Good point. Instead, we got good looking genius boy.
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)
"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)
Huh? Name a time in history where this wasn't true? The best and brightest have been getting dumped on since time immemoriam (sp?).
I don't think this was true for most of history. I don't even think it was true for the early part of the 20th century. Doctors and scientists and engineers were admired or at least respected. In the 19th century, 'The Origin of Species' was a popular read. Don't forget the enlightenment, Confucius, the renaissance, the philosophers of Greece and Germany. In India and China, people work extremely hard to get into universities. It's the utmost honour to be the one from your villiage to get to go.
I'm caught between agreeing with you on this, and thinking that you just sound like a spoiled brat CxO who doesn't want to share any of "his hard-earned money" with his employees who did most of the real work.
In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard.
And why is this? What has changed about out culture that these things are no longer valued?
I wish I knew. When is the last time we as a people have been asked to sacrifice or had to sacrifice? That's not necessarily a bad thing, but my grandparents' generation lived through WWII and the great depression.
The secularists among us might argue that "religion" has affected math and science, but I think this a false argument.
I agree with you. Religion is not opposed to philosophy, science or thought. I think it is a culture that has. This culture tends (IMHO) to be a rabid form of the Christian right with a tribal 'we are better than you' attitude.
Speaking to what I know from personal experience, Christians are opposed to naturalism, but not math or science. My middle child, for example, is pursing advanced studies in MEMS. And, certainly, there used to be something called the Protestant work ethic.
The textbook in question stems from a lack of sophisticated thought. I would rate it more tribal and political than religious. I'd doubt it would hold up to real religious scrutiny.
'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).
So what caused the shift from an emphasis on inward appearance to outward? Why force as a tool of leadership, instead of love?
Force is faster. This is a society of convenience. The timing of TV's changed our perceptions. Love might take weeks, but blowing something up - that's seen to resolve in the alloted 1/2 hour or hour.
In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard. 'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).
Look at kids' movies and TV shows. The message is that all you have to do is believe in yourself. Nothing else. God forbid we ask these delicate flowers to do more than the minimum.
Prosperity is being taken as a birthright. I half wonder if the outcry against illegal aliens is due to the fact that these people work hard. The complainers may one day be expected to. Can't have that!
I suppose I did veer a bit off track. I think of DRM when I think of closed source software, because DRM is often used to enforce the purchase of such software.
In any case, the closed source model, discounting shareware and nagware uses the law of supply and demand as a business model. The law of supply and demand doesn't function well when you throw in the ability to make near infinite copies at a cost of nearly zero.
I wonder if they are teaching the dynamics of free software and the reasons why people would create such a thing.
For new, non-essential closed source software to be successful, it has to be really killer and neato. The reality is that the duration of its success is going to be limited in this economy due to pressures from not only open source, but other closed source software as well.
The web is a gift economy in many ways. Pay for doing a web search? Ha! Pay to translate Spanish into Finnish? Hunt around a little.
The law of supply and demand is warped when the supply (of zeros and ones) is effectively infinite. DRM exists to artificially set the supply back to a finite amount. I'm not making a value judgement about DRM but it seems like a difficult battle to win for its proponents.
I only know 6 on a first name basis. I must disclose that those are the ones not hired, but who had started their businesses.
Yes, the CEOs are hired by who they know. When was the last time you saw a posting for a CEO in the want ads, or someone saying 'Hire me for a CEO position'?
How could you possibly educate when you already 'know' what is in your audience's minds?
If you don't think the CEO's rolodex is not the most valuable of assets, tell me why.
If you are in with influential and talented people, you can
* assemble an effective team
* have your friends on wall street crow about your company
* get contracts
* make deals with other companies
* smooth the passage of loopholes and influence regulation
Call me crazy, but I'd totally make the guess that Clinton would have a more active roll in changing policy should signs warrent. Bush doesn't seem to have enough imagination or curiosity to do anything other than react.
I'm sorry, but that is flat out wrong. If you are poor and working several jobs, the tax prep you have to do is unbelievable and the burden is large.
And don't forget, the burden to the middle class is : I can't get that new flat screen TV. The smaller d burden to the poor is still : I can't afford the gas to get to work.
That being said, I believe overassisting the poor creates dependency and discourages real work.
We want to encourage the most productive members of society and not tax them more than the rest of us. The work of these people benefit both rich and poor.
That is why society gives them things - good schools, roads, security. The tax dollars of the poor are also used to benefit this more well off sector of the economy. Remember that.
