I'm not talking about infrastructure projects - aka public goods. These don't drive up prices of particular goods, services or financial products.
I'm talking about subsidies paid to people who then pass those through to a business entity. Those subsidies have the effects of helping the poor, harming the middle class and not having any impact on the wealthy, as I noted earlier.
And the way it will be corrected is by Congress delegating its authority to some small, unelected group of technocrats which controls policy. At that point, it becomes trivially easy to influence the small group of technocrats, and also to hide the influence.
Yet - instead of encouraging more "financial engineering" or business education, he selects the engineering school. Why I wonder? To avoid creating more competition? Maybe he realizes engineering is the thing that actually creates the real value in society? Other?
I found the selection of the engineering school intriguing.
What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity
Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."
Thank you.
The people in different regions evolved with different evolutionary pressures. This leads to different groups having different temperaments and values. Which in turns determines their culture. Not all groups have the temperaments or cultures suitable for Western-style democracy, it seems to me. And the American model is not necessarily the best in the world. The Chinese have a very different system which is extremely successful at improving their standard of living.
Also - there's no need to use a racial epithet, which conflates the realization that different groups are in fact different with racism. The temperament and values of one group are not necessarily the same as another group. I don't think there's anything wrong or controversial about this. It's just reality.
Trying to induce ambiguity into American - where none actually exists (see the hijacked airplane example) - is obfuscation for no apparent benefit. Forcing Americans to use more syllables to describe themselves is increasing the number of syllables - lowering signal to noise - for no benefit.
If an American wishes to describe himself based on continent, he would say he's a North American. A South American or Central American would do the same. Here's the USGS list of continents.
If they wish to describe themselves by country, there are already clear methods to convey that.
Lowering the signal to noise ratio of verbal communications won't help anyone it seems to me.
No, but then neither are the citizens of the USA the only Americans.
Actually, without a qualifier (i.e. "north", "south", "central"), citizens of the US are in fact the only "Americans". Since the name "America" is in the name of the country.
The best demonstration of this would be on a hijacked plane. When the terrorists ask, "Who here is an American?", rest assured that no Central or South American is going to raise his hand.
How about kidnapping kidnappers (i.e. putting them in jail, confining them against their will?)
What about robbing people (i.e. taking money from them against their will?)
Justice is about imposing commensurate costs on offenders and trying to prevent them from committing those same crimes again (at which the death penalty is exceedingly effective BTW).
That's why a single trader is being held for causing the flash crash, doing things that the big companies do, but making the mistake of not having political connections.
This is not about fair market competition. This is about winning at all costs, with the referees (politicians) are paid off by the wealthy players.
I would hope for that as a subject before something like programming.
I realize the stories of the young programmer hitting it big with a new website or app are very appealing, and sometimes people feel swathes of society are left out of that lottery because they don't know the first thing about programming. But it's still a very low percentage lottery.
Also, Zuckerberg et. al. don't like paying top programmers salaries like top lawyers or doctors receive.
I just finished my taxes. Going over the available deductions, I was (darkly) amused at how clearly organized interest groups get their pet deductions put in the federal and state tax codes.
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." -- James Carville.
The same statement is applicable to federal, state and local legislatures.
It doesn't even have to be "life-partner" - it could just be a partner or companionship. It's a big fork in the road - Is one looking just for sex, or is one looking for companionship in addition to sex.
I think I have an insight on homosexuality and transgenderism ("Oh boy, this should be good," you're thinking - no, no, I'm respectful and support their pursuit of happiness): So, I know this lesbian couple. One female is petite, very feminine, big boobs, quite traditionally attractive. The other partner is a more blocky sort, more male, big, has kind of a beer belly sort of female. She looks like a friend of mine, who's a guy, a former top high school athlete who's let himself go.
