"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." - John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863) http://www.utilitarianism.com/...
Surely "emotional intelligence" is rather a new concept, and not one that is rigorously defined? That may seem like quibbling, but I think it's actually very important - indeed essential. Because the definition of a sociopath includes being charming, manipulative and very convincing. In other words, if you see a sociopath as a black box, he behaves exactly like someone with superb emotional intelligence. You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
It seems to me (as a confessed introvert) that the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert. To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers. This is especially so in corporate and government environments, for fairly obvious reasons. Since all human strengths have (indeed, are) complementary weaknesses, this entails being somewhat superficial, outer-directed, over-sensitive to consensus, and averse to solitary thought or study. One consequence is that introverts often find themselves feeling excluded, undervalued, or even (in extreme cases) considered as suffering from mental illness.
That's unfortunate, not only begans introverts have just as much right to live their own lives in the way they prefer as extraverts, but also because a lot of progress depends on introverts. Not to say that extraverts can't accomplish a huge amount too - but often the really big breakthroughs, which require focused attention for many months or years on end, have been made by introverts. It would be great if we could ever adjust our social perceptions to accept the whole spectrum of introversion/extraversion.
By your logic the Boeing 777 is an inferior copy of the Wright Brothers' first aircraft made from bicycle parts.
Among your many unjustified assumptions is that a later product must be inferior to an early one from which it took some ideas or inspiration. (Except that you arbitrarily state that the Apple GUI is much better than all the others). It seems to me that things are usually the other way round - hence the overall superiority of the Boeing 777.
Long ago I saw a story about a CEO who admitted cheerfully that half his advertising budget was wasted. He just never knew which half. I couldn't help wondering how he knew that it wasn't all wasted.
Perhaps people like the average slashdotter find it hard to understand why advertising works. After all, we tend to be well educated and inclined to focus on facts and logic. (We like to think...) But surely it suggests a very disparaging view of the average consumer to think they would be powerfully influenced by ads. There is a small subset which are useful: those that tell you about something you want, can afford, and would actually like to buy. But most of them are aimed at making us buy stuff we don't need, don't even really want, and can't afford.
So what would be the effect of completely abolishing advertising? (Just as a thought experiment: we can think about how to do it another day). A lot of people might stop buying things they don't really need or want, so sales would go down somewhat. But wouldn't that turn resources free to be used making things we do want and need? Surely Douglas Adams can't have been wrong.
In a world where kind, decent people see fit to create and maintain FOSS, and give us all the Web as a free gift, why should it be used to earn money from conning people?
Keeping the dollar as the primary reserve currency is absolutely vital to the US government, as otherwise they would instantly be bankrupt. Hasn't it struck you how odd it is that the USA, alone among nations, never has to worry about the cost of anything? Oh yes, they skimp on healthcare and social security and highway repairs and bridge maintenance and all those boring everyday things. But there is never a problem finding another trillion dollars for "defence" (i.e. killing people in Asia), or $5 billion (pocket change) to overthrow a national government. With enough money, anything is possible.
The US government has unlimited funds because it has discovered how to print money more or less limitelessly - yet without causing hyperinflation. It's because a lot of the excess dollars are obligingly bought up by foreigners. As long as the petrodollar system continues, anyone who wants oil - and that's quite a lot of people - must pay in dollars. And, as you observed, China has a few trillion US dollars and cannot start to sell them without seeing their value diminish.
Nevertheless, the sane countries of the world seem to have decided that they must bite the bullet and break the dollar's hegemony. Otherwise the tidal wave of dollars will be used to break them.
lol. Scared of the frankenfoods? You should try expanding your reading on it beyond the Daily Fail mate.
I don't read any newspapers or magazines; I value my time. My sources for GMOs include (but are not limited to):
The GMO Deception by Sheldon Krimsky, Jeremy Gruber, Ralph Nader (Foreword) Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Druker, Jane Goodall (Foreword) Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey M. Smith
May I suggest you read about the scientific facts of the matter?
You're already eating GM, billions would be dead without it. Kinda neatly explains your anti-EU attitude though.
No, I'm NOT eating GM. Fortunately I live in England, where it is still possible to choose natural food (largely organic) which contains no GMO. Your claim that "billions would be dead without it" is wholly wrong, and entirely without foundation. You may be thinking of the Green Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., although even that cannot be said to have saved billions of lives. Without it, many people would just not have been born. Even with it, we now have billions of people who would starve without it - which is unfortunate, as its results may not be sustainable.
