What the hell Sweden?!? You guys are hosting 37% of the phishing sites out there. Get your act together, or I might starting thinking about issuing a verbal warning which is only 3 steps away from a written warning.
These guys are all smart and should have known better than to hedge to this degree. They have written a lot but not provided any value with their enormous brainpower.
Besides, if you split the internet into two pipes, one neutral and one non-neutral, you kill net neutrality because you can prioritize the non-neutral bit over the neutral bit. In other words, you can't be a little bit pregnant.
Actually you find that folks with advanced degrees have a much more nuanced view of the situation than the public. The estimates I've heard from pretty much every economists are that outsourcing is responsible for about 25-40% of wage stagnation in the middle class. The rest is from advances in technology that make manual labor worth much less.
20-50 years ago it took a boatload of experienced machinists earning good money to prep a batch of parts. Nowadays automated mills produce just about everything complex.
20 years ago it took armies of clerks to manage drafting, AR/AP, and parts logistics/orders. A computer handles all of that now.
The only solution is to train people with better math and science skill, but the teacher's union stands in the way of any efforts to pay math/science teachers a better wage than phys ed teachers.
I have an Economics degree. I'll back you up. I went to a pretty prestigious school where you would hope the best and the brightest would be doing great things for the country.
Instead, a good chunk of the females have dropped out of the work force because their spouse supports the family, and the female's income is taxed at a very high rate.
It's not a ton of people, but it is the top 1% of the intelligent people our there who make a huge impact on the world. It always makes me a little sad to think about what could have been accomplished by some very smart people if our taxation system didn't discourage work.
You are, of course, correct. It was a dumb joke. I swear, though, that my dentists have always seemed a little pleased to find cavities they can do a little extra work on.
For-Pay Hulu's obviously not right for you. I don't really agree with your assumption that it's therefore good for no one.
There is a reason why market research people spend a lot of money doing random samples instead of just coming to slashdot, reading the comments, and calling it a day.
An ad hominem attack/argument is never salient in a rational discourse, regardless of a stated bent from the source. In rational discourse, ideas are the thing.
This is simply incorrect. Let me give you some examples:
- If a source portends to be unbiased and is discovered to have motives in their speech, then ad hominem is OK.
- If a source claims to be an expert on a matter, and is not, then ad hominem is OK.
IN essence, if I am relying on my reputation to make the argument, then I am exposing myself to my opponent legitimately making ad hominem attacks.
The US Legal system encourages/permits ad hominem attacks when the person or source IS salient to the issue. So I cannot simply attack a witness' reputation unless their reputation is critical to the point being made (eg an expert witness).
Wrong. Ad hominem attacks were linked with those traits, and validly so.
This bit isn't something I would argue too much over, but it was fairly obvious to me that associating the OP who doubted a source with racism/sexism/etc was clearly a rhetorical strategy meant to link the two and attack the OP (ironic, eh?). If I say to Steven Hawkings "Dammit man, you're using SCIENCE to prove your theory. Did you know the Nazi's used SCIENCE to prove that Germans are superior," everyone would immediately identify that as an inappropriate argument because I'm trying to subconsciously link Hawkings and Nazis. I don't get understand using the identical mechanism and intentionally using a guilt-by-association strategy is OK for you in this case.
1) If a news source has marketed itself as a source of with a liberal bias (huffpo) or conservative bias (Fox News) then it is completely rational to double-check anything they say. Ad hominem attacks are perfectly acceptable and warranted if the source has explicit motives for it's speech. Read up a little more on the nuances of what an ad hominem attack really implies.
2) Your response is entirely premised on terrible logical fallacies. You link the OP with "tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice" as a method to disparage his/her opinion. In my opinion, that is about 10x worse than what the OP did.
3) Browsing through your comment history, it's clear this sort of hogwash is your MO and you need to chill out rather than attacking people all the time.
Planet Money (google it if you don't know it) did a nice analysis of this. 100% of the gains that folks have had in compensation went to health care expenses.
If you look at trends for TOTAL compensation, the 90's and 00's were pretty much like all previous decades. However, because the take home is the same/less, people feel like they're treading water.
And no, the price per "unit" of health care hasn't changed dramatically. It's just that people get a heck of lot more prescription drugs, hip transplants, and MRIs than they did in 1990.
This is true, but it doesn't help us decide the question at hand, which is whether the ISS was a good use of funds. I'm always suspicious of any project when the best defense is "Hey, so and so wasted more money!"
There are only a few foundational rules in modern Western society. Kids having different rights than adults is certainly one very few would argue with in principle (perhaps in practice!). We censor stuff to kids all the time because we believe that every parent should have the right to restrict what their child does and sees.
