Trading is something where we want to have as level a playing field as possible. It's also something specifically designed to serve humans. The speed of your computer and connection shouldn't give you an advantage. It keeps our market freer.
If you read my reply to the same post, you'll see that I agree with you on what should be done but your sentiment in this post baffles me. Why shouldn't the "speed of your computer and connection" give you an advantage? It's one more investment that a trader can make to ensure that he can compete better. If I accepted your logic, I'd have to ban smarter traders with degrees from Harvard business school. Why should the speed of their brains give them an advantage over smaller, dumber traders? Millisecond trading should be stopped, but not for "leveling the playing field".
you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur
For the same reason that trolls are banned from civilized message boards. Their lack of courtesy and restraint can suffice to bring down the house, as the recent fiasco (with a huge, accidental trade nearly causing another collapse) showed. A trading frequency higher than a certain critical value (I don't know what the value exactly is, but I bet it's not a few kHz!) can easily destabilize the system, indeed, keep it in a constant state of volatility.
Limiting the trade frequency (as GP suggested) is an extremely minimalist solution with potentially huge stabilizing effects. Forget banning trolls, that's not what we're advocating. But consider the/. system of enforcing minimum times between AC posts from the same ip. If you took that away, would these boards retain even an ounce of sanity? That's all I'm saying. Damp out rapid fluctuations by enforcing a longer time step in the entire process. That would accomplish more than the totality of reforms enacted to date in getting a grip on the market.
And by the way, as far as the "sucking profits" statement goes, it is obvious that all he/she was trying to say is that millisecond trading is merely a way of profiting from tiny variations in the market. "Sucking" was an unfortunate word choice as it seems to have raised your hackles for some inexplicable reason. In that sense, it's merely a glorified version of the penny-pinching scam from Superman 3.
THIS! A million times THIS! Why do you have to write something so sensible when you know it'll never be done? Are you trying to depress us to death =p
Of course it's gambling, plain and simple. Even worse, because these SOBs don't even have the decency of common gamblers to use their own money for the purpose. The whole profession is based upon extracting stuff out of that little space under your fingernails and calling it gold.
The worst part of it is that these hucksters can (and do) cause real harm to productive brick and mortar businesses for no earthly reason (but the whim of the big trader).
Just to be clear, all of the historically accurate and intelligently written books in Texas are kept in the central Texas/Austin area. So, as long as you let our little spot stay in the union, we'd be happy for the rest of Texas to leave.
The central TX area as part of the Union, surrounded by the seceded confederacy. Might get a bit tense what? =]
I am not so sure that "the Internet" is quite so powerless. It would take only a modest amount of effort on the part of a few volunteers to "re-edit", online, the questionable content of the new novels... er, "textbooks".
By the same token, it might even be fun to produce an on-line textbook about the history of Texas, with all the "conservative bias" removed in favor of more of the truth.
All worthy actions, but my concern is about kids actually being able to access them. I actually came to know a couple of teens in my online gaming days who were home schooled (in Missouri iirc). Quite intelligent but their online access was strictly monitored to exclude any references to a purely secular view of the world. Of course, I have no idea how effective such censoring is but for them at least, it appeared to have been done in such a way that they self-censored their own internet experience (the younger one, probably 14) had such a pathological fear of hell that made me sick to my stomach and sad to see such an active, inquiring mind essentially lobotomize itself. The anger I felt (and feel) toward parents who would cripple their children like this remains unmatched to this day. Religion in one's family is one thing, but this sort of extreme indoctrination (Xians are hardly the worst offenders in this) is nothing less than child abuse. What makes it worse is that they actually believe they are doing the kid a favor by saving his immortal soul or some such self-serving lunacy. If I believed in the concept of sin, this sort of mind-rape would top the list.
Anyway, the point is that I have no doubt that the internet will see strong responses (many as constructive and useful as the ones you describe). I just fear that if this lobby is so effective at censoring and revisionism on such a broad scale, they are equally (or more) effective at doing so in their own homes or communities. Highly traditionalist families with stay-at-home moms can easily enforce such censorship if they are fanatic enough. It would make me extremely happy if I were being unreasonably paranoid about this. Let's hope so.
Wouldn't you be more likely to step on the whole bloody mess then? A body swarming with roaches *brrr*. No thank you. I'd rather be able to see so I could run the fark away, albeit in a dignified, lordly manner.