Contrariwise, I have been watching it quite closely. There is some temporary and fairly superficial distress, and some people's standard of living has fallen. However that will hardly break the spirit of a people who lived through the Great Patriotic War!
On the other hand, Russia is being forced to develop its own trades and industries instead of relying on excessive imports. It is also being forced to diversify further, to move away from being too reliant on oil and gas exports. It is planning to move strongly into civil aircraft manufacture and computing, and President Putin has announced plans to make Russia a global centre of healthy, GM-free food production.
I am a fairly frequent contributor to Slashdot, and my karma is "excellent". I have often explained that I am British, and of a conservative political bent.
So which is likelier: that I am a troll, or that an "anonymous coward" who libels me with personal abuse is a troll?
The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.
Have you heard about this "Internet" thingy? I hear it lets scientists in different countries talk to each other, exchange documents, diagrams, and whole videos.
What is more likely is that the rest of the EU will take "revenge" on the UK for leaving by imposing tariffs and travel restrictions for UK people and good going into Europe. This would, of course, be childish and spiteful, and would probably hurt themselves as much as it would the UK, but I can still see them doing it.
Fine. They have already tried that on Russia, and so far it is doing Russia a whole lot of good, while severely harming European economies. (Not that the politicians care what happens to working people or businesses).
If and when the EU politicians decide to lift their sanctions against Russia, it is quite likely that the Russians themselves will insist on maintaining them.
Whenever I read those stories about how powerful Japanese executives say they would pull their investments out of the UK if it left the EU, I aways want to ask them - if a small offshore isaland nation is so unviable - when Japan plans to become a province of China.
Hussein made the mistake of attacking the USS Stark. Assad is still in business.
I think that was the least of his sins. (And the events bore a disturbing resemblance to, for instance, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident which was used to justify US involvement in Vietnam).
Far more important is that Saddam Hussein was planning to sell Iraqi oil for euros (and perhaps other currencies, or gold). All national governments have multiple overlapping goals and agendas - the current US government more than most, as it has unilaterally extended its sphere of influence and its interests worldwide.
The pursuit of reliable, cheap sources of oil and gas is most certainly an important motive. Others include support for Israel ("ask not what Israel can do for you; ask rather what you can do for Israel") and the strong desire to prevent any other nations from being strong and independent enough to ignore commands from Washington.
But by far the strongest motive of all is the need to maintain the US dollar as the principal world reserve currency. This is largely, though not entirely, dependent on the petrodollar, which in turns requires that all (or nearly all) wholesale purchases of oil are made with dollars. Anyone who tries to start selling large quantities of oil for any other currency can expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice, if that is at all possible. The use of another currency across a large area of the world is also likely to bring one's earthly existence to a rapid close, as Colonel Qadafi found. He was planning to introduce a gold dinar as a common currency throughout Africa. Since his death that idea has been forgotten, and the very large amount of gold that he had obtained with a view to minting coins has vanished. Who knows where it may have gone? It might be unwise to inquire too closely.
Today we are seeing very large and powerful nations like China, Russia, and the other BRICS nations, as well as Iran, making arrangements to trade on a very large scale in currencies other than the dollar. Gold, too, is making a reappearance as the BRICS and many Asian nations accumulate it as fast as possible. It has always been considered impossible to "get out of" the dollar, as doing so would cause any nation's huge dollar reserves to lose value, or become entirely worthless. However, some nations now seem ready to take that hit.
The big question is whether Washington, confronted with decision makers who cannot be eliminated without nuclear war, will stop short of that line.
The "halo effect" makes it disturbingly difficult to asses a person's complete abilities accurately. Because Hawking is a leading physicist, an extremely articulate and well-loved communicator, and a very brave and determined person, we are tempted to believe that he is godlike in every way. But remember that superb ability in one field - such as theoretical physics - does tend to come at the expense of broad experience in other fields, if only because one person only has a given amount of time and attention. I think it very likely that Professor Hawking does not spend much time learning about EU politics. Hence he may still take an idealistic view of the EU project - much as I did from about 1970-2000. If it could be done properly, it would be a good thing. But as it is being done very badly - and, I suspect, deliberately so - we must get out while we can. It's not a luxury hotel, but a "roach motel".
Brexit is a fad. It's even a FUD. It's all about the people not feeling they're getting the benefits out of what they'd hoped EU would be.
