Is he the first economist who did groundbreaking work and then may have gone off the deep end, winning the nobel afterwards?
James Watson, one of the several people who discovered DNA, likes to give lectures on how he likes big butts, and lost his job for some scandal over race and intelligence (neither are his area of expertise). Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, was apperantly always crazy, thought up the thing while high on acid, is dubious of the connection between HIV and AIDS.
While their points are probably more reasoned than I'm making them sound here, at least we can agree that the equivalent would be Krugman saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush.
Yes, but did he have a college diploma??? No? Didn't think so.
Sorry, you're right, I should have been more specific: the guy cited bashing Krugman apperantly is something of an anti-krugman fanatic, is a college dropout, has won no awards, and is a worthless pundit. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with Krugman is that way, and also not to imply that not having a college degree makes you dumb, I just thought it was helpful in highlighting the ridiculousness of someone who appears to be the Anne Coulter of economics.
Adding a touchscreen would allow you to do what exactly?
It would allow you to touch the screen to interact with your computer... kinda though that was obvious...
Kidding aside, the DS showed that at least with games, the touchscreen could be used well, just takes a little imagination. It wouldn't improve programs or current interfaces much, but that's to be expected as current interfaces were not specifically designed for touchscreen input, they were designed for a mouse. I didn't own a computer at the time, but I would guess that when the computer mouse was first marketed, there were a lot of people without imaginations who thought it would never amount to beans.
I'm inclined to doubt this. Youtube doesn't host any porn. That's easily 70% of the internet right there.
You mean to tell me that people are now more interested in videos of people getting hit in the nuts and TV clips that are not SNL or daily show than they are in sex? LIES!
Well, that's pretty stupid: I just said I didn't have much free time. I used to download indie music, doing so involves sorting through a lot of crap that is indie only because it was too bad to get signed. Why subject myself to that?
Well, I don't think it was your honest opinion was what got you the troll mod, it was either the baseless "You coward" or maybe the assumption that I don't/won't do my fair share of voting that got you that.
Why, do a single P2P transfer of even part of a movie that is copyright by a member of the MPAA OR a song that is copyrihgt by a member of the RIAA.
I'm not sure I understand. Was the comma supposed to be there?
You're asking why I would download a movie that was MPAA or song that was RIAA? Well, I don't download music or movies, that's for people who have personal time. So we're not talking about me.
If I did have time, I wouldn't be interested in indie movies or songs mostly because I wouldn't know of them unless I went searching for them, which sounds like a lot of work to go through to be entertained. Even then, I would hear songs or hear about movies I would like that are owned by the MPAA or RIAA. I can't change my tastes based on who owns what, that's ridiculous.
I don't really have time to do a proper investigation on my own, so I'll just ask: What does one have to do to get a felony charge under this, and what does it take to get your computer seized?
Possibly optimistic assumption that Sally Ipod ripping a Flo-Rida album won't get charged with a felony, but might get her computer siezed.
Yeah, I don't see any indication that you can actually manipulate genes in vivo using light at all. The quote by the researcher looks like it's only about diagnosing, observation. No mechanism at all about manipulation. It seems to be whoever was writing the article put that in without knowing anything about it.
You have billions of base pairings in your genome, and each cell has a copy. The genome is in the nucleus of each cell, and most of your cells are, of course, inside of you. Even if you did surgery to get to the cells, I see absolutely no way you could specifically change individual base pairs, or even take out whole chromesomes. Shooting a laser into a cell would not be specific enough to "undo" a mutation. I don't see any way this could ever work in cells.
I find it more disturbing that it was marked overrated: that indicates that there may be some fundamentalists who already chase homosexuals with flashlights after watching fox, and they were offended.
Let's not call the race before it's over. While wind might be ahead in terms of "bang-for-the-buck" (not sure what that means exactly) it would be a mistake to back only that.
