Knowledge

The Indicator: 101 Things I Didn’t Learn in Architecture School This article is co-authored by Sherin Wing 1] Even if your boss is your friend he may have to axe you to save his business. 2] Read the book, On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt. Carry it with you. It’s pocket-sized. 3] Do not drink at work and especially do not get toasted around your colleagues under any circumstances. 4] No matter how highly you may think of yourself you may still be a minion in the eyes of others who hold more power than you. 5] Once you leave architecture school not everybody cares about architecture or wants to talk about it. 6] All eating habits and diets acquired during school should be jettisoned. 7] The hygiene habits you kept in architecture school are inappropriate for real life; bathe regularly and change your underwear. 8] The rush and exhilaration you experience in studio may be inversely proportional to how much you will enjoy working for a firm. 9] It’s architecture, not medicine. Keep reading after the break. 12] The industry underpays.

Go Hack Yourself Penetration testing is only the first step of self-inspection -- ask internal auditors to scrutinize IT practices beyond compliance to take risk management to the next level Enterprises can't protect themselves against risks they don't know exist. This is the reason why security checks like penetration tests are crucial in finding IT flaws. But penetration tests are really only the start to looking in the risk management mirror. In the quest to self-assess the organization for IT risk, organizations must not just look for technical weaknesses, but also risks posed by IT's interdependencies in business processes and procedures. That's why where penetration tests and security monitoring platforms leave off, a good internal auditing team can pick up. "It is essential that organizations not only audit for compliance, but also for security," says Alex Hamerstone, technical compliance manager at TOA Technologies. And, finally, there is the third line of defense. Have a comment on this story?

Tacit knowledge Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. For example, stating to someone that London is in the United Kingdom is a piece of explicit knowledge that can be written down, transmitted, and understood by a recipient. However, the ability to speak a language, knead dough, use algebra,[1] or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners, and which is difficult or impossible to explicitly transfer to other users. While tacit knowledge appears to be simple, it has far-reaching consequences and is not widely understood. Definition[edit] The term “tacit knowing” or “tacit knowledge” was first introduced into philosophy by Michael Polanyi in 1958 in his magnum opus Personal Knowledge. Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Tacit knowledge vs. Transmission models[edit]

Belief Belief is a mental representation, treated in various academic disciplines, especially philosophy and psychology, of a sentient being's attitude toward the likelihood or truth of something.[1] From Greek two different concepts are often represented by the concept of belief: Pistis and Doxa. Simplified we may say that the first deals in trust and confidence, the latter in opinion and acceptance. Knowledge and epistemology[edit] The terms belief and knowledge are used differently in philosophy. As a psychological phenomenon[edit] Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). This has important implications for understanding the neuropsychology and neuroscience of belief. Belief-in[edit] Belief-that, delusion[edit] Formation[edit] Desirability

plato.stanford 1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge. The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:S knows that p iff p is true; S believes that p; S is justified in believing that p. The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”. Much of the twentieth-century literature on the analysis of knowledge took the JTB analysis as its starting-point. 1.1 The Truth Condition Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation. Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. 1.2 The Belief Condition A more serious counterexample has been suggested by Colin Radford (1966). 2. 3.

FUN - The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity The Wayback Machine - by Carlo M. Cipollaillustrations by James Donnelly The first basic law of human stupidity The first basic law of human stupidity asserts without ambiguity that: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. At first, the statement sounds trivial, vague and horribly ungenerous. a) people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to be unashamedly stupid. b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments. The First Basic Law prevents me from attributing a specific numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population: any numerical estimate would turn out to be an underestimate. The second basic law Frequency distribution

The duality of knowledge Abstract Knowledge Management (KM) is a field that has attracted much attention both in academic and practitioner circles. Most KM projects appear to be primarily concerned with knowledge that can be quantified and can be captured, codified and stored - an approach more deserving of the label Information Management.Recently there has been recognition that some knowledge cannot be quantified and cannot be captured, codified or stored. However, the predominant approach to the management of this knowledge remains to try to convert it to a form that can be handled using the 'traditional' approach.In this paper, we argue that this approach is flawed and some knowledge simply cannot be captured. Introduction It is clear from looking at the literature on knowledge management (KM) that the term knowledge suffers from a high degree of what might be called "terminological ambiguity" and often requires a host of adjectives to make clear exactly in what sense it is being used. "...highly personal.

Belief system Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1] In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we may say that pistis refers to "trust" and "confidence", while doxa refers to "opinion" and "acceptance". In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. Knowledge and epistemology[edit] As a psychological phenomenon[edit] Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Law[edit]