I thought your comment was going to be offensively stupid, but it's not. In fact, turn it around and look at men in sales vs. men in tech. No one would dispute what you're saying if you applied it to that population. I don't know if there's anything to it, but...interesting.
How are the parents supposed to make good choices? I realized when I was holding my son on my forearm, before he had a clue he had arms or legs, that I was going to be making innumerable decisions without really knowing what I was doing. I was going to make a very large number of bad decisions on the way. Considering how he's turned out, I'd say that I made the right decisions for the child and the situation often enough.
Sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it. I'm not really sure what you're asking, though. I'm talking basic stuff here, like "contribute to the child'd financial support", "stay out of jail", "don't expose the child to drugs in-utero or ex-utero", "don't beat the child", "don't let my SO beat or molest the child", "feed the child", and so on.
If the question is whether it's better to send the child to piano lessons or karate class, that's at a much finer level of optimization.
In fairness, part of the extraordinarily high young adult unemployment is due to labor laws that punish the crap out of any business that hires a crappy worker. They can't fire them.
I don't disagree completely. Probably a combination of me not knowing the right terminology and having a spouse who has dealt with specific cultures in an underperforming school district.
At the same time, there ARE cultures that start at a low SES and move up. Cultural traits play into that: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
Your parents either make good choices, or fail to. It's a dynamic situation, and being poor is no excuse for doing drugs or beating your kid, or letting your boyfriend of the week molest him or her. But it seems that actually holding people accountable for their choices isn't politically correct. At least if they are poor or a minority or something. America needs to wake up and realize that the education problem one is a cultural one, and it's about the decisions PARENTS make with regards to how they raise their children.
You clearly have a good understanding of the situation, and I agree with you in the general case. Specifically, you mention augmentation of a horn section, and acknowledge it's a good tradeoff when faced with a limited budget. I couldn't agree more.
My comment was more directed at people who have said things like "Computers are better at producing music because there are no errors and it's always the same."
I don't think I could roll my eyes dramatically enough to address all that is wrong with such a statement.
On the topics of EWIs, I have Michael Brecker's "Don't Try This At Home" album featuring an EWI and I like it. Is yours the trumpet style (a la Jon Swana) or the sax/flute woodwind type? How good is the approximation of wind instrument sound these days?
You forget something pretty important. By requiring doctors and hospitals to serve those who show up, you remove their right to choose whether they want to do that. By removing that choice, you will invariably reduce the incentive for new doctors and hospitals to enter the market. By reducing the incentives for doctors and hospitals to enter the market, you end up with shortages of the supply of healthcare services.
Rather than using emotionally charged language, you might want to look a step beyond the immediately intended consequences of your policies, and see what the long term effects might be. A great place to start is Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". It's available free.
Thanks for having an open mind, but you got a few facts wrong.
First, I am not an amoral scumbag who wants to order doctors to let people die. I actually want to return the freedom to doctors and hospitals to choose whether they offer care. By law, they are currently required to give care. I think that's wrong; just as I shouldn't be compelled to provide software engineering services in circumstances I'd rather say no to, I'd like to extend the same freedoms to them. And I'd like you to take advantage of your freedom to fund free clinics and what not with your monetary donations (or labor, if you're a medical professional).
Two, I'm not an amoral scumbag. Two years ago I donated an extraordinary amount of time to a pro bono project that enabled an organization serving the homeless to continue operating. To the tune of about $10,000 worth of work. Because of the time and expertise I donated, over 100 people were able to sleep in warm and safe places for the past two winters. That's not the only thing I've done for the less fortunate out of the goodness of my heart.
It would really help if instead of immediately attacking anyone who says something you don't like that you ask them about the specifics of their position. Otherwise, it might devolve into petty ad-hominem attacks. You wouldn't want that, now would you?
Symphonic, operatic, and chamber music at the world-class level is about nuance that only educated ears will understand. It's already a small market. That market is likely to balk at the use of electronics. That's ok.
People who don't care if it's electronic should go ahead and enjoy whatever they think they like.
However, don't tell me for a second that some computer can match the transcendent quality of a lifelong trained live orchestra and soloist for nuance, presence, and artistry. The instant you argue that, I'm already convinced you don't know shit about the art form. You can certainly tell me that you like it, or even that new music can be made with such tools, but simply don't be foolish enough to try to convince me that computers are better musicians than people.
