory.

    Companies satisfy the axioms, and so can be analysed with the theory.
    So, it has everything to do with Darwin. Again, with all due respect,
    you appear to not know even the basics of the most powerful theory that
    explains all animal and human behaviour. I suppose this is due to your
    xtian upbringing, rather than your scientific training. It puts a major
    dent in rational logic. It makes you think that even mundane things cant
    be explained scientifically.

    Kevin Aylward
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  14. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Hi Kevin,
    Not much of an explanation. You are only pointing out repeatedly that
    one has to read all of your papers to understand what you mean. Assuming
    you know your papers, why not simply post a quote that explains this?
    No, I don't understand. One reason may be because they clearly contain
    statements that are wrong. Quoting your altruism paper: "For example,
    the Christian religion preaches that if you give, you will get
    everlasting life by going to heaven." How did you come up with this?
    That is wrong. The bible and all true Christian churches (Lutherans,
    Catholics, etc.) clearly teach that works such as good deeds, giving
    etc. do not suffice at all to get you to heaven. Faith does, and nothing
    else. Sorry, but I cannot believe statements in a paper when I know they
    are not correct.

    Regards, Joerg
  15. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Hi Kevin,
    Very simple: I treat others in the same way that I would like to be
    treated. I don't believe in a dog-eat-dog world. Sometimes it has to be
    done, hard business has to be conducted, IP skirmishes must be toughed
    out, wars have to be fought. But most other times I believe we have to
    try our best to make each other's life enjoyable and not miserable. Most
    of all, though, I believe in fairness because the bible says so. Like it
    or not, that's the way many people believe. So there, my *actual* *reasons*.
    I read a little. What if I don't believe some of it?
    Christians can think very rationally. Why do you think we have a lot of
    top notch engineers in our congregation? I am sure these guys share my
    thoughts about fairness and live fairness in their work environments. It
    can be done.

    Regards, Joerg
  16. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Such a concept is a collection of meaningless words, and you're clueless,
    in the World of Aylward. Anyone who looks like they're showing compassion
    has some trick up their sleeve and are merely waiting to stab you in the
    back. There can't be any such thing as Love, it's a made-up word, to
    describe moony-eyed little girls impressed by The Brave Knight on his
    Shining Steed. They're simply making stuff up so that they can get

    There's only clockwork, you see, mercilessly self-centered clockwork.

  17. Ban

    Ban Guest

    Right, people like Aylward don't have kids luckily, which is a different
    affair. Then you do not need to think up reasons for your selfish and
    unsocial behaviour. In fact I feel those are immature adults, they probably
    never experienced love from their parents or rejected it, and consequently
    cannot express love themselves. It's those grumpy old bachelors and
    spinsters, disgusting. But nature regulates itself and eliminates those
  18. I read in that Kevin Aylward
    We are under the illusion that we can consciously decide not to.(;-)
  19. I read in that Joerg <[email protected]
    The Bible says a lot of things. Do you agree with all of them?
  20. How do you know what our Kev has? He might even have one or more kids
    unluckily. After all, that would simply be due to genes, memes and
    random processes; he couldn't have any control over his actions. (;-)
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day