Without proper regulation and oversight, capitalism leads to socialism, but only for the rich and politically connected. Capitalism allows the unfettered accumulation of capital. Capital equals power to change the system, either through economic coercion or manipulation of the legal system, which brings in more capital in a never ending positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more control you have over other people's lives. We not only accept this basic injustice, we celebrate it as good, just, and moral. It isn't, any more than using any other form of power to screw people over.
I know how intractable those problems are, and any coherent system of doing those things cooperatively amounts to a kernel anyway, but it could be done. Keeping processes from screwing with each other or the system can, by the very nature of the problem, only be done by a kernel or hypervisor.
Eh? Bad analogy. Replace 'china shop' with 'cement barrier specifically designed to stop dump trucks.' That is one of the main things operating systems do, stop processes from interfering with each other. Understand? It is one of the fundamental reasons operating systems exist at all. To say it is not the fault of the operating system is to misunderstand the purpose of an operating system. Everything else (scheduling, memory and resource allocation) could be done cooperatively by each running program.
Nope. Plenty of smart people don't pay attention to markets. They are busy designing rockets, transplanting hearts, or programming computers. They have no interest in gambling on the markets, and they tend to invest their money in conventional ways, which does not mean checking the news every day, but rather playing a long term strategy. And some of those people got bit by this bug. It wasn't just people who looked at the paper and said, 'hey! this news means I should sell!' Automated trading made sure of that. Are any of your investments traded automatically? How can you be sure, if you are trusting a fund manager to do it for you, that they aren't using said programs? Everyone does.
The unbalancing effects of capital accumulation give the largest players in a market power outside the wildest dreams of government, power to shape and control the lives of hundreds of millions of people who never agreed to give them that power.
Regulation of markets helps offset the negative effects of this runaway feedback loop, as well as protecting against the many other types of market failures that all mainstream economists agree plague any market system, such as externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopoly. Even Adam Smith said that free markets need regulation in order to remain free.
A lot of dumb people probably lost a lot of money, while a lot of smart people probably made a lot of money over this.
Eh? Really? The world is a meritocracy then? I don't think so. A lot of dumb people are well connected, and made out like bandits. Sure, lot of smart people put money into funds and let experts handle it, but even the experts got tripped up on this one.
It's very easy and satisfying to assume that everyone who makes money deserves it because they are smart and good. It's also a big relief to assume that everyone who gets hurt is stupid or deserved it. Unfortunately, that kind of moral reasoning is the equivalent of masturbation. While it may be fun, only perverts want to watch you do it.
I think we should ask reader WillRobinson
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Can you tell us if there is any DANGER! DANGER WILLROBINSON!
Humor? I think you are backpedaling. You made reference to pennies being melted down for copper. You were corrected on this. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you angrily attempted to defend your penny-melting position by claiming that stolen pennies might be melted down, utterly missing the point that they would then be worth less. I did read the whole thread here, including all of your replies. You weren't posting in jest, you just hate that you were corrected in public.
...and said, "if you steal me, it doesn't fucking matter how much content of copper I have, because you didn't fucking pay for me, bitch!"
Your words. Not funny, angry.
If it was stolen, then the net cost to obtain the copper is $0.00. So it matters not the value of the copper in the current 1982 and beyond penny.
Your words. Not funny, serious.
What the fuck is Guyver. I said MacGuyver, and I didn't fucking stutter. Were you born in the 90's? If so, get back to your homework, son.
You either didn't read the linked page, or didn't understand the implications. A penny is worth more as a penny than melted down. That's not even counting the cost to melt it and separate out the copper from the zinc. The total value of the metals in a post 1982 penny is worth less than a penny. Now do you understand?
Cynically trying to manipulate my emotions for profit is NOT the same as trying to entertain me. Entertaining me isn't the goal. Getting me to like the product is the goal, entertainment is the means. They are TRYING to get me to like the product.
And the fact is, marketing doesn't work on people like you and I, but it does on most people, and that is not their fault. It's like convincing a retarded kid to screw a mudkip doll. Its not cool, and its not the retarded kid's fault.
Not everyone has the 'think for yourself' gene. Most people get the 'do what your society tells you' gene. If everyone got the gene for thinking for yourself, there would be little conservation of what actually works. Everyone would be off trying new things, most of which wouldn't work no matter how smart everyone was. Society functions because there is a solid majority of people who just do what worked for their ancestors, don't rock the boat, and don't try new things. It isn't fair, just, or moral to institutionalize the manipulation of people like that, and it is counterproductive to try to breed those people out of the gene pool.