True. Besides, our sense of disgust has survived in us for a reason. Most things that disgust us prevent us from touching, smelling, eating... well, you get my drift. As such, a strong survival tool. I would try to preserve that sense of disgust (in a rational way - stay away from a disgusting *anything* but you don't have to go into hysterics and bring the roof down yeah?) unless your job is head cockroach wrangler in a research lab, in which case you're probably in the wrong line of work. But I digress. What were we talking about?
How ironic then that these simians forget their usual credo of "think of the children" when it comes to whoring their kids out (intellectually) to reinforce their own fairy tales. When they can't measure up to their adult opponents, their only weapon becomes the school curriculum. I could hope that the internet would frustrate their efforts but it can only do so much against the relentless flow of propaganda streaming from these douchebags. Besides, they probably already censor heavily in their homes and schools under the guise of protecting kids from "teh ebul porno-debils".
They appear to have finally wised up to the fact that you can't propagandize by vehemently negating manifestly obvious truths, especially when it comes to children, who can smell bullshit from a mile away (until that quality's beaten out of them). But you can sweep the uncomfortable truths under the carpet if you (and most of the people around the kids) ignore the facts long enough for the intended program to be embedded in the kid.
Can we request their secession already? (With apologies to the many thousands of sensible folk living in TX - at least part of this post has been a litany of woes, not to be taken literally =p). Besides, at/. we appear to be arguing into silence - not too many of these cretins to be found on these hallowed pages =p
With your reasoned response to my post, I must admit being somewhat ashamed at my ah... rather inflamed rant (too many years of frustration but still...).
Thanks for understanding. That shop you worked in wouldn't be in NorCal by any chance would it? I need a good, honest shop now more than ever. =]
I'm confused by your last statement. Are you saying that falling cancer rates do not let cellphone use off the hook for other health concerns? It seems that your quote from the NCI does exactly that as far as cancer is concerned (no more or less cancer with or without cellphone use would imply a lack of correlation there). Sure, that doesn't mean it couldn't raise other health concerns. For instance, I'd be worried about a faster approach to senility considering the mindless babbling on cellphones you get to hear in public, but that's another story. Besides, since we're essentially marinated in wifi signals all the time, I doubt the wireless genie can be put back in its box ever again. Even if it was found to be dangerous now, for all practical purposes, it's here to stay, so I really hope it's safe.
Yes. Because a brilliant person wanting to be rich decides on research physics as ticket to the pot 'o' gold. If that's what you truly believe, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you...
Oh yes. Nearly forgot - 2/10 (needs a better username)
Also, I suspect GP was being sarcastic and your detector (or possibly mine) was broken:p
While people in large numbers are essentially predictable (and therefore boring, which is why statistics - for the most part - works), those theorems are strictly valid only for true random variables. As GP pointed out, the differences between different polls sometimes like far outside the error bounds set by the poll itself. Kinda makes the error bound meaningless since it has been repudiated by empirical means. As always, observations reign supreme and if there's a conflict with theory, it is usually a case of unjustified assumptions - in this case, taking the approximate equivalence between mathematical random variables and real world people to be exact.
Also, you are right about more not being any better. At some point, you are just adding more and more precision to an inaccurate answer. It's like a calculator fetish - getting predictions to the 18th decimal point using a flawed model and wondering why they don't match reality.
If you go somewhere in which the guy up front tells you that, you demand that they put your car back together, take it off the rack, and go somewhere else. You didn't take your car to a shop, you took it to a lie.
Ah. 'The no true scotsman fallacy'. OP was specifically addressing dealerships if you look at it again. The attitude above bugs the hell out of me. I agree with you that it's not as simple as reading the codes and a lot of critical thinking is needed to accurately diagnose the problem. I just maintain that the mechanics' horseshit has reached the point where I'd trust a lawyer before I trust a fucking mechanic to be honest with me. Fucking crooks the lot of them and the honest ones are usually just honest 'with people they know'. They make up their margins with customers off the street.
The point, as always, is that service departments in dealerships (and other shops as well) need to be hella regulated by at least 3 different agencies, with monthly audits, starting with the assumption that every single one is a den of thieves. Douchenozzles. Now, they don't even let you into the work area anymore (unless they "know" you) using some convenient OSHA rule and insurance crap and concerns for your "safety", unless you insist and threaten to take your car elsewhere.
