And the Universe is powered by stupidity... I don't know how it is possible that, not only could say that a bullet causes a wake due to electromagnetic force, but that a mod actually believed that bullshit.
Every day I find a little gem on Slashdot, and today this was it.
don't forget that the maintenance of stable and predictable political, legal, and police systems is what makes it possible for "the poor" to use the government as their agent to steal my hard earned money in the first place.
Oh, I see... Because your "hard-earned money" flew spontaneously right out of your butt, without the requirement or assistance of those thieving systems, right? You'd do just fine with no enforceable legal rights, no contracts other than what you can enforce yourself through threat of violence, no banking system or stable currency, and no "right" to property beyond what you can physically defend yourself. Think of all of the investment and business formation that would occur in such a place, unfettered by government or legal institutions.
Places like that - or nearly so - do exist on this earth. You could live like a King.
Hey, I'm not criticizing "the rich" at all. I'd like to be more like them myself in at least some ways.
My point was merely that they benefit disproportionately from living in a stable and civilized society, and ought not to whine when they are asked to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining it.
They don't know what to do, they only know something drastic has to be done. So, they throw out the executives they don't like, and shuffle the others around.
That's pretty common in business. The last thing you want to be accused of as an exec is being passive in the face of danger, and so any action is better than none (which is arguably true!). Sometimes reorganization - even aimless reorganization - is the one tool you have in your box, and the adage about everything looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer applies.
My ex once worked at a company that went through panic reorganizations no less than every 6 months or so, and that went on for years. It got to the point that no one knew what their job was or who they were supposed to be reporting to anymore (except that you could count on both being different in a few months). It was a happy day for both of us when she got out of there...
Tax breaks for the rich?! DUH only the rich can get 'em cause the botom 50% is getting the money.
When you calculate who benefits from government and its expenditures, don't forget that the maintenance of stable and predictable political, legal, and police systems is what makes it possible for "the rich" to accumulate and secure their wealth and property in the first place. Then you can throw in the maintenance and expansion of infrastructure, and yes, the military as well, since it is used more to advance our economic and business interests than to defend our "freedom" in any broad sense. Those things are the costs of Civilization, and they're largely what separates the first from the third worlds.
A "welfare mother" may get a few dollars to heat her apartment and feed her children, but compared to the extent that the rest of us benefit from not living in, say, Somalia, it's really small potatoes.
Oh for the love of God, someone please give me this test. I'd love to take it.
And I, for the love of everything Holy, would love to see your results. Don't worry, though; there will always be some deficiency in another part of the system that can explain any failure of the "golden ear".
But since you asked... Try googling on "audiophile bullshit". Someone used to maintain an entire site dedicated to that, but I'm sure there are others.
Read John Rawls, don't attribute that to Warren Buffett (who does seem to be a good guy regardless, but not a philosopher-king).
The fact that he knows and repeated it is enough for me; I wouldn't expect a Super Rich Presidential Candidate to have originated all of his ideas. We're talking about politics here, not academics.
If I were going to vote for a Super Rich Guy President, Warren Buffett might deserve a look. I've seen/read a few interviews, and was fairly impressed.
A point he made once that was worth remembering (paraphrasing a bit)...
Imagine that you're still unborn, in the womb, and are given the opportunity to choose the kind of world in which you'll be living after you're born. The only catch is that you can't know the circumstances of your birth - rich/poor, black/white, European/Somalian, healthy/sick, etc. Now, what kind of world do you choose when you have no idea where you'll fit into it? Buffett said that's the world you should be striving for.
Dreadful mortality rate brought to you courtesy of Islamofascism via generous donations from Syria and Iran.
Yes, I'm sure that peace will settle upon the region like a cuddly warm blanket once we convince those people to just choose the right religion and cheerfully accept western domination. And what better way to do that than with a lean & mean occupation army and the latest Rumsfeldian techno-wizardry? What could possibly go wrong, unless Iraqi minds are poisoned by outside agitators like Al-Qaida and the bogeymen of Iran and Syria? I can't think of a single thing.
That about sums it up. Why so many people would be sitting around bitching about all the free stuff that's available to them is beyond me. I've used FOSS almost exclusively for years, and I've always been able to do what I needed (or wanted) to get done, with no complaint. No one can withdraw it from the market, or refuse to allow me to customize it to my needs (or pay others to do so), and no one demands the right to shut me down and audit my computers looking for license irregularities.
But, I think there are people out there that are big-time cognitively dissonant about FOSS. They're the ones paying big bucks and putting up with abusive licensing terms for proprietary software when perfectly viable FOSS equivalents exist. If they can't rag on the free alternatives, then they have no recourse but to feel like idiots for bending over and dropping their pants. Ergo, FOSS must be useless and evil.
