Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Saturday, May 13, 2017


Quora has loads of discussion about IQ. Too, people are stressing EI (some use EQ).

Truth engineering deals with the necessity for a human-in-the-loop in terms of resolving hard problems. The computer cannot overcome vertigo, otherwise.

But, what type of person is required for this? All sorts of other questions pertain to the discussion.

So, let's start to look at intelligence among other things: The future belongs to the stupid (the blogger is a Professor of Psychology). I ran across this post in a Quora discussion. Seems like a good place to start (too, there is work being done - example: The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection).

I am proposing that, like Gardner of Harvard suggests, intelligence is multifaceted. The IQ test looks at a small portion. There may be 'smart ways' (perhaps, modes) that are not seen by the high-IQ. Or, rather, the higher IQ would require additional training.

And, not being controversial, broader scope for 'best and brightest' might be a wise choice on the part of society. What would that scope entail?

Remarks: Modified: 05/13/2017

05/13/2017 --

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Ten years

Ten years ago, I started this blog. The first post was "Truth, can it be engineered?" Overall, there have been 284 posts. The topics have followed the times.

Early on, there were posts about engineering. The key topics were 'earned value' and 'middle out' which are constant issues. Then, the topics changed to finance due to the downturn, its consequences and the long road. We still are in jeopardy.

Prior to starting the blog, I was doing Wikipedia edits. I pulled this little graph that shows edits by year. It can be broken down further, but the timeline shows interrelationships.


Truth engineering started under the auspices of working in a knowledge-based engineering (KBE) environment. With all of the emphasis lately on AI (due to machine learning and deep diving of data), one wonders what is the basis for all of this. Well, KB, and its offshoot of KBE, were there from the beginning. And, they will continue. We will address this more here as we go along.

In the meantime, on a related page in Wikipedia, there was a request for real examples. I briefly sketched two recently. See . Talk:ICAD (software) for the examples.

Also, in terms of getting a plane to fly, it is more arduous than making a little smart phone. And, it demonstrates going up against nature big time. Nature is the chief guide. We have to conform and do so smartly. Nothing new there, as engineering has been around from the beginning.

What is new is the computer? What? And, social media and fake news. Don't blame the media, rather we need to look at this stuff from a new angle. Hence, truth engineering, for one thing.


Post note: There was no reference in this blog to KBE over the years. Why? There were two in the related blog: Out on a limb and Here we go again, III (only a cursory mention). I suppose that I was looking at truth beyond the computer. Guess what? Jobs and his mobile gift has changed the landscape (and his cohorts with their various clouds, too). And so, can we go forward without knowing that 'truth' is computational, albeit with natural or artificial resources?

Remarks: Modified: 05/11/2017

05/11/2017 --

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Code or not

Code has been the topic of several posts. Usually, it pertained to issues, such as content vs configuration management (from the 2014 time frame). The point? If one is doing work and the computer is the tool and assistance, then one needs to control reconfigs. That is, the producer of the system ought not come in and monkey with your process.

Yes, it's a control issue (see Stallman on this). Too, if the computer is driving things, then you have to follow. But, software people do not do this. However, they are not known for a good process, either.

Three years ago, I redid a website using only HTML/CSS. Why? It was familiar; too, I could control everything. And, it was minimal. The idea was to build upon this. I started with Microsoft's OfficeLive, but it was cut. I looked at a bunch of alternatives. None stood out.

Besides, in just a few days, I saw lots of hacking. What's with that? So, I went with not-so-simple HTML/CSS. Mind you, these things continually progress.

Want to know what CSS can do? A lot. Basically, it is parameterized code. This page shows three examples. #1 is a cut from MS OfficeLive. #2 deals with CSS (banner.js). That is, the objects are drawn and clipped (then I cut to an image file for ease). Now, #3 uses JavaScripting to do the same image.

I need to reconfigure to allow more interaction. And, so, need to bite the bullet. That example got me back into things. It basically writes on a 2D canvas.

But, I just went and looked at 3D and found this by Jeremy Heleine. Nice.
It is a trip down memory lane. I was doing 30+ years ago with a Lisp Machine (What is a lisp machine and what is so great about them?, actually, wrote my own perspective handler). Ten years later, I was using a top-notch CAD/CAE system, around which we wrapped Lisp for Knowledge Based Engineering. Ten years after that, I was doing this with Python (as it was interpretative and mimiced Lisp, somewhat).

Essentially, I dealt with geometric modeling with regard to massively detailed products that supported decisions related to design, analysis, and the whole gamut of build and maintain.

Remarks: Modified: 04/27/2017

04/27/2017 -- Further on the issues: self determination.

Friday, March 31, 2017

Bottles and genies

Today, we hear rumblings that Russian paid trolls to put out fake news. Heck, Silly Valley has allowed us to get to a situation where we do not know what is what.

And, we just followed them down the path of perdition (I have used perdition a lot in these blogs over the years). How can anyone be surprised? We ought not have let loose the Internet as we did. So, now, it's a mess. It was a mess the whole time after the commercial thrust got going.

I have harped on this a long time. In fact, from a mobile sense, I am 1G/2G. From a computational sense, I do a lot of local processing. I rent a VM for my website. Cloud? It's a muddy mess. I do use it for storage. Carefully.