So, tell me this. How is it suddenly ok, just for this one profession, to blame the victim for not being sufficiently observant and knowledgeable. The response always is, "well, if you don't know your car well, you can't blame them for robbing you blind." Though it's not stated that way, that's the essence of it isn't it? Well, fuck that. I wish all mechanics were treated like that by their doctors. Well, if you don't know your anatomy and basic physiology and epidemiology, don't blame us if the doctor does unnecessary surgery on you or prescribes expensive and unnecessary medications. Idiots. I have tremendous respect for mechanics' troubleshooting skills, but zero respect for their sense of ethics.
And before people jump in with, "well, MY mechanic is honest with me"; that's my fucking point. He is, because he probably rips off people he DOESN'T know. That sort of corrupt sense of ethics used to be reserved for the highest echelon of politics. It's sad that now it's considered commonplace and even ok ("caveat emptor" say the douchetards. BAH!).
Well, I was just using that as a handy example (in addition to the several dozen examples that people normally use from history). I don't know anymore than what I read here and since I'm only superficially interested in cancer research, I didn't follow up on that (I think an alumni newletter link led me there in the first place).
And now that you mention it, the 'serendipitous' nature of his 'discovery' does appear self-labeled more than anything. I was going by the following:
All this started more than three years ago. He was working on a side research project that dated back years prior to that. Along the way, some of his students placed a compound Kalafatis now calls CancerX on human cancer cells in a petri dish.
But if I think about it now, it doesn't really make sense that they would be working with cancer cells if they weren't at least tangentially working on cancer:p. So, yeah - not really serendipitous.
I think it's more likely now that the usual drug testing approach might not be all that fruitful unless they really start understanding the causes of cancer. And by cause, I don't mean identifying carcinogens but getting more successful with the chemical mechanisms that govern it. Speaking naively it seems that cancer cells are a symptom, with the underlying cause still unknown. Anyway, like I said - this is not really my field and not having any personal motivations either, I've sadly neglected the technical side of cancer research in my readings.
I think my original point about parent's post stands though - just one less example to support it;-).
You mean Sir Arthur C. Clarke. *sigh* One of my all-time favorite novels that one.
The one point you made I'd argue against is the idea that "if only we'd encouraged X advance instead of Y, we'd have Z today". History shows that it doesn't work like that. A prime example is cancer. We've thrown a crapload of resources at it. The breakthrough (if that is what it is) recently came through from a completely different direction in a non-cancer research field (you can google the press release from Cleveland State University - a relatively small but quite awesome state school in Ohio - my Alma mater, but I digress). My point is that for the really big problems, you can throw a lot of money at them (and you probably should just in case) but they invariably need some key ingredient that just needs time to come up (perhaps in some other field). A simple example is a quantum computer - theoretically imagined a long time ago. But research into actually building one involves vast amounts of (classical) computing power that required the entirety of the computational advances of the 21st century to make it possible (not to mention other critical technical advances in superconductivity). Throwing the combined science budgets of several leading nations at it 50 years would have done absolutely nothing (unless people would have been prescient enough to know exactly which fields had the advances they needed for the purpose).
Alright, ignorant then, and willfully so. They don't want to know how to do anything properly, they just want it done now and get all pissy with me when they fuck it up. God forbid they actually take the time to learn something.
I agree. If more people take the time to learn this stuff, at least we won't have to listen to IT guys rant about this stuff anymore. Hell, non-IT companies might even be able to cut down on their IT funding and use the money for stuff that's actually related to their business.
While I'm dead serious about the stuff I wrote above, I'm flummoxed that IT guys are resentful about the thing that's keeping them employed. That's like auto mechanics being resentful about how little car owners understand their cars. Amused, yes. Irritated, yes. Resentful? LAWL
Actually, it sounds a lot like gamers (note: I game, a lot) are desperate to associate games as art. He has a point, at the end of his article: why exactly are people insisting games are art? Does it make them better? Does it make you feel like less of a nerd, if it's artistic?
You are absolutely right (no snark - honest). We should NOT be confining the infinite possibilities inherent in video games to something as narrow and decadent and frankly - passé - as 'art' in the sense that Mr. Ebert appears to be using the term (real novelty appears to be eluding the unfortunate descendants of this once great field of endeavor).
