its cute when idiots like this guy think the profit motive is a virtue. The only reason we have a society that has built this profit motive is because of medeiocre asses, like the aforementioned guy, who need to be motivated to make a contribution to humanity. You generally don't need to hang a carrot in front of a geek or any intellectual really to have them make contributions to humanity and behave w/ civility.
But Joe Schmoe, he needs to believe that if he gets a college education, he can make the big bucks some day, so he drags his ass through "higher education". And the reason he simply doesn't take the wealth he dreams of, well we disincentivised such behavior with prisons and fines and whatnot.
It's not that intellectuals don't have the same pitfalls as everyone else. I'm just saying when real intellectuals have those pitfalls, it more an abberation than the norm.
occam's razor : is we decide it has no effect, you should really argue that it needs to go
pretty simple really
sidenote : i read about men getting circumzied in africa and being statistically less likely to get AIDS during unprotected sex. so it might have its uses, but i doubt this is a fact, might just have been a statistic they teased out of interviewing circumcised/noncircumsized males in africa
i doubt they would have to buy a big stake in yahoo, just enough to keep microsoft out. They could even make it where google had no voting rights or any influence, i hear thats the raw deals middle eastern companies get when they invest in the likes of stock exchanges and other large western companies. should settle any qualms antitrust regulators have
first of all, stock prices are a measure of a company's future profitability, or i should say expected profitability. Second of all, measuring expected future profitability is a judgement call, not an exact science
i'm not surprised, i figured this was somewhat the case when i heard the story
You're a woman and you want to learn? Don't live in Africa, China, etc
You like having males slaves who you can abuse to the point of amputation? join the russian army
etc, etc
There's a time and a place for everything. This guys as smart as a PhD in ethics looking for a job in Washington DC....
The republicans were wrong for trying to impeach clinton on the basis of his marital infidelity [ but it was a surefire win for the republicans because they generally on their verbal diahrrea of morality and their religious base would remain intact as they would find no wrong with what the republicans were doing] But when Clinton lied under oath, Clinton "dropped the ball" and at that point committed a crime which is surely impeachable.
The key point is that Clinton did commit a crime and so impeachment is justified. CLinton clearly got bad advice from within because i think he could have greatly minimized his losses from the situation if he admit what he did, acted remorseful, and played the "this is my personal difficulty and mine only" line. If we've learned anything from the current administration, you need to pick a good line and repeat it till you just wear the mental stamina of the american people. This strategy if very successful, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, genuine in your intent in repeating your position or whether you are not, etc
Funny Point: Newt Gingrich admit that he was cheating on his wife while he was busy crucifying clinton for his infidelity. sad.......
You can definately make the case. After the collape of the USSR, the reforms were shit. A few young harvard economists were sent to Russia with the intent to modernize it, and instead what they did was take a country w/ no foundation for market economics and unleash every market force upon them. as expected, people were unable to make money, unable to access funds they already had, and even if they found a way to wrangle some cash, prices were skyrocketing. The robber barons stepped in and bought up the stock people had been issued from the private companies that had been bought by the gov't at fractions of their market value and these are some of the men who stand behind putin today.
Also, the very thing that had me perplexed up until recently, the fact that putin seemed to be openly squashing the few democratic aspects of Russia and the nation seemed to love him all the more for it, stems from the longing the russian people had for any kind of security, financial or otherwise. Life was miserable during the USSR and it was possible worse right after its collapse, and now the nation seems to be nothing but ape Sh*T for every one of putin's doings that we condemn here on slashdot. The russian nation cares not for democracy at this point, only that their next meal is guarenteed (and at this point, they are probably becoming accustomed to certain regular luxuries as the nation is doing well due to energy money for the most part)
Note, a similiar F*ck up took place in iraq where the bush administration sent in some fresh out of college loyal bushie w/ no common sense to run the stock market. He stopped all practices which were allowing the very primitive version of a stock market to function and tried to upgrade the market to what it is here in the US. needless to say, there is no "stock market" in Iraq anymore the last i heard and i'm sure the new machines he bought are scrap metal in some iraqi family's back yard right now, or lying in some storage room in the green zone.........
Maybe we didn't really win the cold war. We watched the USSR collapse from the inside while we aided its collape from outside, but that is all. Russia in its most responsive, moldable moment, after the collapse, was not olny squandered but extraneous damage was inflicted. And maybe the Russian people don't realize that when the benevolence (atleast from the point fo view of the russian masses) of putin is gone, and the oil money and the natural gas money, etc is gone, it isn't going to be authorotarianism that will afford them their next meal or and luxury they take for granted right now.
And maybe,............i could be wrong..............
a famous economist once said the number of gun licenses issued in sweden has an uncanny correlation with the number of divorces in denmark, or something to that effect. Basically, even a statistically significant correlation doesn't guarentee an actual correlation.