But as I always tell them, even if you choose to go the proprietary route, think of how much more difficult your software vendor might be to deal with if FOSS didn't exist...
How much effort do you expend just to shave ten minutes off your commute? Or to save three minutes standing in line? What, then, would 33 extra years be worth?
On the other hand, look at how much we spend on entertainment and such just to kill the time before we die! Yes, some of it may be actually enjoyable, but most of us spend a lot of time watching crap just because it's on.
And here's another thing to consider: How much of that extra time will actually be yours? Think of how much more of your time employers will expect, once you free up those 6-8 hours per night. We'll be looking at standard 12-14 hour workdays, and use of the drug will be virtually mandatory to be competitive in the workplace.
What gives? Why do you people keep going back to these places? What could possibly be in there that makes it worth it?
Doesn't matter, really. People are going for the illusion of being special and to be around other people who share that illusion. Our need to distinguish ourselves from the masses results in all kinds of desperate (and ultimately pointless) consumer behavior, but it does prop up the economy nicely.
And don't say "pussy," because in my experience any major metropolitan area is pretty much choked with good-looking women, wherever you go.
True, but they do tend to clot more in some places than in others...
Re:fallacies don't exist within methodologies
on
You Call This Agile?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Formal methodologies won't save you from poor management, but they do serve to get everyone associated with a project on "the same page". I'm often skeptical of the claims made for one methodology vs. the next, but they all look pretty good compared to nothing.
You have to wonder whether those - like the RIAA and MPAA - that are pushing for ever more restrictive copyright laws are going to find that they've gone a bridge too far and wind up in a worse position than where they started. For example, I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people who run afoul of laws like this, as is their right. Once that starts happening, they can buy all of the laws they want and it won't do them any good.
Terrorist today: "Someone who uses death and destruction to instill fear, thus gaining political advantage/goals"
I'm speaking of implicit, operational definitions, not the dictionary one. Has any government ever applied the term to itself or its friends, even when the defining criteria are clearly met? It's become a propaganda word, rendered nearly meaningless by its selective application.
Thanks for the advice about my head, though. The air is so much fresher out here...
If the leadership performs actions ill-desired by the Israeli people, they have and will use their political power to prevent them from being in power
Well that is how representative democracy is supposed to work, isn't it? It's a good thing that no one has figured out how to manipulate public perception and opinion, because if anyone ever had it would make your assertion irrelevant.
I'm to the point that I don't think a politician can get on the ballot without being corrupted.
A friend of mine ran for congress in the election just past, on almost no money at all. She was able to get the nomination largely because she's a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, so the heavy hitters weren't interested. Even when the race got unexpectedly close, the party refused to assist her in any way - not even returning phone calls - on the basis of historical voting patterns in the district, completely ignoring the problems that her Republican opponent was having. In the end, she was outspent something like 100:1 (refusing to accept corporate contributions), and lost by something like 4 percentage points.
I'll never know if she would have been "incorruptible" in office had she won, or if she'd ever have been able to get anything done there, but it would have been interesting to see.
It will not be only for terrorists. We will soon have "terrorists" and our political and business leaders simply picked off by a small, unseen remote controlled insect carrying a poison payload.
It would be a great tool for whoever gets to define what (and who) a "terrorist" is. A good definition would be: a person who opposes the interests of those who control these things. That's not far from the implicit definition we use today.
Don't forget that it's the permanent state of war there that keeps the gigadollars flowing in year after year. The Israeli people may want peace for the most part, but the motivations of the leadership may be more complex than that.
And if you've ever wondered about all of the seemingly boneheaded things the U.S. has done in Iraq to turn the population against us and perpetuate the conflict, consider that there are powerful interests vested in making the war there permanent as well. It's the most privatized war ever, and when it stops so does the gravy train.
Actually, we as taxpayers should demand that all government programs be more entertaining for the masses. As it is now, all we have is an occasional space mission and perpetual war. Surely the Department of Agriculture can whip up some excitement to keep those tax dollars flowing.
Of course, besides being scientifically unjustifiable, a manned asteroid mission will carry significant risk, so part of NASA's planning will have to include a spin campaign if something goes wrong. Most of "the masses" won't care any more about the asteroid mission than they do about the ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely the conservative would replace the bulb quickly to put things back the way they are.
The liberal would seek to embrace the new darkness and accuse those who complain as non-pc conservatives who resist all change.
Issues like global warming suggest the opposite, though...
And the Universe is powered by stupidity... I don't know how it is possible that, not only could say that a bullet causes a wake due to electromagnetic force, but that a mod actually believed that bullshit.