Video games are far more than merely art - why should we attempt to downgrade them to something that has become so common that any idiot splashing paint on a canvas is called an artist with no objectivity allowed anywhere? Best to keep video games a class apart considering what a radically new paradigm they represent in the tapestry of human creative expression. See - no 'art'. Video games are the most advanced form of HCE ever seen.
Yes, of course. Puked pastiches of paint on a canvas with little meaning beyond the posturing of a small mind is art. But a masterpiece like Braid or the greatest exercise in mind-painting ever (Psychonauts) are not art. Seems to me that art according to Mr. Ebert must be exceedingly mundane. So be it. I don't care what it is categorized as. I'll take a 'Braid' or a 'Portal' or especially an old Legend game over "high art" any day and come out intellectually and 'artistically' richer for the experience than from a trip to the MET (which affords a much narrower and shallower range of experience anyway). Heck, one of those old adventure games had hand-drawn graphics that were each a piece of art in its own right. But I err. I dare not call it art.
In a way, Mr. Ebert is correct. Video games are not 'art'. 'Art' is probably too confining, too old and too... cheap a word for the brilliant explosion of creativity that is involved in constructing a good video game (I guess I'm a tad guilty of the good Scotsman fallacy myself). I am not and have never been involved in such a creation (much to my sorrow) and I have the deepest respect and admiration for the geniuses that create these magnificent expressions of the human spirit. I'm not saying it is superior to 'old art' - just that it is in a class that stretches beyond anything that mere art can aspire to.
The article summary uses the adverb "thoughtfully". If this was Fark, I know what meme would have been invoked (and with ruthless enthusiasm).
I grow tired of pedantic distinctions that serve no purpose and dictionary hijackings and rapes that leave our language crippled. Every guy and his brother wants to redefine (or more narrowly define) words that have meaning aplenty as they stand. I can only say that irrespective of what video games really are, they are probably the most... wide-band is the only word for it... expression of human creativity ever seen. Note that I'm not claiming they are the best or the most beautiful (though in my personal view some of the best games are just that, relative to all art - but I won't insist upon that - it's merely personal), just that they can objectively encompass the widest range of human... aspects... that any (so-called) art form before or since.
I cannot debate art so forgive me if I sound unsophisticated - just dunno the lingo. Besides, my training is in science, where we are encouraged to try to make complex concepts simpler. Going the other way is almost like a... fetish. *moan*
Buddy, I have no intention of reopening a 10 day old discussion as if it were still alive. Who're you - George Costanza with the shrimp? If it makes ya feel any better, consider this a forfeit. I guess divorcees' spawn contribute to showbiz what the world loses in sanity so I should be satisfied with that.
You bore me kid. Go squeeze a stress toy. I'll take usernames at face value from now on:p
You misunderstand me. My motive was not to validate that disgusting myth but to show that it can have real consequences. It is, in a limited sense, irrelevant whether that myth is true (I know it's not). What matters is how many people believe it. If religion is prematurely taken away from THESE people, they will truly go on a crime spree because their morality is THAT pathological, built as it is on a foundation of sand. If a person believes in a placebo strongly enough, taking it away WILL cause a relapse (for diseases that do not need an external agent to occur). If the change comes from within, there is a better chance that a person will retain the basic aspects of his morality while building a new foundation underneath.
However, if religion dies a natural death (fading away over time), people will gradually build up (as they are now) better, more self-consistent foundations for morality. Going against religion in a vocal manner (as the new atheists are doing - and good for them for finally speaking out) in a way plays right into the hands of the religs. What we should be doing is evolving a society where religion becomes steadily more irrelevant, in all but the most superficial ways (social rituals for instance). Religs love a good old fashioned religious war - gives them a focus to mobilize the mobs. Backing people into a corner is the best way to solidify their positions instead of converting them.
Anyway, your reply was really preaching to the choir. I've heard all those arguments and agree with most of them. Where I differ is the most effective way to actually bring about that attitude change. There are stone-cold pragmatic reasons why religion continues to flourish, especially among poorer people. Until the world reaches a minimum acceptable standard of living, it is not possible even in principle that it will go away anytime soon. The psychology of desperation is a powerful thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Trading is something where we want to have as level a playing field as possible. It's also something specifically designed to serve humans. The speed of your computer and connection shouldn't give you an advantage. It keeps our market freer.