No, that's quite wrong. It's mostly about the people noticing that their country is about to be one more brick cemented into a wall - a political union. And the whole thing is being run by some people who are very unpleasant, or very stupid (conceivably both). In the 1975 referendum I voted for the UK to be a member of the EU, and I recall very well what I expected. It was that Europe would become a single community in some senses, but governed democratically along the lines of the UK, France or Germany. Instead, we quickly found out that the "European Parliament" is strictly ornamental, and the EU is ruled - very arbitrarily - by a bunch of "commissioners". Like "commissars", but with one more syllable. And they behave like commissars. In the past 18 months Angela Merkel has pledged billions of euros to the vicious fascist regime in Kiev, has promised to accept unlimited numbers of migrants, and is now offering more billions to Turkey for nothing very substantial. Who voted on these issues? What elected officials had a say? The MEPs can talk all they want, and then the commissioners do what they decide. We might as well be living in the USSR.
I understand UK perfectly, they're on the giving end of EU, they're the ones that have to take the fall for Europes refugees (pretty much like Sweden, but on a bigger scale) and they're the ones with the most generous benefit rules and regulations.
Evidently you don't understand the UK as well as you think. I am British, I was born of British parents, and I have spent all my life in Britain since the age of 12 or so. And I completely disagree with what you are saying. Certainly we don't like being exploited, seeing our taxes idly frittered away by luxury-loving EU bureaucrats or given to governments that by no means wish us well. Nor do we like being unable to control the number of immigrants to our country. But the key matter is that we wish to retain our sovereignty and our tradition of democratic government. And if we stay in the EU that would be quite impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Most intelligent people soon learn that knowledge is useful, so they tend to learn as much as they can. Not all, but most.
On the other hand, people who know a lot are not necessarily intelligent.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
http://www.utilitarianism.com/...
Better dumb and happy than smart and without any friends.
At least that's what people who are dumb and happy think... 8-)
Surely "emotional intelligence" is rather a new concept, and not one that is rigorously defined? That may seem like quibbling, but I think it's actually very important - indeed essential. Because the definition of a sociopath includes being charming, manipulative and very convincing. In other words, if you see a sociopath as a black box, he behaves exactly like someone with superb emotional intelligence. You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
It seems to me (as a confessed introvert) that the dominant culture in the USA - and hence one of the most popular cultures in most of the developed world - is strongly extravert. To stereotype mercilessly, most Americans are seen as energetic, conscientious, achievement-oriented team workers. This is especially so in corporate and government environments, for fairly obvious reasons. Since all human strengths have (indeed, are) complementary weaknesses, this entails being somewhat superficial, outer-directed, over-sensitive to consensus, and averse to solitary thought or study. One consequence is that introverts often find themselves feeling excluded, undervalued, or even (in extreme cases) considered as suffering from mental illness.
That's unfortunate, not only begans introverts have just as much right to live their own lives in the way they prefer as extraverts, but also because a lot of progress depends on introverts. Not to say that extraverts can't accomplish a huge amount too - but often the really big breakthroughs, which require focused attention for many months or years on end, have been made by introverts. It would be great if we could ever adjust our social perceptions to accept the whole spectrum of introversion/extraversion.
For a good introduction, anyone unfamiliar with the topic should try http://www.ted.com/talks/susan...
vaio does not count, fuck vaio.
Your facts and logic look impeccable.
By your logic the Boeing 777 is an inferior copy of the Wright Brothers' first aircraft made from bicycle parts.
Among your many unjustified assumptions is that a later product must be inferior to an early one from which it took some ideas or inspiration. (Except that you arbitrarily state that the Apple GUI is much better than all the others). It seems to me that things are usually the other way round - hence the overall superiority of the Boeing 777.
Long ago I saw a story about a CEO who admitted cheerfully that half his advertising budget was wasted. He just never knew which half. I couldn't help wondering how he knew that it wasn't all wasted.
Perhaps people like the average slashdotter find it hard to understand why advertising works. After all, we tend to be well educated and inclined to focus on facts and logic. (We like to think...) But surely it suggests a very disparaging view of the average consumer to think they would be powerfully influenced by ads. There is a small subset which are useful: those that tell you about something you want, can afford, and would actually like to buy. But most of them are aimed at making us buy stuff we don't need, don't even really want, and can't afford.
So what would be the effect of completely abolishing advertising? (Just as a thought experiment: we can think about how to do it another day). A lot of people might stop buying things they don't really need or want, so sales would go down somewhat. But wouldn't that turn resources free to be used making things we do want and need? Surely Douglas Adams can't have been wrong.