Right now we've got a system that works, and I frankly don't care whether the private economy or the public economy enforces this restriction. What does matter to me as a parent and gamer is that games get the same treatment as all other forms of media.
Having been an engineer and entrepreneur, I can say that building a company IS as exciting and interesting as building a product. For me at least... Most employees don't have the opportunity to build an organization, they are simply thrust into them. It really is intellectually interesting to make decisions about how you want your company to work, minimizing this and maximizing that at the expense of something else. It's not much different than the design decisions you make in creating a product, except that it's sometimes not as easy to make measurements experimentally.
Plus, Zuckerberg gets to be the "idea" guy on all sorts of products/features the organization is building. I'd bet it's pretty fun.
The Universal Service Fund really is a tax. The bill was written specifically to make the phone companies look bad (ha ha I know) by taxing them above and beyond normal federal tax rates, then giving them the option to pass the charge onto their customers. Every business on the planet is going to pass that tax on, but congress can look good by saying "Hey your evil phone carrier is not voluntarily taking this tax out of their profits!"
When possible, politicians try to have someone else collect their taxes so they're not the ones getting shot in a "shoot the messenger" situation.
To answer questions from the press. PR isn't just sitting around thinking of ways to spin everything in a positive light. The police have a responsibility to accurately report to the public the crime that is going on in the community.
Any products that cater to the educational markets are... erm... textbook studies in broken markets for reasons that have more to do with the customer than the supplier. Any time the party mandating purchase of a product is not the party paying for the product, it's a recipe for disaster (eg Health Care). The only people who believe in "idealist theories of competition" are those who haven't studied economics or business. Heck, in business school, you spend a good portion of your time specifically learning about situations like this in case studies so that you can exploit opportunities when you see them.
Whether you are a lawyer, doctor, or electrician, you can still be held negligent for pro bono work and required to pay damages if something bad happens.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more worried about the idiots who are tinkering with the future of humanity by posting 3D printer schematics online.
What the hell Sweden?!? You guys are hosting 37% of the phishing sites out there. Get your act together, or I might starting thinking about issuing a verbal warning which is only 3 steps away from a written warning.
I can help you discover the answer to that question. My fees are $160,000 a month.
These guys are all smart and should have known better than to hedge to this degree. They have written a lot but not provided any value with their enormous brainpower.
Besides, if you split the internet into two pipes, one neutral and one non-neutral, you kill net neutrality because you can prioritize the non-neutral bit over the neutral bit. In other words, you can't be a little bit pregnant.
I think I just shed some robot tears.
I can feel it.
I'm afraid.
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...
Actually you find that folks with advanced degrees have a much more nuanced view of the situation than the public. The estimates I've heard from pretty much every economists are that outsourcing is responsible for about 25-40% of wage stagnation in the middle class. The rest is from advances in technology that make manual labor worth much less.
20-50 years ago it took a boatload of experienced machinists earning good money to prep a batch of parts. Nowadays automated mills produce just about everything complex.
20 years ago it took armies of clerks to manage drafting, AR/AP, and parts logistics/orders. A computer handles all of that now.
The only solution is to train people with better math and science skill, but the teacher's union stands in the way of any efforts to pay math/science teachers a better wage than phys ed teachers.
I have an Economics degree. I'll back you up. I went to a pretty prestigious school where you would hope the best and the brightest would be doing great things for the country.
Instead, a good chunk of the females have dropped out of the work force because their spouse supports the family, and the female's income is taxed at a very high rate.
It's not a ton of people, but it is the top 1% of the intelligent people our there who make a huge impact on the world. It always makes me a little sad to think about what could have been accomplished by some very smart people if our taxation system didn't discourage work.
You are, of course, correct. It was a dumb joke. I swear, though, that my dentists have always seemed a little pleased to find cavities they can do a little extra work on.
I'm sure dentists complained vociferously when communities started adding fluoride the the water supply.
For-Pay Hulu's obviously not right for you. I don't really agree with your assumption that it's therefore good for no one.
There is a reason why market research people spend a lot of money doing random samples instead of just coming to slashdot, reading the comments, and calling it a day.
An ad hominem attack/argument is never salient in a rational discourse, regardless of a stated bent from the source. In rational discourse, ideas are the thing.
This is simply incorrect. Let me give you some examples:
- If a source portends to be unbiased and is discovered to have motives in their speech, then ad hominem is OK.
- If a source claims to be an expert on a matter, and is not, then ad hominem is OK.
IN essence, if I am relying on my reputation to make the argument, then I am exposing myself to my opponent legitimately making ad hominem attacks.