If you read my reply to the same post, you'll see that I agree with you on what should be done but your sentiment in this post baffles me. Why shouldn't the "speed of your computer and connection" give you an advantage? It's one more investment that a trader can make to ensure that he can compete better. If I accepted your logic, I'd have to ban smarter traders with degrees from Harvard business school. Why should the speed of their brains give them an advantage over smaller, dumber traders? Millisecond trading should be stopped, but not for "leveling the playing field".
you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur
For the same reason that trolls are banned from civilized message boards. Their lack of courtesy and restraint can suffice to bring down the house, as the recent fiasco (with a huge, accidental trade nearly causing another collapse) showed. A trading frequency higher than a certain critical value (I don't know what the value exactly is, but I bet it's not a few kHz!) can easily destabilize the system, indeed, keep it in a constant state of volatility.
/. system of enforcing minimum times between AC posts from the same ip. If you took that away, would these boards retain even an ounce of sanity? That's all I'm saying. Damp out rapid fluctuations by enforcing a longer time step in the entire process. That would accomplish more than the totality of reforms enacted to date in getting a grip on the market.
Limiting the trade frequency (as GP suggested) is an extremely minimalist solution with potentially huge stabilizing effects. Forget banning trolls, that's not what we're advocating. But consider the
And by the way, as far as the "sucking profits" statement goes, it is obvious that all he/she was trying to say is that millisecond trading is merely a way of profiting from tiny variations in the market. "Sucking" was an unfortunate word choice as it seems to have raised your hackles for some inexplicable reason. In that sense, it's merely a glorified version of the penny-pinching scam from Superman 3.
THIS! A million times THIS! Why do you have to write something so sensible when you know it'll never be done? Are you trying to depress us to death =p
Of course it's gambling, plain and simple. Even worse, because these SOBs don't even have the decency of common gamblers to use their own money for the purpose. The whole profession is based upon extracting stuff out of that little space under your fingernails and calling it gold.
The worst part of it is that these hucksters can (and do) cause real harm to productive brick and mortar businesses for no earthly reason (but the whim of the big trader).
On a slightly unrelated note, here's the moderation for my original post:
;]
Moderation +1
60% Interesting
20% Flamebait
20% Troll
I love it! Quite the little tug of war =]
Nice to know we're NOT preaching to the choir here
Just to be clear, all of the historically accurate and intelligently written books in Texas are kept in the central Texas/Austin area. So, as long as you let our little spot stay in the union, we'd be happy for the rest of Texas to leave.
The central TX area as part of the Union, surrounded by the seceded confederacy. Might get a bit tense what? =]
I am not so sure that "the Internet" is quite so powerless. It would take only a modest amount of effort on the part of a few volunteers to "re-edit", online, the questionable content of the new novels... er, "textbooks". By the same token, it might even be fun to produce an on-line textbook about the history of Texas, with all the "conservative bias" removed in favor of more of the truth.
All worthy actions, but my concern is about kids actually being able to access them. I actually came to know a couple of teens in my online gaming days who were home schooled (in Missouri iirc). Quite intelligent but their online access was strictly monitored to exclude any references to a purely secular view of the world. Of course, I have no idea how effective such censoring is but for them at least, it appeared to have been done in such a way that they self-censored their own internet experience (the younger one, probably 14) had such a pathological fear of hell that made me sick to my stomach and sad to see such an active, inquiring mind essentially lobotomize itself. The anger I felt (and feel) toward parents who would cripple their children like this remains unmatched to this day. Religion in one's family is one thing, but this sort of extreme indoctrination (Xians are hardly the worst offenders in this) is nothing less than child abuse. What makes it worse is that they actually believe they are doing the kid a favor by saving his immortal soul or some such self-serving lunacy. If I believed in the concept of sin, this sort of mind-rape would top the list.
Anyway, the point is that I have no doubt that the internet will see strong responses (many as constructive and useful as the ones you describe). I just fear that if this lobby is so effective at censoring and revisionism on such a broad scale, they are equally (or more) effective at doing so in their own homes or communities. Highly traditionalist families with stay-at-home moms can easily enforce such censorship if they are fanatic enough. It would make me extremely happy if I were being unreasonably paranoid about this. Let's hope so.
Wouldn't you be more likely to step on the whole bloody mess then? A body swarming with roaches *brrr*. No thank you. I'd rather be able to see so I could run the fark away, albeit in a dignified, lordly manner.