Marketing and advertising are a complete waste of time. If all that money and effort went into actually creating things of value to people, the world would be a much better place.
Welcome to the douchebag generation. here are some signs you might belong to the douchebag generation. If you agree with more than three of the following, you are a total douchebag
I make snap judgments of others based on superficial characteristics such as age
I constantly feel like people want to hear my opinions about them
I project onto others things I, myself do, but can not admit that I do
I think I have a sense of style, and I attempt to prove this by telling others they have no style
Destruction of people's lives and feelings is okay, but MY property is sacrosanct
I think I have a sense of style, but all I do is slavishly follow current trends
I make sure to point out all the ways I am superior to you as often as possible
I generalize the worst traits of a small group of people onto everyone who is unlike me
No, advertising is NOT like your company buying you lunch every Friday. This is like your company showing you a picture of a nice lunch every Friday, then showing you a picture of their logo, and expecting that, since you like lunch, you will associate the positive feelings you get from seeing a picture of lunch with positive feelings towards your employer.
If, instead of using money for marketing, companies actually bought you stuff, or lowered the price of the product, THAT would be similar to your analogy.
A better analogy for marketing would be, every Friday your boss comes into your office, hits you over the head with a frying pan, jerks off into your eyes, and steals your wallet.
P.S. If you are in marketing or advertising, I'm sorry. Sorry you chose the most useless, dishonest career legally available. Take Bill Hicks advice and kill yourself. You'd be doing the whole world a favor.
Everyone is only doing what they have decided is right. People who base their belief systems on outside authority have decided to do so based on their own personal experience. There is nothing but self oriented value systems, and the fact that you think otherwise is frightening. Because it means that you have divorced yourself from your own choices. No one can ever know the ultimate truth of anything, but they can choose to fool themselves into thinking they have.
Even when you decide that there is some outside authority, you are the authority that makes that choice. People who understand that they are the only possible authority are simply more honest.
Ah, projection, a classic psychological symptom of cognitive dissonance. You staunchly hold to a particular world view, yet think of yourself as an open minded person. Your views on global warming were obviously decided prior to any investigation, so your investigations only turned up evidence that supports your preconceived notions of how things should be. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance, and a very common technique for dealing with that is to attack your opponents for the very thing you can't accept in yourself, namely, being unable to grasp that your personal fictions are not the facts as seen by the rest of the world. I'd get help if I were you.
How does quoting from the very article you mention make me a fanatic? When did it become a valid debating tactic to simply declare yourself the winner?
Please. You lost this argument badly, and by your own hand. You tried to use a very biased list of non climate scientists to prove a point, and had that point shoved back in your face, covered in biased idiot sauce. Ninety five percent of people with climate science training agree that AGW is real, your list of engineers and oil company astroturfers notwithstanding.
If you think the world is going to agree with you and a bunch of politically and financially motivated hacks with no relevant education or experience, you are sadly mistaken. But keep believing that everything is gonna be okay if only the bad, bad hippies would just fuck off and die if that helps you sleep at night.
Nothing in science is ever 'proven.' Especially not the identities and occupation of the people who signed that list. From the article you quote:
But there's an important caveat. There's been no vetting of the petition's signers to confirm that they indeed trained in the field they claimed to have had. What's more, Robinson's group made no attempt to find out whether people worked in the field for which they trained. So someone educated as a physical chemist or computer scientist might actually be working today as a stock broker, pianist, or taxi driver.
I hear he is developing a new way to compress his logs. Something to do with packing pointers into the tail. I think it is shrinkable, but that entails the use of very cold water.
Relevant scientists? Or engineers and other types who have little education in anything relevant to climate change? Geoff Duffy is not a climate scientist. He is a materials engineer. Very few of the people who disagree with the IPCC report have any relevant training whatsoever.
I see what you're doing there. You are defining 'world-view' as unchangeable by its very nature. A man could literally change every belief he has, and yet this concept that you have defined, his 'world view' would somehow not have changed. The very fact that he can change everything he believes, proves that his world view is unchangeable. I know what you are now. You are a sophist.
But I ask you, what of us cynics? We don't believe or disbelieve anything. God may or may not exist, I have evidence for both propositions. An afterlife may or may not exist, so too a personal soul. You see, your confusion comes from not understanding what mappers do.