These productive people usually start off with better odds. Those who start without the socially provided benefits of those well off can follow all the rules, work twice as hard and have worse odd of succeeding than the suburban kid who just sluffs along. Remember that. That is what pisses some off who then call for 'social justice'.
CEOs are hired for who they know, not what they know. Their contacts lead to favourable contracts and favours from politicians. In other words, they are the private sector version of politicians. These are frat people and as long as their staff can keep them out of making stupid decisions, they are worth it to the stockholders.
It's the exceptional CEO that knows about stuff as well as knowing about people.
Sorry, the property line is here and you may not cross without my permission.
It's too bad you probably don't know where this axiom comes from. However, it is not true, or at best misleading. When Russia troops crossed into Georgia, they did so with the permission of the Russian military command. Effectivly, when that command said the troops may cross the border, that is the only permission that mattered.
The ownership of the land is a found thing. You bought it from someone who bought it from someone. That land was initially either found or stolen. The only thing that makes it your land is that people with force who call themselves 'the government' will back you up on that. What more to it could there be?
The first 30,000$ of anyone's income is not taxed at all. Engineer a flat or slightly progressive (an odd thing to call it) curve beyond that.
Anyone on assistance takes a monthly test. If you have alcohol, tobacco or other drugs in your system, you do not get money that month. Try again next time.
Couple the above with eliminating the silly war on drugs.
Statute of Limitations? In Europe? What are you kidding? Just look at the mess with Gibraltar. "We used to own it, hundreds of years ago" cry the Spanish, who ad "that sunken treasure you found? Well, it belongs to us, buckos".
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Instead, we got good looking genius boy.
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)
"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)
Add to that philosophy
Huh? Name a time in history where this wasn't true? The best and brightest have been getting dumped on since time immemoriam (sp?).
I don't think this was true for most of history. I don't even think it was true for the early part of the 20th century. Doctors and scientists and engineers were admired or at least respected. In the 19th century, 'The Origin of Species' was a popular read. Don't forget the enlightenment, Confucius, the renaissance, the philosophers of Greece and Germany. In India and China, people work extremely hard to get into universities. It's the utmost honour to be the one from your villiage to get to go.
I'm caught between agreeing with you on this, and thinking that you just sound like a spoiled brat CxO who doesn't want to share any of "his hard-earned money" with his employees who did most of the real work.
Heh, if only! No, my parents are teachers and I'm just a coder. As to those top earnings, my opinions are expressed here : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=965813&cid=25028569
In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard.
And why is this? What has changed about out culture that these things are no longer valued?
I wish I knew. When is the last time we as a people have been asked to sacrifice or had to sacrifice? That's not necessarily a bad thing, but my grandparents' generation lived through WWII and the great depression.
The secularists among us might argue that "religion" has affected math and science, but I think this a false argument.
I agree with you. Religion is not opposed to philosophy, science or thought. I think it is a culture that has. This culture tends (IMHO) to be a rabid form of the Christian right with a tribal 'we are better than you' attitude.
Speaking to what I know from personal experience, Christians are opposed to naturalism, but not math or science. My middle child, for example, is pursing advanced studies in MEMS. And, certainly, there used to be something called the Protestant work ethic.
The textbook in question stems from a lack of sophisticated thought. I would rate it more tribal and political than religious. I'd doubt it would hold up to real religious scrutiny.
'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).
So what caused the shift from an emphasis on inward appearance to outward? Why force as a tool of leadership, instead of love?
Force is faster. This is a society of convenience. The timing of TV's changed our perceptions. Love might take weeks, but blowing something up - that's seen to resolve in the alloted 1/2 hour or hour.
I blame TV a lot, probably too much.
In the US, its not fashionable to know math or science. It's not fashionable to work hard. 'Being liked' is in. Girls are encouraged to look pretty and boys are encouraged to be force wielding leaders (to later wind up as PHB's?).
Look at kids' movies and TV shows. The message is that all you have to do is believe in yourself. Nothing else. God forbid we ask these delicate flowers to do more than the minimum.
Prosperity is being taken as a birthright. I half wonder if the outcry against illegal aliens is due to the fact that these people work hard. The complainers may one day be expected to. Can't have that!
I do enjoy European movies as well. Cold Fever (billed as THE BEST Icelandic/Japanese road movie of 1995. Arizona Dream.
Careful, someone in Hollywood heard you.
You'll get remakes which will be nothing like those movies. Don't worry, they'll make the Great Space Coaster and Different Strokes first.
I'd much rather see a good story with crappy special effects than a crappy story with good special effects.