True. Besides, our sense of disgust has survived in us for a reason. Most things that disgust us prevent us from touching, smelling, eating ... well, you get my drift. As such, a strong survival tool. I would try to preserve that sense of disgust (in a rational way - stay away from a disgusting *anything* but you don't have to go into hysterics and bring the roof down yeah?) unless your job is head cockroach wrangler in a research lab, in which case you're probably in the wrong line of work. But I digress. What were we talking about?
How ironic then that these simians forget their usual credo of "think of the children" when it comes to whoring their kids out (intellectually) to reinforce their own fairy tales. When they can't measure up to their adult opponents, their only weapon becomes the school curriculum. I could hope that the internet would frustrate their efforts but it can only do so much against the relentless flow of propaganda streaming from these douchebags. Besides, they probably already censor heavily in their homes and schools under the guise of protecting kids from "teh ebul porno-debils".
/. we appear to be arguing into silence - not too many of these cretins to be found on these hallowed pages =p
They appear to have finally wised up to the fact that you can't propagandize by vehemently negating manifestly obvious truths, especially when it comes to children, who can smell bullshit from a mile away (until that quality's beaten out of them). But you can sweep the uncomfortable truths under the carpet if you (and most of the people around the kids) ignore the facts long enough for the intended program to be embedded in the kid.
Can we request their secession already? (With apologies to the many thousands of sensible folk living in TX - at least part of this post has been a litany of woes, not to be taken literally =p). Besides, at
With your reasoned response to my post, I must admit being somewhat ashamed at my ah ... rather inflamed rant (too many years of frustration but still...).
Thanks for understanding. That shop you worked in wouldn't be in NorCal by any chance would it? I need a good, honest shop now more than ever. =]
*Nod*
I'm confused by your last statement. Are you saying that falling cancer rates do not let cellphone use off the hook for other health concerns? It seems that your quote from the NCI does exactly that as far as cancer is concerned (no more or less cancer with or without cellphone use would imply a lack of correlation there). Sure, that doesn't mean it couldn't raise other health concerns. For instance, I'd be worried about a faster approach to senility considering the mindless babbling on cellphones you get to hear in public, but that's another story. Besides, since we're essentially marinated in wifi signals all the time, I doubt the wireless genie can be put back in its box ever again. Even if it was found to be dangerous now, for all practical purposes, it's here to stay, so I really hope it's safe.
Yes. Because a brilliant person wanting to be rich decides on research physics as ticket to the pot 'o' gold. If that's what you truly believe, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you ...
:p
Oh yes. Nearly forgot - 2/10 (needs a better username)
Also, I suspect GP was being sarcastic and your detector (or possibly mine) was broken
While people in large numbers are essentially predictable (and therefore boring, which is why statistics - for the most part - works), those theorems are strictly valid only for true random variables. As GP pointed out, the differences between different polls sometimes like far outside the error bounds set by the poll itself. Kinda makes the error bound meaningless since it has been repudiated by empirical means. As always, observations reign supreme and if there's a conflict with theory, it is usually a case of unjustified assumptions - in this case, taking the approximate equivalence between mathematical random variables and real world people to be exact.
Also, you are right about more not being any better. At some point, you are just adding more and more precision to an inaccurate answer. It's like a calculator fetish - getting predictions to the 18th decimal point using a flawed model and wondering why they don't match reality.
Many dealerships do this, but real shops do not.
and
If you go somewhere in which the guy up front tells you that, you demand that they put your car back together, take it off the rack, and go somewhere else. You didn't take your car to a shop, you took it to a lie.
Ah. 'The no true scotsman fallacy'. OP was specifically addressing dealerships if you look at it again. The attitude above bugs the hell out of me. I agree with you that it's not as simple as reading the codes and a lot of critical thinking is needed to accurately diagnose the problem. I just maintain that the mechanics' horseshit has reached the point where I'd trust a lawyer before I trust a fucking mechanic to be honest with me. Fucking crooks the lot of them and the honest ones are usually just honest 'with people they know'. They make up their margins with customers off the street.
The point, as always, is that service departments in dealerships (and other shops as well) need to be hella regulated by at least 3 different agencies, with monthly audits, starting with the assumption that every single one is a den of thieves. Douchenozzles. Now, they don't even let you into the work area anymore (unless they "know" you) using some convenient OSHA rule and insurance crap and concerns for your "safety", unless you insist and threaten to take your car elsewhere.