We don't believe or disbelieve anything. We try on new ideas all the time, and see how they fit in with all the other ideas in our heads. I don't need a world view. I don't need to organize the world into strict categories. I don't live in my ideation of the world, I live in my sense impressions of the present moment. I don't know if you can understand this, because you seem to see things dualistically while I don't (you could call 'non-dualism' a world view, I guess, but that is dualistic thinking.)
In my mind, ideas aren't 'true' or 'false' in any absolute sense. Ideas have varying degrees of validity and usefulness in varying situations. Mappers know that the map is not the territory. Packers believe there is one true map, and that it is equivalent with the territory. Once you find the one true map, you never need to change it.
You could call my ideas a self oriented world view, but that is your packer mind trying to fit me into your preconceived notions. Self is just a concept, and I don't believe or disbelieve in concepts. Categories created by mind can never fully model the world. When one looks closer at any category, one finds exceptions and gray areas.
The self is created by the world it exists in, it is not a thing unto itself, and so to describe the self fully, one would necessarily need to define the entire universe. The self is not self created, nor self existing. It is an emergent phenomenon. Provisionally speaking, of course, as this is an idea, a concept of self.
The fact that you think there are no mappers simply indicates that you aren't one. You can't believe anyone could have a flexible foundation because you don't. But the fact is, mappers exist, and studies exist to prove it.
In fact, all the best programmers are mappers. Packers attempt to fit the problem space into their preconceived notions. Mappers create a new map for each problem. Google 'mappers and packers' for more information.
Face facts: some people alter their world view on a daily basis. Some people don't. This is not to say one type is better than the other, for society to function both types are needed. Packers are the ultimate conservatives, and we need to conserve what works before we have the safety to innovate. Mappers are progressives, changing what they feel needs to be changed.
But I don't expect you to believe any of this. You are a packer, and your world view says, "No one can change their world view." You are incapable of changing that world view, therefore, this discussion is pointless.
"Mutation and speciation have been observed in the lab" is not a world view. It is a fact.
As for world views, there are two types of people. Mappers and packers. Mappers continually readjust their world view to stay consistent with reality. Packers fit everything they experience into their chosen world view. There is no sense debating world views with a packer. I'm not a packer.
Slashdot Mirror
Without proper regulation and oversight, capitalism leads to socialism, but only for the rich and politically connected. Capitalism allows the unfettered accumulation of capital. Capital equals power to change the system, either through economic coercion or manipulation of the legal system, which brings in more capital in a never ending positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more control you have over other people's lives. We not only accept this basic injustice, we celebrate it as good, just, and moral. It isn't, any more than using any other form of power to screw people over.
Fixed that for you, Kansas.
Fixed your fix. This was the garden of Eden, remember? Everybody loved everybody in Eden.
You aren't new here. Why act surprised at the MS bashing? We know other operating systems crash too, but we only care when Windows does it.
I know how intractable those problems are, and any coherent system of doing those things cooperatively amounts to a kernel anyway, but it could be done. Keeping processes from screwing with each other or the system can, by the very nature of the problem, only be done by a kernel or hypervisor.
Eh? Bad analogy. Replace 'china shop' with 'cement barrier specifically designed to stop dump trucks.' That is one of the main things operating systems do, stop processes from interfering with each other. Understand? It is one of the fundamental reasons operating systems exist at all. To say it is not the fault of the operating system is to misunderstand the purpose of an operating system. Everything else (scheduling, memory and resource allocation) could be done cooperatively by each running program.
Nope. Plenty of smart people don't pay attention to markets. They are busy designing rockets, transplanting hearts, or programming computers. They have no interest in gambling on the markets, and they tend to invest their money in conventional ways, which does not mean checking the news every day, but rather playing a long term strategy. And some of those people got bit by this bug. It wasn't just people who looked at the paper and said, 'hey! this news means I should sell!' Automated trading made sure of that. Are any of your investments traded automatically? How can you be sure, if you are trusting a fund manager to do it for you, that they aren't using said programs? Everyone does.
The unbalancing effects of capital accumulation give the largest players in a market power outside the wildest dreams of government, power to shape and control the lives of hundreds of millions of people who never agreed to give them that power.
Regulation of markets helps offset the negative effects of this runaway feedback loop, as well as protecting against the many other types of market failures that all mainstream economists agree plague any market system, such as externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopoly. Even Adam Smith said that free markets need regulation in order to remain free.