Awesome. Of course racism is the only possible motivation for my post. I just realized something today: if I criticize a conservative's views on gays or foreign policy or nationalistic bullshit or religion or science, I get a gruff answer sometimes, but I'm rarely, if ever, attacked personally and accused of racism/sexism/classism. Disagree with a liberal, or say anything even remotely un-PC, no matter how hypothetical, and instant personal attacks.
I would facepalm when I'd see Occupy Wall Street and Tea Partiers going at it. The Tea Party hates the government for bailing out the banks. OWS hated the banks for getting bailed out by the government. Each acts as if the bailouts happened in a vacuum, with either the government forcing cash on the poor innocent banks, or with the banks strong-arming government into forking over the cash. In truth, the politicians and bankers gleefully raided the treasury for their mutual benefit.
I agree with this is large part, and I think you're referring to the latter Tea Party, when Koch/Palin took it over from its Ron Paul/Rothbardian beginnings. A lot of the Ron Paul people agreed with OWS in terms of the problems, but have radically differing ideas on the solutions. The "populist" Palinite Tea Party people are just as economically ignorant as OWS participants.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs.
I don't agree, at least not completely. I think you could take a big chunk out of it by not providing WIC, emergency room healthcare, and getting rid of the anchor baby law. Having a porous border is a lot less of a problem when there's not a bunch of free stuff on one side, and we start turning away pregnant women and children in the soup lines. It may sound cold, but think about the way Mexico treats illegals entering their country.
What surprises me more than anything else is the total silence by Black congressional leadership on "immigration reform" -- given that the low levels of educational attainment and extremely high levels of unemployment in the black community, aren't they the really big losers in the immigration reform game?
You think for a second that black congressional leadership has the well being of their constituents at heart any more than any other congressional leadership group? You have got to be joking. The best thing for the leftist political leaders is an entrenched welfare class. The more unemployment, the more welfare, the more socialized services, the more votes from the people using those services.
You're referring to Republican lawmakers, GP was referring to voters. One of my biggest complaints with Republican voters is that they say they support small government, but continue to vote for lawmakers who have been doing the opposite of small government since Reagan's first term.
Yes. I was raised in a typical Catholic environment, and was taught implicitly that homosexuality was wrong. As I grew up I learned the complexities of gender, and the possible mismatch of phenotype and genotype, among other issues such as brain development and hormonal issues. I now still consider myself Christian, and I embrace homosexuals without reservation, and consider homosexual marriage appropriate and holy, as well as support the rights of homosexuals to adopt, etc.
I accept natural selection as a biological process. I still question the notion of random genetic mutation driving evolution as the sole contributor to the diversity of species, etc., and find it interesting that epigenetic drivers (inheritance of acquired traits) look so much like ID at times.
There has been a tendency to require more checks on gun owners lately, and the number of background checks per gun sold may be going up.
No. Clearly you have not purchased a gun. There is no "tendency" involved. Required checks have been and are required at time of purchase. There is a single check done. Since the gun store people have to try multiple times to get through (because the system is constantly busy on weekends during store hours), why would they do more than one check per purchase? Even if the lines weren't always busy, why would they do multiple checks per gun sold? They do one check to satisfy all paperwork (there are 2 forms for handguns in my state due to a federal law, but only 1 for long guns). What you are saying makes no sense.
Pennsylvania is technically open carry without a license except in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and on federal land or near schools, etc.. However, it's unlikely to be something you'll want to do anywhere outside of farm/woods country (which most of PA is), as it attracts a lot of negative attention in the more liberal suburban areas.
Thank you, that's very interesting. It is unfortunate that according to many in this thread, we should throw out all Lemaître's work because he was a priest.
We have an entirely different cultural dynamic here, as well as huge land borders where a drug trade imports enormous amounts of drugs and violence. To liken the kinds of criminals we have in the USA to those nations is inaccurate.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought your comment was going to be offensively stupid, but it's not. In fact, turn it around and look at men in sales vs. men in tech. No one would dispute what you're saying if you applied it to that population. I don't know if there's anything to it, but...interesting.