I thought - interesting how the petite woman is attracted to a shape that is reminiscent of a male, yet the target of the attraction is a female. I'm guessing there's got to be a pheromone that the petite one is attracted to - one part of her brain likes the male shape and image, but she's "turned on" by the female scent. And I suppose similar holds true for the bigger, more male partner, except she likes both the scent and the image of the female.
Coming back to the thread subject, I don't think a pure hetero male is going to be attracted to a transgender female, because the transgender female (XY chromosome) is not generating the female "scent". It might work for a bi male, but I seriously doubt it could for a pure hetero male.
Homosexuality I think is about a person being attracted to the "scent" of his own gender, first and foremost. Secondarily, what seems to differ is whether they're attracted to the image of the opposite sex represented by their own gender, or whether they're attracted to image of the same sex as well. Two separate channels, scent-attraction and image-attraction.
There are some horrific videos that come out of Latin American, from the drug cartels. No immolations yet, but all kinds of murders, beheadings especially.
His final moments were not private. They were watched and filmed by those torturing and killing him.
The only question is, will those moments only be watched by ISIS sympathizers, or by those opposed to ISIS as well?
Also, this man died like a soldier. His bravery and composure were epic. This man was at his best when the flames approached. I saw the mass beheading of the Syrian soldiers. Again, that was not private. And again, the bravery and composure of those men was a credit to them.
ISIS wants to show how ruthless and powerful they are. With every video, they wind up looking like sick, sadistic fucks. And their victims look like the honorable, brave ones. I'm not saying that for propaganda purposes. That's actually how these things look to me.
I at least never felt frightened after 9/11. I felt empathy for those 3000 people in the towers and on the airplanes, who were so senselessly murdered. I felt a deep anger at those who would do it. And I felt a deep desire to make sure it would not happen again.
Rules like: stay on the road; don't sweat flying trashbags; stop at red stop lights; don't run into other vehicles; don't run off the road.
Computers are rule-based systems. They are really good at following rules. It is the only thing they can do. If this, do that. Do that X many times or until Y. So beef up the rule sets, improve the sensors, and voila, you have a safe driving system.
Now, I don't know if sensor technology is up to the task yet, or even if we have enough computing power. But the act of driving is something computers could potentially do very well, because it is a rules-based act.
The first year, you sock away $2,000 in your low-risk index mutual fund. At the end of the year, the money has earned you $180, so at the end of the first year you have $2,180 from that first year. You add $2,000 more from not buying coffee, which is $4,180. Over the next year, that earns $376 of dividends or interest, for $4556 total. Your money expands exponentially!
Even if you just put away $2,000 ONCE, then never add to it, in 40 years that $2,000 turns into $62,819.10. This is how most millionaires became millionaires - by putting away about $200-$500 per month.
All I can say is, approach these kinds of rosy scenarios with caution. My experience in the market was putting in a healthy chunk of change in a low-risk index fund, letting it sit for a decade, then pulling out a little bit more. The interest rate was commensurate with a bank savings account.
YMMV, but the big thing to remember is that trends do not continue linearly in perpetuity. I personally know smart people who swear by the stock market, and dollar cost averaging into a risking market makes one look like an investment genius. But there is a non-trivial amount of luck involved too, with picking the right fund/stocks and timing the market. There's a lot of market manipulation nowadays too.
Over the past 30 years, we've had an epic bull market. People who started investing in the 80s made out like bandits. However, that past performance is no guarantee of future gains. IMO, understand the 'why' of stocks - what exactly they are, and how they will generate currency for you.
This is more like "conflation" rather than "dog-whistle" racism. You get people agreeing with your speech and then throw in something discordant. They want to agree with the majority of your statement, and it order to do so, it seems like they're agreeing with the discordant note as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about infrastructure projects - aka public goods. These don't drive up prices of particular goods, services or financial products.
I'm talking about subsidies paid to people who then pass those through to a business entity. Those subsidies have the effects of helping the poor, harming the middle class and not having any impact on the wealthy, as I noted earlier.