In a world where kind, decent people see fit to create and maintain FOSS, and give us all the Web as a free gift, why should it be used to earn money from conning people?
...I can post yet without being rejected for running an open proxy.
Keeping the dollar as the primary reserve currency is absolutely vital to the US government, as otherwise they would instantly be bankrupt. Hasn't it struck you how odd it is that the USA, alone among nations, never has to worry about the cost of anything? Oh yes, they skimp on healthcare and social security and highway repairs and bridge maintenance and all those boring everyday things. But there is never a problem finding another trillion dollars for "defence" (i.e. killing people in Asia), or $5 billion (pocket change) to overthrow a national government. With enough money, anything is possible.
The US government has unlimited funds because it has discovered how to print money more or less limitelessly - yet without causing hyperinflation. It's because a lot of the excess dollars are obligingly bought up by foreigners. As long as the petrodollar system continues, anyone who wants oil - and that's quite a lot of people - must pay in dollars. And, as you observed, China has a few trillion US dollars and cannot start to sell them without seeing their value diminish.
Nevertheless, the sane countries of the world seem to have decided that they must bite the bullet and break the dollar's hegemony. Otherwise the tidal wave of dollars will be used to break them.
lol. Scared of the frankenfoods? You should try expanding your reading on it beyond the Daily Fail mate.
I don't read any newspapers or magazines; I value my time. My sources for GMOs include (but are not limited to):
The GMO Deception by Sheldon Krimsky, Jeremy Gruber, Ralph Nader (Foreword)
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Druker, Jane Goodall (Foreword)
Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey M. Smith
May I suggest you read about the scientific facts of the matter?
You're already eating GM, billions would be dead without it. Kinda neatly explains your anti-EU attitude though.
No, I'm NOT eating GM. Fortunately I live in England, where it is still possible to choose natural food (largely organic) which contains no GMO. Your claim that "billions would be dead without it" is wholly wrong, and entirely without foundation. You may be thinking of the Green Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., although even that cannot be said to have saved billions of lives. Without it, many people would just not have been born. Even with it, we now have billions of people who would starve without it - which is unfortunate, as its results may not be sustainable.
Contrariwise, I have been watching it quite closely. There is some temporary and fairly superficial distress, and some people's standard of living has fallen. However that will hardly break the spirit of a people who lived through the Great Patriotic War!
On the other hand, Russia is being forced to develop its own trades and industries instead of relying on excessive imports. It is also being forced to diversify further, to move away from being too reliant on oil and gas exports. It is planning to move strongly into civil aircraft manufacture and computing, and President Putin has announced plans to make Russia a global centre of healthy, GM-free food production.
It's pretty much all good.
I am a fairly frequent contributor to Slashdot, and my karma is "excellent". I have often explained that I am British, and of a conservative political bent.
So which is likelier: that I am a troll, or that an "anonymous coward" who libels me with personal abuse is a troll?
Read this and see if it changes your mind at all.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/2...
"...free to do things the EU bans, such as experimenting with GM food..."
You experiment away if you like. I'm happier with just the one head, and no fish genes.
The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.
Have you heard about this "Internet" thingy? I hear it lets scientists in different countries talk to each other, exchange documents, diagrams, and whole videos.
What is more likely is that the rest of the EU will take "revenge" on the UK for leaving by imposing tariffs and travel restrictions for UK people and good going into Europe. This would, of course, be childish and spiteful, and would probably hurt themselves as much as it would the UK, but I can still see them doing it.
Fine. They have already tried that on Russia, and so far it is doing Russia a whole lot of good, while severely harming European economies. (Not that the politicians care what happens to working people or businesses).
If and when the EU politicians decide to lift their sanctions against Russia, it is quite likely that the Russians themselves will insist on maintaining them.
Whenever I read those stories about how powerful Japanese executives say they would pull their investments out of the UK if it left the EU, I aways want to ask them - if a small offshore isaland nation is so unviable - when Japan plans to become a province of China.
Hussein made the mistake of attacking the USS Stark. Assad is still in business.
I think that was the least of his sins. (And the events bore a disturbing resemblance to, for instance, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident which was used to justify US involvement in Vietnam).
Far more important is that Saddam Hussein was planning to sell Iraqi oil for euros (and perhaps other currencies, or gold). All national governments have multiple overlapping goals and agendas - the current US government more than most, as it has unilaterally extended its sphere of influence and its interests worldwide.