See which renewable energy becomes viable first on a wide scale. This is probably information that's easily accessible, and so I'm being lazy, but hypothetically if these wind fuel cells will work in fairbanks alaska, but not well anywhere else, then obviously it would be a mistake to fund them and only them.
If this algae stuff works mediocre in all environments, then we back it.
I also have to say that this technology is being touted as a way specifically to recycle carbon, wheras wind fuel cells don't. So... while wind fuel cells may be great, they're not doing what this stuff does. Kind of like pointing out that the prius is super fuel efficient. That's great and all, but if you need a tow truck, the advantages of the prius don't make a difference. Wind might be more efficient and affordable, but doesn't do anythign with CO2.
I am aware that governments are all about all the same, there is no "perfect country." They do each have their own problems. But there are quite a few countries that haven't run up a 10 trillion dollar debt. My personal share is apparently almost 90 thousand dollars. I think the red states should have to pay for all of that, but that will never happen. I'm not willing to pay down my share of that and in fact can't.
You seem confused. I DO vote, and I would continue to vote via absentee ballot. Me voting and paying attention to the news is not going to fix the problem, other people have to start doing that to fix it. But I will be doing that, just not from inside the US while the economy is falling apart.
Is anyone else, like me, making plans to move out of the US? Frankly I didn't get us into this mess and I'm not willing to do my part to bail out all those who did. I'm a liberal, not a libertarian, so I don't think taxes are always bad, but when I hear about what they're going to be going to, well I'd rather be paying taxes someplace where they're going to do some good. I hear european countries have high taxes, but they're not sending it all to Wall street, Iraq, and the world's largest military. I'd rather pay twice the taxes I am now if I knew it was going to more worthwhile things, like studying bear DNA.
I have no skill when it comes to convincing people of anything, especially not the average voter. I come across as arrogant, elitist, and condescending, because I am arrogant, elitist, and condescending, and that doesn't convince them of anything other than they don't like me. I give money to different causes to do that, but I myself am not helping my fellow citizen make the right choices.
While I like the place and the people, we've really painted ourselves into a corner. Every other country on earth makes stupid moves, because every person on earth is occasionally stupid, but the US keeps making such BIG mistakes. I feel selfish, or rather, I realize I'm selfish, but I'm not doing any good here, country is going to hell in a handbasket no matter what I do. I'm here for several more years in any event, so I guess there is time for us to shape up, but I'm making new plans anyway. Anyone else?
I, for one, wish you luck getting elected on this platform.
Who? Hackingbear or MarcusQ?
We need to be wishing economists good luck in convincing most of america that this stuff matters to them personally even though it's more complicated an issue than they're used to dealing with when it comes to politics. It's not "Lower taxes" or "Legalize pot" or "Yay guns" or "Make kids learn gooder in schools."
The message is more complex but needs to be made clear to everyone in america: for what the government is doing, we're not paying enough in taxes. While you might not agree with what it's being spent on, it is being spent. The best option is to increase taxes and elect officials who will decrease national spending. Cutting taxes while doing nothing about spending won't work for what will be painfully obvious reasons after it's too late.
I wouldn't call him an idiot. For one thing, its ridiculous to start throwing names about international economics. For another, your mortgage with the bank is in no way a good parallel to the national deficit!
Credit is important, the only reason the US can ignore conventional rules of spending versus income is because we have a lot of it. One might ask why that is, when we clearly can't pay down our debt any time soon. The answer is... uh... hey, let's not think about that!
Slashdot Mirror
Is he the first economist who did groundbreaking work and then may have gone off the deep end, winning the nobel afterwards?
James Watson, one of the several people who discovered DNA, likes to give lectures on how he likes big butts, and lost his job for some scandal over race and intelligence (neither are his area of expertise). Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, was apperantly always crazy, thought up the thing while high on acid, is dubious of the connection between HIV and AIDS.
While their points are probably more reasoned than I'm making them sound here, at least we can agree that the equivalent would be Krugman saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush.
Yes, but did he have a college diploma??? No? Didn't think so.
