I'm just going to float this out there. It's not really relevant to the article, nor is it particularly valuable to any discussion, but the discoverer of the Voorwerp, Hanny Van Arkely, is absolutely lovely. Many 'dotters could probably kill an hour or two sifting through her images on Google.
Not to mention, she's an amateur sterrenkundige. If that doesn't get a nerd hot and bothered, I don't know what will.
Course the easily offended need to fuck off no matter why they're easily offended.
Does that include people who are offended by other peoples morals?
Only if they're easily offended by other people's morals. If they're offended by others' morals only when said morals go to great lengths to offend, then no.
Man, that dumbass was so wrong, because, of course, Japanese never buy Fords and Americans never buy Toyotas, and Europeans never buy Dodges, and Americans never buy Volkswagens.
Hmm - speaking as a European who can't remember the last time he saw a Dodge, he might have been off on a few things...:)
Shit, yeah, not knowing what they drive in Europe I had to pick one at random and trust my luck...if it's any aid to Krugman's reputation, those specific examples aren't in his theory.
Ok, how about when he called for a housing bubble in 2003 to "fix" the fallout from the Tech bubble?
This is a vicious lie perpetuated by free-market fundamentalists determined to carry out hit jobs on anyone that disagrees with them. Krugman never called for a housing bubble. He said "Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble," as a rhetorical device to point out the absurdity of Greenspan going around creating all these bubbles. In that very same article where he, according to you, called for a housing bubble, he pointed out that the 2001 recession was caused by irrational exuberance (i.e. bubbles) and that creating more bubbles (like a housing bubble) would just be more irrational exuberance and would therefore be unstable. Heaven forbid anyone should ever try to use reductio ad absurdum or play devil's advocate around you people, you'll take any sentence out of the middle of the argument and treat it like it's that person's gospel truth for the rest of their lives.
Further, it was not the complex derivatives markets that caused the subprime collapse, it was the FRAUD perpetrated by the lending originators.
Are you fucking stupid? Do you not understand how all of economics works? If you create an incentive to do something, people will do it. Lending originators only had an incentive to falsify borrower's capacity to repay because they could sell the loans to others who wouldn't examine their methods or the facts because those others were chopping up the loans to sell to others. If loan originators had to hold onto the loans they had made, there would be no incentive for fraud because they would be de-frauding themselves. Therefore, IF IT WAS THE FRAUD by the originators that caused the collapse, THEN IT WAS THE DERIVATIVES MARKET that caused the collapse as well, because the fraud was wholly caused by the derivatives market giving incentive to fraud.
Those derivative markets were just the bagholders.
Uh, yeah, no. They were the ones saying, "Hey, sell us a bunch of shit and we'll buy it! It's ok because the market will never, ever go down!"
The banks didn't "allow" anything, it was the Fed's artificially low rates combined with Congress' push to allow anyone with a pulse to "liv the American Dream" and get loans they couldn't afford.
Except that the vast majority of the loans that went bad leading up to the crisis never would have been made--could not possibly have been made--if the exact same artificially low rates had been present but the complex derivatives markets had been absent.
Well, there's the part where you imply criticizing all government regulation is wrong or a bad thing.
I didn't do that either. The discussion was over Rand's basis for criticizing all deviations from laissez-faire capitalism. It is simply a fact that she criticized government regulation generally by drawing on her experiences with the most extreme kind thereof. I merely (re-) pointed that out.
It's not like we elect the best and brightest to public office; we just elect the ones with the best soundbites.
No shit. What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
I trust American politicians as far as I can throw them, and that isn't every far even if I cheat and use a trebuchet.
I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't even trust them as far as I can shove, and I assume you can throw a good deal farther than I can shove.
In which bizarro plane of the Multiverse did Ayn Rand grow up under FDR instead of the Bolsheviks?
None. Nobody said she did. She staunchly criticized all government regulation based on her experiences growing up in Red Russia, which she generalized to all non-laissez-faire systems. What part of that is hard to understand?
Did you miss the first part of that sentence? When you force me to only go to the businesses you approve of (like hospitals in this case). Do you know understand how government works?
First part of which sentence? When did I propose forcing you to go to a hospital I approve of? Besides which, do you know understand how English works?
Who is this ingenious "Kung Fu Monkey" that I may subscribe to his newsletter?
Thanks for the cough-inducing guffaw..