So, tell me this. How is it suddenly ok, just for this one profession, to blame the victim for not being sufficiently observant and knowledgeable. The response always is, "well, if you don't know your car well, you can't blame them for robbing you blind." Though it's not stated that way, that's the essence of it isn't it? Well, fuck that. I wish all mechanics were treated like that by their doctors. Well, if you don't know your anatomy and basic physiology and epidemiology, don't blame us if the doctor does unnecessary surgery on you or prescribes expensive and unnecessary medications. Idiots. I have tremendous respect for mechanics' troubleshooting skills, but zero respect for their sense of ethics.
And before people jump in with, "well, MY mechanic is honest with me"; that's my fucking point. He is, because he probably rips off people he DOESN'T know. That sort of corrupt sense of ethics used to be reserved for the highest echelon of politics. It's sad that now it's considered commonplace and even ok ("caveat emptor" say the douchetards. BAH!).
Maybe he was trying to make shower curtains?
And now that you mention it, the 'serendipitous' nature of his 'discovery' does appear self-labeled more than anything. I was going by the following:
All this started more than three years ago. He was working on a side research project that dated back years prior to that. Along the way, some of his students placed a compound Kalafatis now calls CancerX on human cancer cells in a petri dish.
But if I think about it now, it doesn't really make sense that they would be working with cancer cells if they weren't at least tangentially working on cancer :p. So, yeah - not really serendipitous.
;-).
I think it's more likely now that the usual drug testing approach might not be all that fruitful unless they really start understanding the causes of cancer. And by cause, I don't mean identifying carcinogens but getting more successful with the chemical mechanisms that govern it. Speaking naively it seems that cancer cells are a symptom, with the underlying cause still unknown. Anyway, like I said - this is not really my field and not having any personal motivations either, I've sadly neglected the technical side of cancer research in my readings.
I think my original point about parent's post stands though - just one less example to support it
... than the aliens in Asimov's Childhood's End ...
You mean Sir Arthur C. Clarke. *sigh* One of my all-time favorite novels that one.
The one point you made I'd argue against is the idea that "if only we'd encouraged X advance instead of Y, we'd have Z today". History shows that it doesn't work like that. A prime example is cancer. We've thrown a crapload of resources at it. The breakthrough (if that is what it is) recently came through from a completely different direction in a non-cancer research field (you can google the press release from Cleveland State University - a relatively small but quite awesome state school in Ohio - my Alma mater, but I digress). My point is that for the really big problems, you can throw a lot of money at them (and you probably should just in case) but they invariably need some key ingredient that just needs time to come up (perhaps in some other field). A simple example is a quantum computer - theoretically imagined a long time ago. But research into actually building one involves vast amounts of (classical) computing power that required the entirety of the computational advances of the 21st century to make it possible (not to mention other critical technical advances in superconductivity). Throwing the combined science budgets of several leading nations at it 50 years would have done absolutely nothing (unless people would have been prescient enough to know exactly which fields had the advances they needed for the purpose).
Yeah, I resent having to redo work I just did, especially when I have 20 other things that need to get done.
*nod* I guess I can see that.
Alright, ignorant then, and willfully so. They don't want to know how to do anything properly, they just want it done now and get all pissy with me when they fuck it up. God forbid they actually take the time to learn something.
I agree. If more people take the time to learn this stuff, at least we won't have to listen to IT guys rant about this stuff anymore. Hell, non-IT companies might even be able to cut down on their IT funding and use the money for stuff that's actually related to their business.
While I'm dead serious about the stuff I wrote above, I'm flummoxed that IT guys are resentful about the thing that's keeping them employed. That's like auto mechanics being resentful about how little car owners understand their cars. Amused, yes. Irritated, yes. Resentful? LAWL
Problem 1: Bob, are you sure you are talking to Alice, and not Eve?
Problem 2: Bob, even if you were talking to Alice, are you sure Eve is not listening?
Sounds like one of those 'Facebook-couple' arguments I see on Lamebook :-). Needs more profanity.
Actually, it sounds a lot like gamers (note: I game, a lot) are desperate to associate games as art. He has a point, at the end of his article: why exactly are people insisting games are art? Does it make them better? Does it make you feel like less of a nerd, if it's artistic?