Government interventions where they pump money into markets on behalf of the poor do three things:
1) They help the poor.
2) They harm the middle class.
3) They have no impact on the wealthy.
Education, housing, medical care - government pumping money into the system just drives up prices to the detriment of those with moderate incomes.
Then Wall Street can step and say, "Hey, debt! I mean how much is your life (or your kid's future) worth to you? That's how much it'll cost ya."
And the way it will be corrected is by Congress delegating its authority to some small, unelected group of technocrats which controls policy. At that point, it becomes trivially easy to influence the small group of technocrats, and also to hide the influence.
Paulson has no engineering background. His Harvard time was at its business school.
Yet - instead of encouraging more "financial engineering" or business education, he selects the engineering school. Why I wonder? To avoid creating more competition? Maybe he realizes engineering is the thing that actually creates the real value in society? Other?
I found the selection of the engineering school intriguing.
Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."
Thank you.
The people in different regions evolved with different evolutionary pressures. This leads to different groups having different temperaments and values. Which in turns determines their culture. Not all groups have the temperaments or cultures suitable for Western-style democracy, it seems to me. And the American model is not necessarily the best in the world. The Chinese have a very different system which is extremely successful at improving their standard of living.
Also - there's no need to use a racial epithet, which conflates the realization that different groups are in fact different with racism. The temperament and values of one group are not necessarily the same as another group. I don't think there's anything wrong or controversial about this. It's just reality.
Trying to induce ambiguity into American - where none actually exists (see the hijacked airplane example) - is obfuscation for no apparent benefit. Forcing Americans to use more syllables to describe themselves is increasing the number of syllables - lowering signal to noise - for no benefit.
If an American wishes to describe himself based on continent, he would say he's a North American. A South American or Central American would do the same. Here's the USGS list of continents.
If they wish to describe themselves by country, there are already clear methods to convey that.
Lowering the signal to noise ratio of verbal communications won't help anyone it seems to me.
No, but then neither are the citizens of the USA the only Americans.
Actually, without a qualifier (i.e. "north", "south", "central"), citizens of the US are in fact the only "Americans". Since the name "America" is in the name of the country.
The best demonstration of this would be on a hijacked plane. When the terrorists ask, "Who here is an American?", rest assured that no Central or South American is going to raise his hand.
Saying USAians or US Americans makes you sound like Miss South Carolina.
I'd be inclined to believe life in prison is a harsher penalty when lifers en masse start trying to have their sentences "reduced" to death.
If incarceration is a deterrent, it seems exceedingly likely that the harsher punishment of the death penalty would be as well.
How about kidnapping kidnappers (i.e. putting them in jail, confining them against their will?)
What about robbing people (i.e. taking money from them against their will?)
Justice is about imposing commensurate costs on offenders and trying to prevent them from committing those same crimes again (at which the death penalty is exceedingly effective BTW).
See also: List of countries by homicide rate.
Looks like the countries with the highest homicide rates don't have the death penalty.
That's why Aleynikov has been hounded for the past several years and no banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.
That's why a single trader is being held for causing the flash crash, doing things that the big companies do, but making the mistake of not having political connections.
This is not about fair market competition. This is about winning at all costs, with the referees (politicians) are paid off by the wealthy players.
I would hope for that as a subject before something like programming.
I realize the stories of the young programmer hitting it big with a new website or app are very appealing, and sometimes people feel swathes of society are left out of that lottery because they don't know the first thing about programming. But it's still a very low percentage lottery.
Also, Zuckerberg et. al. don't like paying top programmers salaries like top lawyers or doctors receive.
I just finished my taxes. Going over the available deductions, I was (darkly) amused at how clearly organized interest groups get their pet deductions put in the federal and state tax codes.
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." -- James Carville.
The same statement is applicable to federal, state and local legislatures.
It doesn't even have to be "life-partner" - it could just be a partner or companionship. It's a big fork in the road - Is one looking just for sex, or is one looking for companionship in addition to sex.