Apparently you can subscribe (in a manner of speaking) to it here, and the others in this thread who attribute the Kung Fu Monkey quote to Paul Krugman are incorrect, as Krugman himself sources it to Kung Fu Monkey. And here I was about to correct the Atomic Rabbit's attribution. Thank goodness for Googling first.
The real test of your work is in other scientists' response to it. And that can take a long time to sort out - years or even decades. Science works slowly, but so what? Speed isn't the goal. The goal is to work out the right answer, however long that takes.
MAJIKTHISE: We are philosophers.
VROOMFONDEL: But we may not be.
MAJIKTHISE: Yes we are!
VROOMFONDEL: Sorry.
MAJIKTHISE: We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and other professional thinking persons.
VROOMFONDEL: Mm-hmm.
MAJIKTHISE: And we want this machine off, and we want it off now. . . .
VROOMFONDEL: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
DEEP THOUGHT: Might I make an observation at this point?
MAJIKTHISE: You keep out of this metal nose.
VROOMFONDEL: We demand that that machine not be allowed to think about this problem!
DEEP THOUGHT: If I might make an observation
MAJIKTHISE: We’ll go on strike!
VROOMFONDEL: That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT: Who will that inconvenience?
MAJIKTHISE: Never you mind who it’ll inconvenience you box of black legging binary bits! It’ll hurt, buster! It’ll hurt!
DEEP THOUGHT: [Booming] If I might make an observation All I wanted to say is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to computing the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
VROOMFONDEL: That’s a -
MAJIKTHISE: Ahhh! With -
DEEP THOUGHT: But, but the program will take me seven-and-a-half million years to run.
LUNKWILL: Seven-and-a-half million years?
MAJIKTHISE: Seven-and-a-half million years? What are you talking about?
DEEP THOUGHT: Yes. I said I’d have to think about it didn’t I? . . .
So I guess we see science and philosophy aren't in conflict after all...
If I don't give her enough credit, it's because I stopped reading her political essays after the third or fourth time in a row I saw her do the "people who disagree with my argument just don't get it!" thing. I'd say that's her fault, not mine.
The worst offense was when she said to the critics of her statement that "no rational woman would want to be President" that the only reason they were arguing with her was that they missed the word "rational" in her statement, and she then proceeded to redefine "rational" in just the perfect way to make her argument sound respectable...until you realized it all depended on rational being defined in that batshit-crazy way, and that she was telling you flat-out that you didn't understand reality unless you accepted her definition of "rational".
Also, all monopolies are created by government intervention and if you think even a single monopoly can ever arise in a laissez-faire market you're an idiot? That's such a big whopper it can almost be disproven a priori, yet she has the gall to insinuate it's self-evidently true. She didn't even introduce any historical evidence to support a causal link between government and monopoly in that essay, she just expected us to go with her assertion as though she were a world-renowned historian. Why the hell should I keep reading someone who writes like that, just to eventually get to the point where she (supposedly) engages in actual debate? If she gets a dearth of credit, it's only because she actively discourages it.
I don't push for laws to be made, I just give friendly suggestions and hope that fixes the problem. If not, I get over it. You should try it some time, it works really well.
Laws affect other people whether you're friendly about it or not. I'll agree to disagree when you agree to stop forcing your choices on me.
When did I ever force a choice on you? Name one. Any one. Go ahead.
Better; she grew up in a decidedly non-lassiez-faire system and learned that reality all too well.
Cue the apologists blithering about how Leninism/Stalinism is not the same as Marxism.
Would you settle for how the New Deal is not the same as Marxism? Gosh, you make it sound like Marxism-Leninism is the only system Rand criticized, or something.
I blame typing while simultaneously eating brussels sprouts for that one.
Better; she grew up in a decidedly non-lassiez-faire system and learned that reality all too well.
Cue the apologists blithering about how Leninism/Stalinism is not the same as Marxism.
Would you settle for how the New Deal is not the same as Marxism? Gosh, you make it sound like Marxism-Leninism is the only system Rand studied, or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you use a hex digit.... C++0B ....
But if you were using hex, the hexidecade would be the 7B0s, not the 2000s. So it would have to be C++BB, or generically, C++Bx.
I'm just going to float this out there. It's not really relevant to the article, nor is it particularly valuable to any discussion, but the discoverer of the Voorwerp, Hanny Van Arkely, is absolutely lovely. Many 'dotters could probably kill an hour or two sifting through her images on Google.
Not to mention, she's an amateur sterrenkundige. If that doesn't get a nerd hot and bothered, I don't know what will.
Star Trek?! Hand over your geek card, now!