When I see Silly Valley's results over the past couple of decades, I grieve. I'm old. But, the youngsters are going to have to clean up the messes. Oh sure, jobs.

And so, here we are. I'll have to get back to writing posts, such as these: We let the genie out of the bottle and Genie out of the bottle

Remarks: Modified: 03/31/2017

03/31/2017 --

Thursday, March 23, 2017

KBE, futures

I wrote this on Wikipedia (Knowledge Based Engineering - KBE futures, KBE theory) back in 2006:
    KBE, as a particular example of KBS, is a multi-disciplinary framework that has more than practical considerations. Not only will KBE require successful handling of issues of the computational (OntologyArtificial IntelligenceEntscheidungsproblemInteractive computationCategory Theory, ...) and logic (non-monotonic issues related to the qualificationframe, and ramification problems)), it will touch upon all sciences that deal with matter, its manipulations, and the related decisions. In a sense, Product Lifecycle Management allows us to have the world as a large laboratory for experimental co-evolution of our knowledge and artificial co-horts. As noted in ACM Communications, "Computers will grow to become scientists in their own right, with intuitions and computational variants of fascination and curiosity." [19] What better framework is there to explore the "increasingly complicated mappings between the human world and the computational"?
    A continuing theme will be resolving the contextual definitions for KBE into a coherent discipline and keeping a handle on managing the necessary quantitative comparisons. One issue considers what limits there may be to the computational; this study requires a multi-disciplinary focus and an understanding of the quasi-empirical. Given the knowledge focus of KBE, another issue involves what limits there might be to a computational basis for knowledge and whether these are overcome with the more advanced types of human-machine interface.
    It is important not to treat the KBE technology in isolation, but focus more on its role in the overall Product Development Process (PDP). During development, it is important to streamline the process from knowledge capture towards software implementation. To this end, close-coupling between Knowledge Management and KBE is desired. Transitions from data and information inside a Knowledge Base towards software code is of particular relevance. The best results can be achieved by using model-driven software development principles, which includes automatic code generation and round-tripping. The use of KBE during a PDP not only requires the ability to easily set-up (existing) KBE applications from a knowledge level, but also the ability to store back the results after execution of the tool. In order to use KBE on a strategical level as decision-making and planning support mechanism, it is important to relate results back to the system engineering domain (requirements, functions, options, embodiment). From deployment perspective, a better integration with other IT tools should be realized. Couplings between KBE applications, Knowledge Bases and Simulation Workflow Management software are of particular importance. The iProd project tries to take KBE to the next level by addressing these aspects.[20] The iProd framework uses KBE technology as a reasoning mechanism to infer new product knowledge and, as a means to automate virtual execution (CAE simulation) and as MDO-enabler. On an IT level, it prototypes KB-KBE couplings (code generation, round-tripping, results storage and automatic workflow generation) and SWFM-KBE integration (on the basis of the software-as-a-service paradigm).
It still applies, though the section has disappeared.

Remarks: Modified: 03/23/2017

03/23/2017 --

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Does code matter?

Three years ago, I spent a little time with Codecademy (post: Codecademy, again). My profile is still there, from that time.

My purpose was to review progress by looking at the tools that were available. For a month, I went through the lessons and worked the exercises. It was interesting to see the on-line instruction. Naturally, I found a few bugs but overlooked them. At the time, it was free; now, there is a Pro option with more of a focus on results.

Also, at the time, I saw testimonials about people starting careers with this approach. That was interesting. Today, I ran into another (different method) that represents the time. The guy has blogged about his introduction into coding and the success that he has found.
Then, I saw that one of morning show hosts talked to someone about an effort to teach coding to women. There are thousands of jobs open, I understand.

Hence, this little reminder. One problem with so many people just coding is that we're losing sight of issues related to quality (many issues). And, one sees this lack everywhere. Quality would include the user perspective, especially concerns related to safety, stability, and such.

I have already written about little businesses being bitten (Content and more). I just ran across an issue myself the past week: Technology's impact. So, we have issues related to content's management, efficacy of technology's use, and whole lot more.

But, a very important one relates to this theme: Does code matter? Based upon my experience, this glut of jobs is short-sighted. Code does not provide the business intelligence that everyone is after. Now, if code is mainly small perturbations (such as was brought by macro ability in spread sheets), then, that could very well be content related.

However, how many times do we need to re-invent the wheel?

Remarks: Modified: 03/23/2017

03/23/2017 -- Two recent videos (stumbled upon them). 1) Peter Metzger talks about his 31 years with Emacs. He shows a little of the history of computing devices. Run down memory lane. But, nice to see the old thing, Emacs, still having traction. 2) Which then brings up Richard Stallman. Richard started Emacs ball rolling (some have followed his sainthood into the editor wars - Emacs vs VI/VIM).

Also, he was first in looking at truth maintenance. But, in this video, Richard talks about his free software initiative and emphasizes, time and again, that purty systems, like Apple, have created a jail, made it purty, and then convinced people to jail themselves. He does not like what I call the dumbing device. He stresses surveillance. I see it as a tether to nonsense. Hence, I am 1G/2G, even in this day of talk about 5G. In terms of truth maintenance, Richard and his advisor (Sussman) worked on constraint satisfaction. Another aspect deals with defeasible reasoning.