How are the parents supposed to make good choices? I realized when I was holding my son on my forearm, before he had a clue he had arms or legs, that I was going to be making innumerable decisions without really knowing what I was doing. I was going to make a very large number of bad decisions on the way. Considering how he's turned out, I'd say that I made the right decisions for the child and the situation often enough.
Sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on it. I'm not really sure what you're asking, though. I'm talking basic stuff here, like "contribute to the child'd financial support", "stay out of jail", "don't expose the child to drugs in-utero or ex-utero", "don't beat the child", "don't let my SO beat or molest the child", "feed the child", and so on.
If the question is whether it's better to send the child to piano lessons or karate class, that's at a much finer level of optimization.
In fairness, part of the extraordinarily high young adult unemployment is due to labor laws that punish the crap out of any business that hires a crappy worker. They can't fire them.
I don't disagree completely. Probably a combination of me not knowing the right terminology and having a spouse who has dealt with specific cultures in an underperforming school district.
At the same time, there ARE cultures that start at a low SES and move up. Cultural traits play into that: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
Your parents either make good choices, or fail to. It's a dynamic situation, and being poor is no excuse for doing drugs or beating your kid, or letting your boyfriend of the week molest him or her. But it seems that actually holding people accountable for their choices isn't politically correct. At least if they are poor or a minority or something. America needs to wake up and realize that the education problem one is a cultural one, and it's about the decisions PARENTS make with regards to how they raise their children.
You clearly have a good understanding of the situation, and I agree with you in the general case. Specifically, you mention augmentation of a horn section, and acknowledge it's a good tradeoff when faced with a limited budget. I couldn't agree more.
My comment was more directed at people who have said things like "Computers are better at producing music because there are no errors and it's always the same."
I don't think I could roll my eyes dramatically enough to address all that is wrong with such a statement.
On the topics of EWIs, I have Michael Brecker's "Don't Try This At Home" album featuring an EWI and I like it. Is yours the trumpet style (a la Jon Swana) or the sax/flute woodwind type? How good is the approximation of wind instrument sound these days?
You forget something pretty important. By requiring doctors and hospitals to serve those who show up, you remove their right to choose whether they want to do that. By removing that choice, you will invariably reduce the incentive for new doctors and hospitals to enter the market. By reducing the incentives for doctors and hospitals to enter the market, you end up with shortages of the supply of healthcare services.
Rather than using emotionally charged language, you might want to look a step beyond the immediately intended consequences of your policies, and see what the long term effects might be. A great place to start is Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". It's available free.
Here's a link to the PDF. http://mises.org/document/6785...
Thanks for having an open mind, but you got a few facts wrong.
First, I am not an amoral scumbag who wants to order doctors to let people die. I actually want to return the freedom to doctors and hospitals to choose whether they offer care. By law, they are currently required to give care. I think that's wrong; just as I shouldn't be compelled to provide software engineering services in circumstances I'd rather say no to, I'd like to extend the same freedoms to them. And I'd like you to take advantage of your freedom to fund free clinics and what not with your monetary donations (or labor, if you're a medical professional).
Two, I'm not an amoral scumbag. Two years ago I donated an extraordinary amount of time to a pro bono project that enabled an organization serving the homeless to continue operating. To the tune of about $10,000 worth of work. Because of the time and expertise I donated, over 100 people were able to sleep in warm and safe places for the past two winters. That's not the only thing I've done for the less fortunate out of the goodness of my heart.
It would really help if instead of immediately attacking anyone who says something you don't like that you ask them about the specifics of their position. Otherwise, it might devolve into petty ad-hominem attacks. You wouldn't want that, now would you?
Symphonic, operatic, and chamber music at the world-class level is about nuance that only educated ears will understand. It's already a small market. That market is likely to balk at the use of electronics. That's ok.
People who don't care if it's electronic should go ahead and enjoy whatever they think they like.
However, don't tell me for a second that some computer can match the transcendent quality of a lifelong trained live orchestra and soloist for nuance, presence, and artistry. The instant you argue that, I'm already convinced you don't know shit about the art form. You can certainly tell me that you like it, or even that new music can be made with such tools, but simply don't be foolish enough to try to convince me that computers are better musicians than people.
He didn't forget. He selectively suppressed the data to fit with his world view, I'm sure.