Every day I find a little gem on Slashdot, and today this was it.
don't forget that the maintenance of stable and predictable political, legal, and police systems is what makes it possible for "the poor" to use the government as their agent to steal my hard earned money in the first place.
Oh, I see... Because your "hard-earned money" flew spontaneously right out of your butt, without the requirement or assistance of those thieving systems, right? You'd do just fine with no enforceable legal rights, no contracts other than what you can enforce yourself through threat of violence, no banking system or stable currency, and no "right" to property beyond what you can physically defend yourself. Think of all of the investment and business formation that would occur in such a place, unfettered by government or legal institutions.
Places like that - or nearly so - do exist on this earth. You could live like a King.
Hey, I'm not criticizing "the rich" at all. I'd like to be more like them myself in at least some ways.
My point was merely that they benefit disproportionately from living in a stable and civilized society, and ought not to whine when they are asked to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining it.
They don't know what to do, they only know something drastic has to be done. So, they throw out the executives they don't like, and shuffle the others around.
That's pretty common in business. The last thing you want to be accused of as an exec is being passive in the face of danger, and so any action is better than none (which is arguably true!). Sometimes reorganization - even aimless reorganization - is the one tool you have in your box, and the adage about everything looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer applies.
My ex once worked at a company that went through panic reorganizations no less than every 6 months or so, and that went on for years. It got to the point that no one knew what their job was or who they were supposed to be reporting to anymore (except that you could count on both being different in a few months). It was a happy day for both of us when she got out of there...
Tax breaks for the rich?! DUH only the rich can get 'em cause the botom 50% is getting the money.
When you calculate who benefits from government and its expenditures, don't forget that the maintenance of stable and predictable political, legal, and police systems is what makes it possible for "the rich" to accumulate and secure their wealth and property in the first place. Then you can throw in the maintenance and expansion of infrastructure, and yes, the military as well, since it is used more to advance our economic and business interests than to defend our "freedom" in any broad sense. Those things are the costs of Civilization, and they're largely what separates the first from the third worlds.
A "welfare mother" may get a few dollars to heat her apartment and feed her children, but compared to the extent that the rest of us benefit from not living in, say, Somalia, it's really small potatoes.
Oh for the love of God, someone please give me this test. I'd love to take it.
And I, for the love of everything Holy, would love to see your results. Don't worry, though; there will always be some deficiency in another part of the system that can explain any failure of the "golden ear".
But since you asked... Try googling on "audiophile bullshit". Someone used to maintain an entire site dedicated to that, but I'm sure there are others.
Read John Rawls, don't attribute that to Warren Buffett (who does seem to be a good guy regardless, but not a philosopher-king).
The fact that he knows and repeated it is enough for me; I wouldn't expect a Super Rich Presidential Candidate to have originated all of his ideas. We're talking about politics here, not academics.
If I were going to vote for a Super Rich Guy President, Warren Buffett might deserve a look. I've seen/read a few interviews, and was fairly impressed.
A point he made once that was worth remembering (paraphrasing a bit)...
Imagine that you're still unborn, in the womb, and are given the opportunity to choose the kind of world in which you'll be living after you're born. The only catch is that you can't know the circumstances of your birth - rich/poor, black/white, European/Somalian, healthy/sick, etc. Now, what kind of world do you choose when you have no idea where you'll fit into it? Buffett said that's the world you should be striving for.
Dreadful mortality rate brought to you courtesy of Islamofascism via generous donations from Syria and Iran.
Yes, I'm sure that peace will settle upon the region like a cuddly warm blanket once we convince those people to just choose the right religion and cheerfully accept western domination. And what better way to do that than with a lean & mean occupation army and the latest Rumsfeldian techno-wizardry? What could possibly go wrong, unless Iraqi minds are poisoned by outside agitators like Al-Qaida and the bogeymen of Iran and Syria? I can't think of a single thing.
...and engages 1,800 scientists from 165 universities and laboratories in 35 countries.
That's going to be quite an author list when they finally publish...
If you don't like it, then don't use it :)
That about sums it up. Why so many people would be sitting around bitching about all the free stuff that's available to them is beyond me. I've used FOSS almost exclusively for years, and I've always been able to do what I needed (or wanted) to get done, with no complaint. No one can withdraw it from the market, or refuse to allow me to customize it to my needs (or pay others to do so), and no one demands the right to shut me down and audit my computers looking for license irregularities.
But, I think there are people out there that are big-time cognitively dissonant about FOSS. They're the ones paying big bucks and putting up with abusive licensing terms for proprietary software when perfectly viable FOSS equivalents exist. If they can't rag on the free alternatives, then they have no recourse but to feel like idiots for bending over and dropping their pants. Ergo, FOSS must be useless and evil.