I suppose I did veer a bit off track. I think of DRM when I think of closed source software, because DRM is often used to enforce the purchase of such software.
In any case, the closed source model, discounting shareware and nagware uses the law of supply and demand as a business model. The law of supply and demand doesn't function well when you throw in the ability to make near infinite copies at a cost of nearly zero.
I wonder if they are teaching the dynamics of free software and the reasons why people would create such a thing.
For new, non-essential closed source software to be successful, it has to be really killer and neato. The reality is that the duration of its success is going to be limited in this economy due to pressures from not only open source, but other closed source software as well.
The web is a gift economy in many ways. Pay for doing a web search? Ha! Pay to translate Spanish into Finnish? Hunt around a little.
The law of supply and demand is warped when the supply (of zeros and ones) is effectively infinite. DRM exists to artificially set the supply back to a finite amount. I'm not making a value judgement about DRM but it seems like a difficult battle to win for its proponents.
I only know 6 on a first name basis.
I must disclose that those are the ones not hired, but who had started their businesses.
Yes, the CEOs are hired by who they know. When was the last time you saw a posting for a CEO in the want ads, or someone saying 'Hire me for a CEO position'?
How could you possibly educate when you already 'know' what is in your audience's minds?
so you blame his sex life to Bush's utter incompetence?
All right. Educate.
If you don't think the CEO's rolodex is not the most valuable of assets, tell me why.
If you are in with influential and talented people, you can
* assemble an effective team
* have your friends on wall street crow about your company
* get contracts
* make deals with other companies
* smooth the passage of loopholes and influence regulation
That's damn valuable.
whatever works.
I'll take a sex scandal over the disastrous invasion of Iraq any day.
Clinton was regarded as a work-a-hollic who kept his eye on things and read every report to him.
Bush couldn't even be bothered to read a report entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike targets in the US' [ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ ].
Call me crazy, but I'd totally make the guess that Clinton would have a more active roll in changing policy should signs warrent. Bush doesn't seem to have enough imagination or curiosity to do anything other than react.
I'm sorry, but that is flat out wrong. If you are poor and working several jobs, the tax prep you have to do is unbelievable and the burden is large.
And don't forget, the burden to the middle class is : I can't get that new flat screen TV.
The smaller d burden to the poor is still : I can't afford the gas to get to work.
That being said, I believe overassisting the poor creates dependency and discourages real work.
Yes, I'm sure we're in the Clinton recession and Bush Jr inherited the budget surplus from his father.
wow, marked as flame bait? I sincerely didn't intend it to be flame bait.
I'd love to have a good discussion about the points. Is it really easier to bully than to challenge points or make points?
We want to encourage the most productive members of society and not tax them more than the rest of us. The work of these people benefit both rich and poor.
That is why society gives them things - good schools, roads, security. The tax dollars of the poor are also used to benefit this more well off sector of the economy. Remember that.
These productive people usually start off with better odds. Those who start without the socially provided benefits of those well off can follow all the rules, work twice as hard and have worse odd of succeeding than the suburban kid who just sluffs along. Remember that. That is what pisses some off who then call for 'social justice'.
CEOs are hired for who they know, not what they know. Their contacts lead to favourable contracts and favours from politicians. In other words, they are the private sector version of politicians. These are frat people and as long as their staff can keep them out of making stupid decisions, they are worth it to the stockholders.
It's the exceptional CEO that knows about stuff as well as knowing about people.
Sorry, the property line is here and you may not cross without my permission.
It's too bad you probably don't know where this axiom comes from. However, it is not true, or at best misleading.
When Russia troops crossed into Georgia, they did so with the permission of the Russian military command. Effectivly, when that command said the troops may cross the border, that is the only permission that mattered.
The ownership of the land is a found thing. You bought it from someone who bought it from someone. That land was initially either found or stolen. The only thing that makes it your land is that people with force who call themselves 'the government' will back you up on that. What more to it could there be?
The first 30,000$ of anyone's income is not taxed at all. Engineer a flat or slightly progressive (an odd thing to call it) curve beyond that.
Anyone on assistance takes a monthly test. If you have alcohol, tobacco or other drugs in your system, you do not get money that month. Try again next time.
Couple the above with eliminating the silly war on drugs.
"Hi, I'm the public. Do I have a right to know about these flaws?"
"No"
Statute of Limitations?
In Europe? What are you kidding? Just look at the mess with Gibraltar. "We used to own it, hundreds of years ago" cry the Spanish, who ad "that sunken treasure you found? Well, it belongs to us, buckos".