Like saying lung cancer correlates to the number of lighters per household, therefore lighters cause cancer
I have known quite a few people who are excellent at math. With all of them, their modesty often stems from an inability to commit, by which i mean considering how diverse, complicated and demanding most areas of research, they tend to behave as though they are well grounded but not succeeding in the field. I bet you Andrew Wiles, the guy who has proved Fermat's Theroem, despite all the ideas regarding the matter in his head, would have given you a "what the hell do i know about math" attitude while he was delving into the proof for Fermat's theorem. But i bet he's got quite a kick in his step nowadays.
Even that guy who unified the different versions of string theory at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies seems to display confidence having done what he's done, but seeing his manner and body language as it is, i'd place a 200 million dollar bet that he was as down about his math ability till he could convince himself that he was the $hit at math (i.e. do what he did for string theory)
that was the saddest, most simple minded piece of rationalization i have ever seen regarding success and its relation to socialization. Kudos to making me want to kill you.
i have a gut feeling this story has been written in a way that takes simple developments out of context. The day i worry about robots getting too smart is when the saying about monkeys in front of typewriters writing epics at a ratio of 1000 monkeys for a year = 1 literary epic (or something like that) is reduced to one robot w/ the ability to compose one literary epic in one minute. Then we have something to talk/worry about..............
Loser talk!? i always find it entertaining how politics have been made out to be a cultured version of sports. Losers, Winners, loyalties w/o qualifications (See article on MSNBC (yea i know its leftist but it was an article w/ references) on how IrAq turned out so terrible because many qualified people were replaced by misguided simpletons whose only qualifications were an unrelenting loyalty to the republican party and its current school of thought), and a willingness to employ a all or nothing metality (AKA "leaving it all on the court" -Alanzo Mourning). I think its depsicable. I'm with plato on this one, democracies are like college girls, they blow hard (and thats about it) (i'm paraphrasing Plato ; (hell, it might be aristotle or someone, but i'm pretty sure plato was against Democracy).
Anyway, u know its bad when the Economist decides write an article about how the US political system is looking more and more aritocratic. I think its interesting how neither party talks about Horatio Alger or his modern day equivalent. Instead, their rhetoric exudes Fear tactics.......... it seems to me that every American feels he is so comfortable that even if God himself/herself/itself (i'm an atheist) told them the system is getting fucked, there's still a 50% chance they won't get up off their ass. Like an earlier post said "being rational is the salvation of humanity, rationalization its destruction". Some of the accusations don't even allow for plausable deniability, yet the public feels to safe to think twice about it.
now here comes the truly subjective line of this post : i hate humanity w/ an powerfully entrenched malice
Slashdot Mirror
its cute when idiots like this guy think the profit motive is a virtue. The only reason we have a society that has built this profit motive is because of medeiocre asses, like the aforementioned guy, who need to be motivated to make a contribution to humanity. You generally don't need to hang a carrot in front of a geek or any intellectual really to have them make contributions to humanity and behave w/ civility.
But Joe Schmoe, he needs to believe that if he gets a college education, he can make the big bucks some day, so he drags his ass through "higher education". And the reason he simply doesn't take the wealth he dreams of, well we disincentivised such behavior with prisons and fines and whatnot.
It's not that intellectuals don't have the same pitfalls as everyone else. I'm just saying when real intellectuals have those pitfalls, it more an abberation than the norm.
occam's razor : is we decide it has no effect, you should really argue that it needs to go
pretty simple really
sidenote : i read about men getting circumzied in africa and being statistically less likely to get AIDS during unprotected sex. so it might have its uses, but i doubt this is a fact, might just have been a statistic they teased out of interviewing circumcised/noncircumsized males in africa
i doubt they would have to buy a big stake in yahoo, just enough to keep microsoft out. They could even make it where google had no voting rights or any influence, i hear thats the raw deals middle eastern companies get when they invest in the likes of stock exchanges and other large western companies. should settle any qualms antitrust regulators have
first of all, stock prices are a measure of a company's future profitability, or i should say expected profitability. Second of all, measuring expected future profitability is a judgement call, not an exact science i'm not surprised, i figured this was somewhat the case when i heard the story
guess i'm one of the few ppl w/ the superbowl and slashdot on my monitor.
first post!
You're a woman and you want to learn? Don't live in Africa, China, etc You like having males slaves who you can abuse to the point of amputation? join the russian army etc, etc There's a time and a place for everything. This guys as smart as a PhD in ethics looking for a job in Washington DC....
The republicans were wrong for trying to impeach clinton on the basis of his marital infidelity [ but it was a surefire win for the republicans because they generally on their verbal diahrrea of morality and their religious base would remain intact as they would find no wrong with what the republicans were doing] But when Clinton lied under oath, Clinton "dropped the ball" and at that point committed a crime which is surely impeachable. The key point is that Clinton did commit a crime and so impeachment is justified. CLinton clearly got bad advice from within because i think he could have greatly minimized his losses from the situation if he admit what he did, acted remorseful, and played the "this is my personal difficulty and mine only" line. If we've learned anything from the current administration, you need to pick a good line and repeat it till you just wear the mental stamina of the american people. This strategy if very successful, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, genuine in your intent in repeating your position or whether you are not, etc Funny Point: Newt Gingrich admit that he was cheating on his wife while he was busy crucifying clinton for his infidelity. sad.......