Awesome. Of course racism is the only possible motivation for my post. I just realized something today: if I criticize a conservative's views on gays or foreign policy or nationalistic bullshit or religion or science, I get a gruff answer sometimes, but I'm rarely, if ever, attacked personally and accused of racism/sexism/classism. Disagree with a liberal, or say anything even remotely un-PC, no matter how hypothetical, and instant personal attacks.
You left out Republican Ron Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
FYI you might want to check Christine LaGarde's comments that the UK was right to cut spending. Just last week.
I would facepalm when I'd see Occupy Wall Street and Tea Partiers going at it. The Tea Party hates the government for bailing out the banks. OWS hated the banks for getting bailed out by the government. Each acts as if the bailouts happened in a vacuum, with either the government forcing cash on the poor innocent banks, or with the banks strong-arming government into forking over the cash. In truth, the politicians and bankers gleefully raided the treasury for their mutual benefit.
I agree with this is large part, and I think you're referring to the latter Tea Party, when Koch/Palin took it over from its Ron Paul/Rothbardian beginnings. A lot of the Ron Paul people agreed with OWS in terms of the problems, but have radically differing ideas on the solutions. The "populist" Palinite Tea Party people are just as economically ignorant as OWS participants.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs.
I don't agree, at least not completely. I think you could take a big chunk out of it by not providing WIC, emergency room healthcare, and getting rid of the anchor baby law. Having a porous border is a lot less of a problem when there's not a bunch of free stuff on one side, and we start turning away pregnant women and children in the soup lines. It may sound cold, but think about the way Mexico treats illegals entering their country.
What surprises me more than anything else is the total silence by Black congressional leadership on "immigration reform" -- given that the low levels of educational attainment and extremely high levels of unemployment in the black community, aren't they the really big losers in the immigration reform game?
You think for a second that black congressional leadership has the well being of their constituents at heart any more than any other congressional leadership group? You have got to be joking. The best thing for the leftist political leaders is an entrenched welfare class. The more unemployment, the more welfare, the more socialized services, the more votes from the people using those services.
As Mencken said, politicians largely spend their energy pointing out that the other guy is a corrupt jerk, and are right.
You're referring to Republican lawmakers, GP was referring to voters. One of my biggest complaints with Republican voters is that they say they support small government, but continue to vote for lawmakers who have been doing the opposite of small government since Reagan's first term.
Yes. I was raised in a typical Catholic environment, and was taught implicitly that homosexuality was wrong. As I grew up I learned the complexities of gender, and the possible mismatch of phenotype and genotype, among other issues such as brain development and hormonal issues. I now still consider myself Christian, and I embrace homosexuals without reservation, and consider homosexual marriage appropriate and holy, as well as support the rights of homosexuals to adopt, etc.
I accept natural selection as a biological process. I still question the notion of random genetic mutation driving evolution as the sole contributor to the diversity of species, etc., and find it interesting that epigenetic drivers (inheritance of acquired traits) look so much like ID at times.
There has been a tendency to require more checks on gun owners lately, and the number of background checks per gun sold may be going up.
No. Clearly you have not purchased a gun. There is no "tendency" involved. Required checks have been and are required at time of purchase. There is a single check done. Since the gun store people have to try multiple times to get through (because the system is constantly busy on weekends during store hours), why would they do more than one check per purchase? Even if the lines weren't always busy, why would they do multiple checks per gun sold? They do one check to satisfy all paperwork (there are 2 forms for handguns in my state due to a federal law, but only 1 for long guns). What you are saying makes no sense.
Pennsylvania is technically open carry without a license except in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and on federal land or near schools, etc.. However, it's unlikely to be something you'll want to do anywhere outside of farm/woods country (which most of PA is), as it attracts a lot of negative attention in the more liberal suburban areas.
Thank you, that's very interesting. It is unfortunate that according to many in this thread, we should throw out all Lemaître's work because he was a priest.
We have an entirely different cultural dynamic here, as well as huge land borders where a drug trade imports enormous amounts of drugs and violence. To liken the kinds of criminals we have in the USA to those nations is inaccurate.
That's exactly right. A man without a rifle is a subject. A man with a rifle is a freeman.
I think you are missing several important places where strict laws have been in place, such as Chicago, DC, and California.