*whoosh*
Maybe you should hand over yours?
Rimmer: Because if we called it "a time hole" we'd get in an argument and then crash into it.
If the mere presence of the word "excited" is enough to turn something into a sexual innuendo, I think that's a sign you need to get laid.
Wait... what? There are articles?
Are you talking about Slashdot or Playboy?
Where do you get the k?
Of course by this point it really should be called the imminent C++1x standard.
Does that include people who are offended by other peoples morals?
Only if they're easily offended by other people's morals. If they're offended by others' morals only when said morals go to great lengths to offend, then no.
Man, that dumbass was so wrong, because, of course, Japanese never buy Fords and Americans never buy Toyotas, and Europeans never buy Dodges, and Americans never buy Volkswagens.
Hmm - speaking as a European who can't remember the last time he saw a Dodge, he might have been off on a few things... :)
Shit, yeah, not knowing what they drive in Europe I had to pick one at random and trust my luck...if it's any aid to Krugman's reputation, those specific examples aren't in his theory.
Ok, how about when he called for a housing bubble in 2003 to "fix" the fallout from the Tech bubble?
This is a vicious lie perpetuated by free-market fundamentalists determined to carry out hit jobs on anyone that disagrees with them. Krugman never called for a housing bubble. He said "Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble," as a rhetorical device to point out the absurdity of Greenspan going around creating all these bubbles. In that very same article where he, according to you, called for a housing bubble, he pointed out that the 2001 recession was caused by irrational exuberance (i.e. bubbles) and that creating more bubbles (like a housing bubble) would just be more irrational exuberance and would therefore be unstable. Heaven forbid anyone should ever try to use reductio ad absurdum or play devil's advocate around you people, you'll take any sentence out of the middle of the argument and treat it like it's that person's gospel truth for the rest of their lives.
Further, it was not the complex derivatives markets that caused the subprime collapse, it was the FRAUD perpetrated by the lending originators.
Are you fucking stupid? Do you not understand how all of economics works? If you create an incentive to do something, people will do it. Lending originators only had an incentive to falsify borrower's capacity to repay because they could sell the loans to others who wouldn't examine their methods or the facts because those others were chopping up the loans to sell to others. If loan originators had to hold onto the loans they had made, there would be no incentive for fraud because they would be de-frauding themselves. Therefore, IF IT WAS THE FRAUD by the originators that caused the collapse, THEN IT WAS THE DERIVATIVES MARKET that caused the collapse as well, because the fraud was wholly caused by the derivatives market giving incentive to fraud.
Those derivative markets were just the bagholders.
Uh, yeah, no. They were the ones saying, "Hey, sell us a bunch of shit and we'll buy it! It's ok because the market will never, ever go down!"
The banks didn't "allow" anything, it was the Fed's artificially low rates combined with Congress' push to allow anyone with a pulse to "liv the American Dream" and get loans they couldn't afford.
Except that the vast majority of the loans that went bad leading up to the crisis never would have been made--could not possibly have been made--if the exact same artificially low rates had been present but the complex derivatives markets had been absent.
Well, there's the part where you imply criticizing all government regulation is wrong or a bad thing.
I didn't do that either. The discussion was over Rand's basis for criticizing all deviations from laissez-faire capitalism. It is simply a fact that she criticized government regulation generally by drawing on her experiences with the most extreme kind thereof. I merely (re-) pointed that out.
It's not like we elect the best and brightest to public office; we just elect the ones with the best soundbites.
No shit. What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
I trust American politicians as far as I can throw them, and that isn't every far even if I cheat and use a trebuchet.
I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't even trust them as far as I can shove, and I assume you can throw a good deal farther than I can shove.
In which bizarro plane of the Multiverse did Ayn Rand grow up under FDR instead of the Bolsheviks?
None. Nobody said she did. She staunchly criticized all government regulation based on her experiences growing up in Red Russia, which she generalized to all non-laissez-faire systems. What part of that is hard to understand?
Quote from fishexe (168879):
How about you shut up because you make shitty arguments? I'd say that's a much better reason.
Of course. We've already established that you're so smart I shouldn't make my own decisions
We've also established that you're so smart, that you didn't even realize the person you just responded to wasn't me.
You should check out the rest of the thread. Apparently five posts later he still hasn't figured it out.
Did you miss the first part of that sentence? When you force me to only go to the businesses you approve of (like hospitals in this case). Do you know understand how government works?
First part of which sentence? When did I propose forcing you to go to a hospital I approve of? Besides which, do you know understand how English works?