But as I always tell them, even if you choose to go the proprietary route, think of how much more difficult your software vendor might be to deal with if FOSS didn't exist...
How much effort do you expend just to shave ten minutes off your commute? Or to save three minutes standing in line? What, then, would 33 extra years be worth?
On the other hand, look at how much we spend on entertainment and such just to kill the time before we die! Yes, some of it may be actually enjoyable, but most of us spend a lot of time watching crap just because it's on.
And here's another thing to consider: How much of that extra time will actually be yours? Think of how much more of your time employers will expect, once you free up those 6-8 hours per night. We'll be looking at standard 12-14 hour workdays, and use of the drug will be virtually mandatory to be competitive in the workplace.
As for me, I'm going back to sleep.
What gives? Why do you people keep going back to these places? What could possibly be in there that makes it worth it?
Doesn't matter, really. People are going for the illusion of being special and to be around other people who share that illusion. Our need to distinguish ourselves from the masses results in all kinds of desperate (and ultimately pointless) consumer behavior, but it does prop up the economy nicely.
And don't say "pussy," because in my experience any major metropolitan area is pretty much choked with good-looking women, wherever you go.
True, but they do tend to clot more in some places than in others...
Formal methodologies won't save you from poor management, but they do serve to get everyone associated with a project on "the same page". I'm often skeptical of the claims made for one methodology vs. the next, but they all look pretty good compared to nothing.
You have to wonder whether those - like the RIAA and MPAA - that are pushing for ever more restrictive copyright laws are going to find that they've gone a bridge too far and wind up in a worse position than where they started. For example, I can see a day when juries will simply refuse to convict people who run afoul of laws like this, as is their right. Once that starts happening, they can buy all of the laws they want and it won't do them any good.
If juries weight this kind of evidence heavily enough to convict on the basis of it alone, then the false positive rate will be zero, by definition.
Terrorist today: "Someone who uses death and destruction to instill fear, thus gaining political advantage/goals"
I'm speaking of implicit, operational definitions, not the dictionary one. Has any government ever applied the term to itself or its friends, even when the defining criteria are clearly met? It's become a propaganda word, rendered nearly meaningless by its selective application.
Thanks for the advice about my head, though. The air is so much fresher out here...
If the leadership performs actions ill-desired by the Israeli people, they have and will use their political power to prevent them from being in power
Well that is how representative democracy is supposed to work, isn't it? It's a good thing that no one has figured out how to manipulate public perception and opinion, because if anyone ever had it would make your assertion irrelevant.
I'm to the point that I don't think a politician can get on the ballot without being corrupted.
A friend of mine ran for congress in the election just past, on almost no money at all. She was able to get the nomination largely because she's a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, so the heavy hitters weren't interested. Even when the race got unexpectedly close, the party refused to assist her in any way - not even returning phone calls - on the basis of historical voting patterns in the district, completely ignoring the problems that her Republican opponent was having. In the end, she was outspent something like 100:1 (refusing to accept corporate contributions), and lost by something like 4 percentage points.
I'll never know if she would have been "incorruptible" in office had she won, or if she'd ever have been able to get anything done there, but it would have been interesting to see.
It will not be only for terrorists. We will soon have "terrorists" and our political and business leaders simply picked off by a small, unseen remote controlled insect carrying a poison payload.
It would be a great tool for whoever gets to define what (and who) a "terrorist" is. A good definition would be: a person who opposes the interests of those who control these things. That's not far from the implicit definition we use today.
Maybe it is God, but working through human technologists this time. You'd think the old way would be more efficient, though...
Don't forget that it's the permanent state of war there that keeps the gigadollars flowing in year after year. The Israeli people may want peace for the most part, but the motivations of the leadership may be more complex than that.
And if you've ever wondered about all of the seemingly boneheaded things the U.S. has done in Iraq to turn the population against us and perpetuate the conflict, consider that there are powerful interests vested in making the war there permanent as well. It's the most privatized war ever, and when it stops so does the gravy train.
But he is not not stupid.
Your double negative baffles and confuses me...
Actually, we as taxpayers should demand that all government programs be more entertaining for the masses. As it is now, all we have is an occasional space mission and perpetual war. Surely the Department of Agriculture can whip up some excitement to keep those tax dollars flowing.
Of course, besides being scientifically unjustifiable, a manned asteroid mission will carry significant risk, so part of NASA's planning will have to include a spin campaign if something goes wrong. Most of "the masses" won't care any more about the asteroid mission than they do about the ISS.