Sorry, you're right, I should have been more specific: the guy cited bashing Krugman apperantly is something of an anti-krugman fanatic, is a college dropout, has won no awards, and is a worthless pundit. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with Krugman is that way, and also not to imply that not having a college degree makes you dumb, I just thought it was helpful in highlighting the ridiculousness of someone who appears to be the Anne Coulter of economics.
Ha ha, take that, stupid banjo players. Now BAGPIPES, that's where it's at!
For some reason though, everyone who has attempted to play bagpipes while undergoing this type of procedure has died due to mysterious brain injuries.
Of course others differ in their opinion of Krugman....
I have to point out that the "other" side does not have a nobel prize or a college diploma, and appears on Fox news and National review.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Luskin)
Adding a touchscreen would allow you to do what exactly?
It would allow you to touch the screen to interact with your computer... kinda though that was obvious...
Kidding aside, the DS showed that at least with games, the touchscreen could be used well, just takes a little imagination. It wouldn't improve programs or current interfaces much, but that's to be expected as current interfaces were not specifically designed for touchscreen input, they were designed for a mouse. I didn't own a computer at the time, but I would guess that when the computer mouse was first marketed, there were a lot of people without imaginations who thought it would never amount to beans.
Wait, are you saying that youtube is going to start making their own brand of computers called "Oranges" to compete with macs!?!?
I'm inclined to doubt this. Youtube doesn't host any porn. That's easily 70% of the internet right there.
You mean to tell me that people are now more interested in videos of people getting hit in the nuts and TV clips that are not SNL or daily show than they are in sex? LIES!
Well, that's pretty stupid: I just said I didn't have much free time. I used to download indie music, doing so involves sorting through a lot of crap that is indie only because it was too bad to get signed. Why subject myself to that?
Well, I don't think it was your honest opinion was what got you the troll mod, it was either the baseless "You coward" or maybe the assumption that I don't/won't do my fair share of voting that got you that.
Why, do a single P2P transfer of even part of a movie that is copyright by a member of the MPAA OR a song that is copyrihgt by a member of the RIAA.
I'm not sure I understand. Was the comma supposed to be there?
You're asking why I would download a movie that was MPAA or song that was RIAA? Well, I don't download music or movies, that's for people who have personal time. So we're not talking about me.
If I did have time, I wouldn't be interested in indie movies or songs mostly because I wouldn't know of them unless I went searching for them, which sounds like a lot of work to go through to be entertained. Even then, I would hear songs or hear about movies I would like that are owned by the MPAA or RIAA. I can't change my tastes based on who owns what, that's ridiculous.
That sounds like a plan. Or maybe you get one major area that your taxes DON'T go towards.
Bailout, in case you are wondering.
I don't really have time to do a proper investigation on my own, so I'll just ask: What does one have to do to get a felony charge under this, and what does it take to get your computer seized?
Possibly optimistic assumption that Sally Ipod ripping a Flo-Rida album won't get charged with a felony, but might get her computer siezed.
Yeah, I don't see any indication that you can actually manipulate genes in vivo using light at all. The quote by the researcher looks like it's only about diagnosing, observation. No mechanism at all about manipulation. It seems to be whoever was writing the article put that in without knowing anything about it.
You have billions of base pairings in your genome, and each cell has a copy. The genome is in the nucleus of each cell, and most of your cells are, of course, inside of you. Even if you did surgery to get to the cells, I see absolutely no way you could specifically change individual base pairs, or even take out whole chromesomes. Shooting a laser into a cell would not be specific enough to "undo" a mutation. I don't see any way this could ever work in cells.
I find it more disturbing that it was marked overrated: that indicates that there may be some fundamentalists who already chase homosexuals with flashlights after watching fox, and they were offended.
Let's not call the race before it's over. While wind might be ahead in terms of "bang-for-the-buck" (not sure what that means exactly) it would be a mistake to back only that.