You can definately make the case. After the collape of the USSR, the reforms were shit. A few young harvard economists were sent to Russia with the intent to modernize it, and instead what they did was take a country w/ no foundation for market economics and unleash every market force upon them. as expected, people were unable to make money, unable to access funds they already had, and even if they found a way to wrangle some cash, prices were skyrocketing. The robber barons stepped in and bought up the stock people had been issued from the private companies that had been bought by the gov't at fractions of their market value and these are some of the men who stand behind putin today. Also, the very thing that had me perplexed up until recently, the fact that putin seemed to be openly squashing the few democratic aspects of Russia and the nation seemed to love him all the more for it, stems from the longing the russian people had for any kind of security, financial or otherwise. Life was miserable during the USSR and it was possible worse right after its collapse, and now the nation seems to be nothing but ape Sh*T for every one of putin's doings that we condemn here on slashdot. The russian nation cares not for democracy at this point, only that their next meal is guarenteed (and at this point, they are probably becoming accustomed to certain regular luxuries as the nation is doing well due to energy money for the most part) Note, a similiar F*ck up took place in iraq where the bush administration sent in some fresh out of college loyal bushie w/ no common sense to run the stock market. He stopped all practices which were allowing the very primitive version of a stock market to function and tried to upgrade the market to what it is here in the US. needless to say, there is no "stock market" in Iraq anymore the last i heard and i'm sure the new machines he bought are scrap metal in some iraqi family's back yard right now, or lying in some storage room in the green zone......... Maybe we didn't really win the cold war. We watched the USSR collapse from the inside while we aided its collape from outside, but that is all. Russia in its most responsive, moldable moment, after the collapse, was not olny squandered but extraneous damage was inflicted. And maybe the Russian people don't realize that when the benevolence (atleast from the point fo view of the russian masses) of putin is gone, and the oil money and the natural gas money, etc is gone, it isn't going to be authorotarianism that will afford them their next meal or and luxury they take for granted right now. And maybe, ............i could be wrong..............
a famous economist once said the number of gun licenses issued in sweden has an uncanny correlation with the number of divorces in denmark, or something to that effect. Basically, even a statistically significant correlation doesn't guarentee an actual correlation. Like saying lung cancer correlates to the number of lighters per household, therefore lighters cause cancer
I have known quite a few people who are excellent at math. With all of them, their modesty often stems from an inability to commit, by which i mean considering how diverse, complicated and demanding most areas of research, they tend to behave as though they are well grounded but not succeeding in the field. I bet you Andrew Wiles, the guy who has proved Fermat's Theroem, despite all the ideas regarding the matter in his head, would have given you a "what the hell do i know about math" attitude while he was delving into the proof for Fermat's theorem. But i bet he's got quite a kick in his step nowadays. Even that guy who unified the different versions of string theory at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies seems to display confidence having done what he's done, but seeing his manner and body language as it is, i'd place a 200 million dollar bet that he was as down about his math ability till he could convince himself that he was the $hit at math (i.e. do what he did for string theory)
that was the saddest, most simple minded piece of rationalization i have ever seen regarding success and its relation to socialization. Kudos to making me want to kill you.
yes. better fix that
i have a gut feeling this story has been written in a way that takes simple developments out of context. The day i worry about robots getting too smart is when the saying about monkeys in front of typewriters writing epics at a ratio of 1000 monkeys for a year = 1 literary epic (or something like that) is reduced to one robot w/ the ability to compose one literary epic in one minute. Then we have something to talk/worry about..............
Loser talk!? i always find it entertaining how politics have been made out to be a cultured version of sports. Losers, Winners, loyalties w/o qualifications (See article on MSNBC (yea i know its leftist but it was an article w/ references) on how IrAq turned out so terrible because many qualified people were replaced by misguided simpletons whose only qualifications were an unrelenting loyalty to the republican party and its current school of thought), and a willingness to employ a all or nothing metality (AKA "leaving it all on the court" -Alanzo Mourning). I think its depsicable. I'm with plato on this one, democracies are like college girls, they blow hard (and thats about it) (i'm paraphrasing Plato ; (hell, it might be aristotle or someone, but i'm pretty sure plato was against Democracy). Anyway, u know its bad when the Economist decides write an article about how the US political system is looking more and more aritocratic. I think its interesting how neither party talks about Horatio Alger or his modern day equivalent. Instead, their rhetoric exudes Fear tactics.......... it seems to me that every American feels he is so comfortable that even if God himself/herself/itself (i'm an atheist) told them the system is getting fucked, there's still a 50% chance they won't get up off their ass. Like an earlier post said "being rational is the salvation of humanity, rationalization its destruction". Some of the accusations don't even allow for plausable deniability, yet the public feels to safe to think twice about it. now here comes the truly subjective line of this post : i hate humanity w/ an powerfully entrenched malice