El rincón de Juan

[Juanito]

Управо сада, Justin Waters рече

Kad bih pricao Holandjanima kako mi radimo ovjde, vjerovatno bi rekli "ma da li je moguce". Ali kada bi i oni meni, kako vidim ispricali kako oni rade, rekao bi im "ma da li je moguce". 

To ne moze vise da se nazove ni ljevicom, ljevicari imaju svoje ideje ali nisu bljutavi, ovi su vec zagrajisali....treba uvesti trecu politicku liniju, pored desnice, ljevice,  treba da postoji i bogaljica. 

Некад су левичари слали у гулаг, данас не смеју да ти дају радни задатак. 

[Justin Waters]

пре 1 минут, Juanito рече

Некад су левичари слали у гулаг, данас не смеју да ти дају радни задатак. 

Ovo je mentalno sakacenje, tako mi djeluje to je neka nova vrsta medjuljudskih odnosa, sto je interesantno temelji se na strahu, samo ne na direktnom nego nekom suptilnom. Podsjeca me na ljude koji nemaju svoj integritet kao licnost i zaziru od svih nivoa ljudskih odnosa u kome dolazi do sucevanja razlika.  

 

[Juanito]

Поклон од Хуаните. <3

[Juanito]

@RYLAH

Ништа без геополитике...

[Juanito]

@Grizzly Adams

So Warsaw is not very heavy and dull, as one hears Moscow is. On the other hand, you meet at every turn that kind of dull stupid backwardness characteristic of government—you know, like the fact that change for $20 isn’t available when you want to get your card renewed at the US Immigration Office downtown...

The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.

When I heard the investigation would be in Washington, my immediate reaction was not to do it: I have a principle of not going anywhere near Washington or having anything to do with government, so my immediate reaction was—how am I gonna get out of this?

When I see a congressman giving his opinion on something, I always wonder if it represents his real opinion or if it represents an opinion that he’s designed in order to be elected. It seems to be a central problem for politicians. So I often wonder: what is the relation of integrity to working in the government?

 

Ричард Фајнман у писму жени

[Juanito]

И још:

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place....Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home...

The idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries—that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. (Surely You’re Joking, 282-283)

[Снежана]

поклон од мужа

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important.

Yes! Stvarno je bio genije. Veoma lepo receno.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Juanito]

Управо сада, Grizzly Adams рече

Yes! Stvarno je bio genije. Veoma lepo receno.

Има још, о Наси.

I invented a theory which I have discussed with a considerable number of people, and many people have explained to me why it’s wrong. But I don’t remember their explanations, so I cannot resist telling you what I think led to this lack of communication in NASA.

When NASA was trying to go to the moon, there was a great deal of enthusiasm: it was a goal everyone was anxious to achieve. They didn’t know if they could do it, but they were all working together.

I have this idea because I worked at Los Alamos, and I experienced the tension and the pressure of everybody working together to make the atomic bomb. When somebody’s having a problem—say, with the detonator—everybody knows that it’s a big problem, they’re thinking of ways to beat it, they’re making suggestions, and when they hear about the solution they’re excited, because that means their work is now useful: if the detonator didn’t work, the bomb wouldn’t work.

I figured the same thing had gone on at NASA in the early days: if the space suit didn’t work, they couldn’t go to the moon. So everybody’s interested in everybody else’s problems.

But then, when the moon project was over, NASA had all these people together: there’s a big organization in Houston and a big organization in Huntsville, not to mention at Kennedy, in Florida. You don’t want to fire people and send them out in the street when you’re done with a big project, so the problem is, what to do?

You have to convince Congress that there exists a project that only NASA can do. In order to do so, it is necessary—at least it was apparently necessary in this case—to exaggerate: to exaggerate how economical the shuttle would be, to exaggerate how often it could fly, to exaggerate how safe it would be, to exaggerate the big scientific facts that would be discovered. “The shuttle can make so-and-so many flights and it’ll cost such-and-such; we went to the moon, so we can do it!”

Meanwhile, I would guess, the engineers at the bottom are saying, “No, no! We can’t make that many flights. If we had to make that many flights, it would mean such-and-such!” And, “No, we can’t do it for that amount of money, because that would mean we’d have to do thus-and-so!”

Well, the guys who are trying to get Congress to okay their projects don’t want to hear such talk. It’s better if they don’t hear, so they can be more “honest”—they don’t want to be in the position of lying to Congress! So pretty soon the attitudes begin to change: information from the bottom which is disagreeable—“We’re having a problem with the seals; we should fix it before we fly again”—is suppressed by big cheeses and middle managers who say, “If you tell me about the seals problems, we’ll have to ground the shuttle and fix it.” Or, “No, no, keep on flying, because otherwise, it’ll look bad,” or “Don’t tell me; I don’t want to hear about it.”

Maybe they don’t say explicitly “Don’t tell me,” but they discourage communication, which amounts to the same thing. It’s not a question of what has been written down, or who should tell what to whom; it’s a question of whether, when you do tell somebody about some problem, they’re delighted to hear about it and they say “Tell me more” and “Have you tried such-and-such?” or they say “Well, see what you can do about it”—which is a completely different atmosphere. If you try once or twice to communicate and get pushed back, pretty soon you decide, “To hell with it.”

So that’s my theory: because of the exaggeration at the top being inconsistent with the reality at the bottom, communication got slowed up and ultimately jammed. That’s how it’s possible that the higher-ups didn’t know.

[Juanito]

Ово последње је, мислим, у вези са трагедијом Чаленџера. 

[Juanito]

Морам још мало, нисам знао да је био баш оволико наш. 

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated.  Neither may a government determine the aesthetic values of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression.  Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious or philosophical doctrines.  Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain their freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

 

[Аурор]

пре 20 минута, Juanito рече

The idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them.

Још један одличан пример конвергенције умова

Бјутифул...
 

[Grizzly Adams]

Сјајно! То је зато што је ишо у кафане, ту се отвара ум ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Juanito]

Мали teaser за мој први робот пројекат. 

[Juanito]