The pursuit of reliable, cheap sources of oil and gas is most certainly an important motive. Others include support for Israel ("ask not what Israel can do for you; ask rather what you can do for Israel") and the strong desire to prevent any other nations from being strong and independent enough to ignore commands from Washington.
But by far the strongest motive of all is the need to maintain the US dollar as the principal world reserve currency. This is largely, though not entirely, dependent on the petrodollar, which in turns requires that all (or nearly all) wholesale purchases of oil are made with dollars. Anyone who tries to start selling large quantities of oil for any other currency can expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice, if that is at all possible. The use of another currency across a large area of the world is also likely to bring one's earthly existence to a rapid close, as Colonel Qadafi found. He was planning to introduce a gold dinar as a common currency throughout Africa. Since his death that idea has been forgotten, and the very large amount of gold that he had obtained with a view to minting coins has vanished. Who knows where it may have gone? It might be unwise to inquire too closely.
Today we are seeing very large and powerful nations like China, Russia, and the other BRICS nations, as well as Iran, making arrangements to trade on a very large scale in currencies other than the dollar. Gold, too, is making a reappearance as the BRICS and many Asian nations accumulate it as fast as possible. It has always been considered impossible to "get out of" the dollar, as doing so would cause any nation's huge dollar reserves to lose value, or become entirely worthless. However, some nations now seem ready to take that hit.
The big question is whether Washington, confronted with decision makers who cannot be eliminated without nuclear war, will stop short of that line.
A good point.
The "halo effect" makes it disturbingly difficult to asses a person's complete abilities accurately. Because Hawking is a leading physicist, an extremely articulate and well-loved communicator, and a very brave and determined person, we are tempted to believe that he is godlike in every way. But remember that superb ability in one field - such as theoretical physics - does tend to come at the expense of broad experience in other fields, if only because one person only has a given amount of time and attention. I think it very likely that Professor Hawking does not spend much time learning about EU politics. Hence he may still take an idealistic view of the EU project - much as I did from about 1970-2000. If it could be done properly, it would be a good thing. But as it is being done very badly - and, I suspect, deliberately so - we must get out while we can. It's not a luxury hotel, but a "roach motel".
Brexit is a fad. It's even a FUD. It's all about the people not feeling they're getting the benefits out of what they'd hoped EU would be.
No, that's quite wrong. It's mostly about the people noticing that their country is about to be one more brick cemented into a wall - a political union. And the whole thing is being run by some people who are very unpleasant, or very stupid (conceivably both). In the 1975 referendum I voted for the UK to be a member of the EU, and I recall very well what I expected. It was that Europe would become a single community in some senses, but governed democratically along the lines of the UK, France or Germany. Instead, we quickly found out that the "European Parliament" is strictly ornamental, and the EU is ruled - very arbitrarily - by a bunch of "commissioners". Like "commissars", but with one more syllable. And they behave like commissars. In the past 18 months Angela Merkel has pledged billions of euros to the vicious fascist regime in Kiev, has promised to accept unlimited numbers of migrants, and is now offering more billions to Turkey for nothing very substantial. Who voted on these issues? What elected officials had a say? The MEPs can talk all they want, and then the commissioners do what they decide. We might as well be living in the USSR.
I understand UK perfectly, they're on the giving end of EU, they're the ones that have to take the fall for Europes refugees (pretty much like Sweden, but on a bigger scale) and they're the ones with the most generous benefit rules and regulations.
Evidently you don't understand the UK as well as you think. I am British, I was born of British parents, and I have spent all my life in Britain since the age of 12 or so. And I completely disagree with what you are saying. Certainly we don't like being exploited, seeing our taxes idly frittered away by luxury-loving EU bureaucrats or given to governments that by no means wish us well. Nor do we like being unable to control the number of immigrants to our country. But the key matter is that we wish to retain our sovereignty and our tradition of democratic government. And if we stay in the EU that would be quite impossible.
shoulda, woulda, coulda...
If they (including I) hadn't installed Windows in the first place they wouldn't have the problem (IMHO)
(I have no interest in, or connection with this free utility).
Sorry, that's ambiguous. I meant that I have no financial interest; I don't stand to gain from its use.
But in the several months since I installed it, is has done a great job of completely shielding me from all the nuisance messages about Windows 10.
GWX Control Panel is your friend. http://ultimateoutsider.com/do...
(I have no interest in, or connection with this free utility).