A lot of dumb people probably lost a lot of money, while a lot of smart people probably made a lot of money over this.
Eh? Really? The world is a meritocracy then? I don't think so. A lot of dumb people are well connected, and made out like bandits. Sure, lot of smart people put money into funds and let experts handle it, but even the experts got tripped up on this one.
It's very easy and satisfying to assume that everyone who makes money deserves it because they are smart and good. It's also a big relief to assume that everyone who gets hurt is stupid or deserved it. Unfortunately, that kind of moral reasoning is the equivalent of masturbation. While it may be fun, only perverts want to watch you do it.
Can you tell us if there is any DANGER! DANGER WILLROBINSON!
Humor? I think you are backpedaling. You made reference to pennies being melted down for copper. You were corrected on this. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you angrily attempted to defend your penny-melting position by claiming that stolen pennies might be melted down, utterly missing the point that they would then be worth less. I did read the whole thread here, including all of your replies. You weren't posting in jest, you just hate that you were corrected in public.
...and said, "if you steal me, it doesn't fucking matter how much content of copper I have, because you didn't fucking pay for me, bitch!"
Your words. Not funny, angry.
If it was stolen, then the net cost to obtain the copper is $0.00. So it matters not the value of the copper in the current 1982 and beyond penny.
Your words. Not funny, serious.
What the fuck is Guyver. I said MacGuyver, and I didn't fucking stutter. Were you born in the 90's? If so, get back to your homework, son.
Your words. Not funny, angry again.
The sandbox is closed due to DMCA.
You either didn't read the linked page, or didn't understand the implications. A penny is worth more as a penny than melted down. That's not even counting the cost to melt it and separate out the copper from the zinc. The total value of the metals in a post 1982 penny is worth less than a penny. Now do you understand?
Cynically trying to manipulate my emotions for profit is NOT the same as trying to entertain me. Entertaining me isn't the goal. Getting me to like the product is the goal, entertainment is the means. They are TRYING to get me to like the product.
And the fact is, marketing doesn't work on people like you and I, but it does on most people, and that is not their fault. It's like convincing a retarded kid to screw a mudkip doll. Its not cool, and its not the retarded kid's fault.
Not everyone has the 'think for yourself' gene. Most people get the 'do what your society tells you' gene. If everyone got the gene for thinking for yourself, there would be little conservation of what actually works. Everyone would be off trying new things, most of which wouldn't work no matter how smart everyone was. Society functions because there is a solid majority of people who just do what worked for their ancestors, don't rock the boat, and don't try new things. It isn't fair, just, or moral to institutionalize the manipulation of people like that, and it is counterproductive to try to breed those people out of the gene pool.
Marketing and advertising are a complete waste of time. If all that money and effort went into actually creating things of value to people, the world would be a much better place.
Welcome to the douchebag generation. here are some signs you might belong to the douchebag generation. If you agree with more than three of the following, you are a total douchebag
No, advertising is NOT like your company buying you lunch every Friday. This is like your company showing you a picture of a nice lunch every Friday, then showing you a picture of their logo, and expecting that, since you like lunch, you will associate the positive feelings you get from seeing a picture of lunch with positive feelings towards your employer.
If, instead of using money for marketing, companies actually bought you stuff, or lowered the price of the product, THAT would be similar to your analogy.
A better analogy for marketing would be, every Friday your boss comes into your office, hits you over the head with a frying pan, jerks off into your eyes, and steals your wallet.
P.S. If you are in marketing or advertising, I'm sorry. Sorry you chose the most useless, dishonest career legally available. Take Bill Hicks advice and kill yourself. You'd be doing the whole world a favor.
Everyone is only doing what they have decided is right. People who base their belief systems on outside authority have decided to do so based on their own personal experience. There is nothing but self oriented value systems, and the fact that you think otherwise is frightening. Because it means that you have divorced yourself from your own choices. No one can ever know the ultimate truth of anything, but they can choose to fool themselves into thinking they have.
Even when you decide that there is some outside authority, you are the authority that makes that choice. People who understand that they are the only possible authority are simply more honest.
Ah, projection, a classic psychological symptom of cognitive dissonance. You staunchly hold to a particular world view, yet think of yourself as an open minded person. Your views on global warming were obviously decided prior to any investigation, so your investigations only turned up evidence that supports your preconceived notions of how things should be. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance, and a very common technique for dealing with that is to attack your opponents for the very thing you can't accept in yourself, namely, being unable to grasp that your personal fictions are not the facts as seen by the rest of the world. I'd get help if I were you.