The US Legal system encourages/permits ad hominem attacks when the person or source IS salient to the issue. So I cannot simply attack a witness' reputation unless their reputation is critical to the point being made (eg an expert witness).
Wrong. Ad hominem attacks were linked with those traits, and validly so.
This bit isn't something I would argue too much over, but it was fairly obvious to me that associating the OP who doubted a source with racism/sexism/etc was clearly a rhetorical strategy meant to link the two and attack the OP (ironic, eh?). If I say to Steven Hawkings "Dammit man, you're using SCIENCE to prove your theory. Did you know the Nazi's used SCIENCE to prove that Germans are superior," everyone would immediately identify that as an inappropriate argument because I'm trying to subconsciously link Hawkings and Nazis. I don't get understand using the identical mechanism and intentionally using a guilt-by-association strategy is OK for you in this case.
1) If a news source has marketed itself as a source of with a liberal bias (huffpo) or conservative bias (Fox News) then it is completely rational to double-check anything they say. Ad hominem attacks are perfectly acceptable and warranted if the source has explicit motives for it's speech. Read up a little more on the nuances of what an ad hominem attack really implies.
2) Your response is entirely premised on terrible logical fallacies. You link the OP with "tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice" as a method to disparage his/her opinion. In my opinion, that is about 10x worse than what the OP did.
3) Browsing through your comment history, it's clear this sort of hogwash is your MO and you need to chill out rather than attacking people all the time.
It's well known that North Korea publishes the most secure Hello World program in the world.
Planet Money (google it if you don't know it) did a nice analysis of this. 100% of the gains that folks have had in compensation went to health care expenses.
If you look at trends for TOTAL compensation, the 90's and 00's were pretty much like all previous decades. However, because the take home is the same/less, people feel like they're treading water.
And no, the price per "unit" of health care hasn't changed dramatically. It's just that people get a heck of lot more prescription drugs, hip transplants, and MRIs than they did in 1990.
This is true, but it doesn't help us decide the question at hand, which is whether the ISS was a good use of funds. I'm always suspicious of any project when the best defense is "Hey, so and so wasted more money!"
There are only a few foundational rules in modern Western society. Kids having different rights than adults is certainly one very few would argue with in principle (perhaps in practice!). We censor stuff to kids all the time because we believe that every parent should have the right to restrict what their child does and sees.
Right now we've got a system that works, and I frankly don't care whether the private economy or the public economy enforces this restriction. What does matter to me as a parent and gamer is that games get the same treatment as all other forms of media.
This is true. GE had to create their own molten salt battery (something like 1/2 ton) to store all the kinetic energy an entire train would have.
Having been an engineer and entrepreneur, I can say that building a company IS as exciting and interesting as building a product. For me at least... Most employees don't have the opportunity to build an organization, they are simply thrust into them. It really is intellectually interesting to make decisions about how you want your company to work, minimizing this and maximizing that at the expense of something else. It's not much different than the design decisions you make in creating a product, except that it's sometimes not as easy to make measurements experimentally.
Plus, Zuckerberg gets to be the "idea" guy on all sorts of products/features the organization is building. I'd bet it's pretty fun.
The Universal Service Fund really is a tax. The bill was written specifically to make the phone companies look bad (ha ha I know) by taxing them above and beyond normal federal tax rates, then giving them the option to pass the charge onto their customers. Every business on the planet is going to pass that tax on, but congress can look good by saying "Hey your evil phone carrier is not voluntarily taking this tax out of their profits!"
When possible, politicians try to have someone else collect their taxes so they're not the ones getting shot in a "shoot the messenger" situation.
Sounds reasonable- I was more asking out of curiousity to make better decisions in the future.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/17/reliability.study.has.apple.4th.place/
This study put 3 year failure rates of HP at 26%, and Dell at 18%...
While I agree with the TCO point in general, what data did you use to show that Dells are less reliable than HP?
To answer questions from the press. PR isn't just sitting around thinking of ways to spin everything in a positive light. The police have a responsibility to accurately report to the public the crime that is going on in the community.
Any products that cater to the educational markets are ... erm ... textbook studies in broken markets for reasons that have more to do with the customer than the supplier. Any time the party mandating purchase of a product is not the party paying for the product, it's a recipe for disaster (eg Health Care). The only people who believe in "idealist theories of competition" are those who haven't studied economics or business. Heck, in business school, you spend a good portion of your time specifically learning about situations like this in case studies so that you can exploit opportunities when you see them.
Whether you are a lawyer, doctor, or electrician, you can still be held negligent for pro bono work and required to pay damages if something bad happens.
This is brilliant. It's like the Laffer Curve of parking ticket enforcement...