See which renewable energy becomes viable first on a wide scale. This is probably information that's easily accessible, and so I'm being lazy, but hypothetically if these wind fuel cells will work in fairbanks alaska, but not well anywhere else, then obviously it would be a mistake to fund them and only them.
If this algae stuff works mediocre in all environments, then we back it.
I also have to say that this technology is being touted as a way specifically to recycle carbon, wheras wind fuel cells don't. So... while wind fuel cells may be great, they're not doing what this stuff does. Kind of like pointing out that the prius is super fuel efficient. That's great and all, but if you need a tow truck, the advantages of the prius don't make a difference. Wind might be more efficient and affordable, but doesn't do anythign with CO2.
Take a macroeconomics course. Having no National Deficit is just as bad as having too high of a National Deficit.
You can't explain yourself at all unless I've taken an economics course? Sounds fishy...
You mean the personal share of three people.
Let me rephrase that then: my family will not be paying it's 90K.
Okay, so italy is off, that leaves, what, about 200 possible ones still on the list?
I also only said european countries pointing out that they have higher taxes, but it's not all going to Iraq, Wall Street, and bombs.
That's not trolling. 90210 people! If that's not crap, then nothing is crap!
I am aware that governments are all about all the same, there is no "perfect country." They do each have their own problems. But there are quite a few countries that haven't run up a 10 trillion dollar debt. My personal share is apparently almost 90 thousand dollars. I think the red states should have to pay for all of that, but that will never happen. I'm not willing to pay down my share of that and in fact can't.
You seem confused. I DO vote, and I would continue to vote via absentee ballot. Me voting and paying attention to the news is not going to fix the problem, other people have to start doing that to fix it. But I will be doing that, just not from inside the US while the economy is falling apart.
Is anyone else, like me, making plans to move out of the US? Frankly I didn't get us into this mess and I'm not willing to do my part to bail out all those who did. I'm a liberal, not a libertarian, so I don't think taxes are always bad, but when I hear about what they're going to be going to, well I'd rather be paying taxes someplace where they're going to do some good. I hear european countries have high taxes, but they're not sending it all to Wall street, Iraq, and the world's largest military. I'd rather pay twice the taxes I am now if I knew it was going to more worthwhile things, like studying bear DNA.
I have no skill when it comes to convincing people of anything, especially not the average voter. I come across as arrogant, elitist, and condescending, because I am arrogant, elitist, and condescending, and that doesn't convince them of anything other than they don't like me. I give money to different causes to do that, but I myself am not helping my fellow citizen make the right choices.
While I like the place and the people, we've really painted ourselves into a corner. Every other country on earth makes stupid moves, because every person on earth is occasionally stupid, but the US keeps making such BIG mistakes. I feel selfish, or rather, I realize I'm selfish, but I'm not doing any good here, country is going to hell in a handbasket no matter what I do. I'm here for several more years in any event, so I guess there is time for us to shape up, but I'm making new plans anyway. Anyone else?
I, for one, wish you luck getting elected on this platform.
Who? Hackingbear or MarcusQ?
We need to be wishing economists good luck in convincing most of america that this stuff matters to them personally even though it's more complicated an issue than they're used to dealing with when it comes to politics. It's not "Lower taxes" or "Legalize pot" or "Yay guns" or "Make kids learn gooder in schools."
The message is more complex but needs to be made clear to everyone in america: for what the government is doing, we're not paying enough in taxes. While you might not agree with what it's being spent on, it is being spent. The best option is to increase taxes and elect officials who will decrease national spending. Cutting taxes while doing nothing about spending won't work for what will be painfully obvious reasons after it's too late.
Woosh. Very woosh.
I wouldn't call him an idiot. For one thing, its ridiculous to start throwing names about international economics. For another, your mortgage with the bank is in no way a good parallel to the national deficit!
Credit is important, the only reason the US can ignore conventional rules of spending versus income is because we have a lot of it. One might ask why that is, when we clearly can't pay down our debt any time soon. The answer is... uh... hey, let's not think about that!