I think I have an insight on homosexuality and transgenderism ("Oh boy, this should be good," you're thinking - no, no, I'm respectful and support their pursuit of happiness): So, I know this lesbian couple. One female is petite, very feminine, big boobs, quite traditionally attractive. The other partner is a more blocky sort, more male, big, has kind of a beer belly sort of female. She looks like a friend of mine, who's a guy, a former top high school athlete who's let himself go.
I thought - interesting how the petite woman is attracted to a shape that is reminiscent of a male, yet the target of the attraction is a female. I'm guessing there's got to be a pheromone that the petite one is attracted to - one part of her brain likes the male shape and image, but she's "turned on" by the female scent. And I suppose similar holds true for the bigger, more male partner, except she likes both the scent and the image of the female.
Coming back to the thread subject, I don't think a pure hetero male is going to be attracted to a transgender female, because the transgender female (XY chromosome) is not generating the female "scent". It might work for a bi male, but I seriously doubt it could for a pure hetero male.
Homosexuality I think is about a person being attracted to the "scent" of his own gender, first and foremost. Secondarily, what seems to differ is whether they're attracted to the image of the opposite sex represented by their own gender, or whether they're attracted to image of the same sex as well. Two separate channels, scent-attraction and image-attraction.
"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
There are some horrific videos that come out of Latin American, from the drug cartels. No immolations yet, but all kinds of murders, beheadings especially.
His final moments were not private. They were watched and filmed by those torturing and killing him.
The only question is, will those moments only be watched by ISIS sympathizers, or by those opposed to ISIS as well?
Also, this man died like a soldier. His bravery and composure were epic. This man was at his best when the flames approached. I saw the mass beheading of the Syrian soldiers. Again, that was not private. And again, the bravery and composure of those men was a credit to them.
ISIS wants to show how ruthless and powerful they are. With every video, they wind up looking like sick, sadistic fucks. And their victims look like the honorable, brave ones. I'm not saying that for propaganda purposes. That's actually how these things look to me.
I at least never felt frightened after 9/11. I felt empathy for those 3000 people in the towers and on the airplanes, who were so senselessly murdered. I felt a deep anger at those who would do it. And I felt a deep desire to make sure it would not happen again.
Rules like: stay on the road; don't sweat flying trashbags; stop at red stop lights; don't run into other vehicles; don't run off the road.
Computers are rule-based systems. They are really good at following rules. It is the only thing they can do. If this, do that. Do that X many times or until Y. So beef up the rule sets, improve the sensors, and voila, you have a safe driving system.
Now, I don't know if sensor technology is up to the task yet, or even if we have enough computing power. But the act of driving is something computers could potentially do very well, because it is a rules-based act.
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through Congress, you never know what you'll find."
(Original here)
edit: "and dollar cost averaging into a RISING market makes one look like an investment genius."
All I can say is, approach these kinds of rosy scenarios with caution. My experience in the market was putting in a healthy chunk of change in a low-risk index fund, letting it sit for a decade, then pulling out a little bit more. The interest rate was commensurate with a bank savings account.
YMMV, but the big thing to remember is that trends do not continue linearly in perpetuity. I personally know smart people who swear by the stock market, and dollar cost averaging into a risking market makes one look like an investment genius. But there is a non-trivial amount of luck involved too, with picking the right fund/stocks and timing the market. There's a lot of market manipulation nowadays too.
Over the past 30 years, we've had an epic bull market. People who started investing in the 80s made out like bandits. However, that past performance is no guarantee of future gains. IMO, understand the 'why' of stocks - what exactly they are, and how they will generate currency for you.
This is more like "conflation" rather than "dog-whistle" racism. You get people agreeing with your speech and then throw in something discordant. They want to agree with the majority of your statement, and it order to do so, it seems like they're agreeing with the discordant note as well.