Who is this ingenious "Kung Fu Monkey" that I may subscribe to his newsletter?
Thanks for the cough-inducing guffaw..
Apparently you can subscribe (in a manner of speaking) to it here, and the others in this thread who attribute the Kung Fu Monkey quote to Paul Krugman are incorrect, as Krugman himself sources it to Kung Fu Monkey. And here I was about to correct the Atomic Rabbit's attribution. Thank goodness for Googling first.
The real test of your work is in other scientists' response to it. And that can take a long time to sort out - years or even decades. Science works slowly, but so what? Speed isn't the goal. The goal is to work out the right answer, however long that takes.
MAJIKTHISE: We are philosophers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VROOMFONDEL: But we may not be.
MAJIKTHISE: Yes we are!
VROOMFONDEL: Sorry.
MAJIKTHISE: We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and other professional thinking persons.
VROOMFONDEL: Mm-hmm.
MAJIKTHISE: And we want this machine off, and we want it off now.
VROOMFONDEL: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
DEEP THOUGHT: Might I make an observation at this point?
MAJIKTHISE: You keep out of this metal nose.
VROOMFONDEL: We demand that that machine not be allowed to think about this problem!
DEEP THOUGHT: If I might make an observation
MAJIKTHISE: We’ll go on strike!
VROOMFONDEL: That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT: Who will that inconvenience?
MAJIKTHISE: Never you mind who it’ll inconvenience you box of black legging binary bits! It’ll hurt, buster! It’ll hurt!
DEEP THOUGHT: [Booming] If I might make an observation All I wanted to say is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to computing the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
VROOMFONDEL: That’s a -
MAJIKTHISE: Ahhh! With -
DEEP THOUGHT: But, but the program will take me seven-and-a-half million years to run.
LUNKWILL: Seven-and-a-half million years?
MAJIKTHISE: Seven-and-a-half million years? What are you talking about?
DEEP THOUGHT: Yes. I said I’d have to think about it didn’t I?
So I guess we see science and philosophy aren't in conflict after all...
You are forgiven.
No Popper attempted to resolve the problem of induction, most famously put forward my Hume...
No Popper attempted to resolve it? On the contrary, sir, I assure you at least one Popper did!
If I don't give her enough credit, it's because I stopped reading her political essays after the third or fourth time in a row I saw her do the "people who disagree with my argument just don't get it!" thing. I'd say that's her fault, not mine.
The worst offense was when she said to the critics of her statement that "no rational woman would want to be President" that the only reason they were arguing with her was that they missed the word "rational" in her statement, and she then proceeded to redefine "rational" in just the perfect way to make her argument sound respectable...until you realized it all depended on rational being defined in that batshit-crazy way, and that she was telling you flat-out that you didn't understand reality unless you accepted her definition of "rational".
Also, all monopolies are created by government intervention and if you think even a single monopoly can ever arise in a laissez-faire market you're an idiot? That's such a big whopper it can almost be disproven a priori, yet she has the gall to insinuate it's self-evidently true. She didn't even introduce any historical evidence to support a causal link between government and monopoly in that essay, she just expected us to go with her assertion as though she were a world-renowned historian. Why the hell should I keep reading someone who writes like that, just to eventually get to the point where she (supposedly) engages in actual debate? If she gets a dearth of credit, it's only because she actively discourages it.
I don't push for laws to be made, I just give friendly suggestions and hope that fixes the problem. If not, I get over it. You should try it some time, it works really well.
Laws affect other people whether you're friendly about it or not. I'll agree to disagree when you agree to stop forcing your choices on me.
When did I ever force a choice on you? Name one. Any one. Go ahead.
4) Killed by busses
I'm fairly sure there are quite a few more...
Dude. Just because you can put it into a car analogy, doesn't mean you should.
Better; she grew up in a decidedly non-lassiez-faire system and learned that reality all too well.
Cue the apologists blithering about how Leninism/Stalinism is not the same as Marxism.
Would you settle for how the New Deal is not the same as Marxism? Gosh, you make it sound like Marxism-Leninism is the only system Rand criticized, or something.
I blame typing while simultaneously eating brussels sprouts for that one.
Better; she grew up in a decidedly non-lassiez-faire system and learned that reality all too well.
Cue the apologists blithering about how Leninism/Stalinism is not the same as Marxism.
Would you settle for how the New Deal is not the same as Marxism? Gosh, you make it sound like Marxism-Leninism is the only system Rand studied, or something.