How does quoting from the very article you mention make me a fanatic? When did it become a valid debating tactic to simply declare yourself the winner?
Please. You lost this argument badly, and by your own hand. You tried to use a very biased list of non climate scientists to prove a point, and had that point shoved back in your face, covered in biased idiot sauce. Ninety five percent of people with climate science training agree that AGW is real, your list of engineers and oil company astroturfers notwithstanding.
If you think the world is going to agree with you and a bunch of politically and financially motivated hacks with no relevant education or experience, you are sadly mistaken. But keep believing that everything is gonna be okay if only the bad, bad hippies would just fuck off and die if that helps you sleep at night.
What? Anal rape jokes are in 'bad taste' now? When did that change? Nobody tells me anything...
Nothing in science is ever 'proven.' Especially not the identities and occupation of the people who signed that list. From the article you quote:
But there's an important caveat. There's been no vetting of the petition's signers to confirm that they indeed trained in the field they claimed to have had. What's more, Robinson's group made no attempt to find out whether people worked in the field for which they trained. So someone educated as a physical chemist or computer scientist might actually be working today as a stock broker, pianist, or taxi driver.
I hear he is developing a new way to compress his logs. Something to do with packing pointers into the tail. I think it is shrinkable, but that entails the use of very cold water.
Relevant scientists? Or engineers and other types who have little education in anything relevant to climate change? Geoff Duffy is not a climate scientist. He is a materials engineer. Very few of the people who disagree with the IPCC report have any relevant training whatsoever.
I see what you're doing there. You are defining 'world-view' as unchangeable by its very nature. A man could literally change every belief he has, and yet this concept that you have defined, his 'world view' would somehow not have changed. The very fact that he can change everything he believes, proves that his world view is unchangeable. I know what you are now. You are a sophist.
But I ask you, what of us cynics? We don't believe or disbelieve anything. God may or may not exist, I have evidence for both propositions. An afterlife may or may not exist, so too a personal soul. You see, your confusion comes from not understanding what mappers do.
We don't believe or disbelieve anything. We try on new ideas all the time, and see how they fit in with all the other ideas in our heads. I don't need a world view. I don't need to organize the world into strict categories. I don't live in my ideation of the world, I live in my sense impressions of the present moment. I don't know if you can understand this, because you seem to see things dualistically while I don't (you could call 'non-dualism' a world view, I guess, but that is dualistic thinking.)
In my mind, ideas aren't 'true' or 'false' in any absolute sense. Ideas have varying degrees of validity and usefulness in varying situations. Mappers know that the map is not the territory. Packers believe there is one true map, and that it is equivalent with the territory. Once you find the one true map, you never need to change it.
You could call my ideas a self oriented world view, but that is your packer mind trying to fit me into your preconceived notions. Self is just a concept, and I don't believe or disbelieve in concepts. Categories created by mind can never fully model the world. When one looks closer at any category, one finds exceptions and gray areas.
The self is created by the world it exists in, it is not a thing unto itself, and so to describe the self fully, one would necessarily need to define the entire universe. The self is not self created, nor self existing. It is an emergent phenomenon. Provisionally speaking, of course, as this is an idea, a concept of self.
The fact that you think there are no mappers simply indicates that you aren't one. You can't believe anyone could have a flexible foundation because you don't. But the fact is, mappers exist, and studies exist to prove it.
In fact, all the best programmers are mappers. Packers attempt to fit the problem space into their preconceived notions. Mappers create a new map for each problem. Google 'mappers and packers' for more information.
Face facts: some people alter their world view on a daily basis. Some people don't. This is not to say one type is better than the other, for society to function both types are needed. Packers are the ultimate conservatives, and we need to conserve what works before we have the safety to innovate. Mappers are progressives, changing what they feel needs to be changed.
But I don't expect you to believe any of this. You are a packer, and your world view says, "No one can change their world view." You are incapable of changing that world view, therefore, this discussion is pointless.
"Mutation and speciation have been observed in the lab" is not a world view. It is a fact.
As for world views, there are two types of people. Mappers and packers. Mappers continually readjust their world view to stay consistent with reality. Packers fit everything they experience into their chosen world view. There is no sense debating world views with a packer. I'm not a packer.