You are absolutely right (no snark - honest). We should NOT be confining the infinite possibilities inherent in video games to something as narrow and decadent and frankly - passé - as 'art' in the sense that Mr. Ebert appears to be using the term (real novelty appears to be eluding the unfortunate descendants of this once great field of endeavor).
Video games are far more than merely art - why should we attempt to downgrade them to something that has become so common that any idiot splashing paint on a canvas is called an artist with no objectivity allowed anywhere? Best to keep video games a class apart considering what a radically new paradigm they represent in the tapestry of human creative expression. See - no 'art'. Video games are the most advanced form of HCE ever seen.
Yes, of course. Puked pastiches of paint on a canvas with little meaning beyond the posturing of a small mind is art. But a masterpiece like Braid or the greatest exercise in mind-painting ever (Psychonauts) are not art. Seems to me that art according to Mr. Ebert must be exceedingly mundane. So be it. I don't care what it is categorized as. I'll take a 'Braid' or a 'Portal' or especially an old Legend game over "high art" any day and come out intellectually and 'artistically' richer for the experience than from a trip to the MET (which affords a much narrower and shallower range of experience anyway). Heck, one of those old adventure games had hand-drawn graphics that were each a piece of art in its own right. But I err. I dare not call it art.
... cheap a word for the brilliant explosion of creativity that is involved in constructing a good video game (I guess I'm a tad guilty of the good Scotsman fallacy myself). I am not and have never been involved in such a creation (much to my sorrow) and I have the deepest respect and admiration for the geniuses that create these magnificent expressions of the human spirit. I'm not saying it is superior to 'old art' - just that it is in a class that stretches beyond anything that mere art can aspire to.
... wide-band is the only word for it ... expression of human creativity ever seen. Note that I'm not claiming they are the best or the most beautiful (though in my personal view some of the best games are just that, relative to all art - but I won't insist upon that - it's merely personal), just that they can objectively encompass the widest range of human ... aspects ... that any (so-called) art form before or since.
... fetish. *moan*
In a way, Mr. Ebert is correct. Video games are not 'art'. 'Art' is probably too confining, too old and too
The article summary uses the adverb "thoughtfully". If this was Fark, I know what meme would have been invoked (and with ruthless enthusiasm).
I grow tired of pedantic distinctions that serve no purpose and dictionary hijackings and rapes that leave our language crippled. Every guy and his brother wants to redefine (or more narrowly define) words that have meaning aplenty as they stand. I can only say that irrespective of what video games really are, they are probably the most
I cannot debate art so forgive me if I sound unsophisticated - just dunno the lingo. Besides, my training is in science, where we are encouraged to try to make complex concepts simpler. Going the other way is almost like a
Buddy, I have no intention of reopening a 10 day old discussion as if it were still alive. Who're you - George Costanza with the shrimp? If it makes ya feel any better, consider this a forfeit. I guess divorcees' spawn contribute to showbiz what the world loses in sanity so I should be satisfied with that.
:p
You bore me kid. Go squeeze a stress toy. I'll take usernames at face value from now on
You misunderstand me. My motive was not to validate that disgusting myth but to show that it can have real consequences. It is, in a limited sense, irrelevant whether that myth is true (I know it's not). What matters is how many people believe it. If religion is prematurely taken away from THESE people, they will truly go on a crime spree because their morality is THAT pathological, built as it is on a foundation of sand. If a person believes in a placebo strongly enough, taking it away WILL cause a relapse (for diseases that do not need an external agent to occur). If the change comes from within, there is a better chance that a person will retain the basic aspects of his morality while building a new foundation underneath.
However, if religion dies a natural death (fading away over time), people will gradually build up (as they are now) better, more self-consistent foundations for morality. Going against religion in a vocal manner (as the new atheists are doing - and good for them for finally speaking out) in a way plays right into the hands of the religs. What we should be doing is evolving a society where religion becomes steadily more irrelevant, in all but the most superficial ways (social rituals for instance). Religs love a good old fashioned religious war - gives them a focus to mobilize the mobs. Backing people into a corner is the best way to solidify their positions instead of converting them.
Anyway, your reply was really preaching to the choir. I've heard all those arguments and agree with most of them. Where I differ is the most effective way to actually bring about that attitude change. There are stone-cold pragmatic reasons why religion continues to flourish, especially among poorer people. Until the world reaches a minimum acceptable standard of living, it is not possible even in principle that it will go away anytime soon. The psychology of desperation is a powerful thing.