Yes, the unions magically make things worse as the Bush tax cuts magically put us into recession. Fuck those poor people for wanted a say in their wages! They should slave all day and just make ME wealth while I pay them a pittance because I BUILT THIS without any help!
On the other hand, you have our pal who believes gubermint creates recessions because contracting and thus LOSING profit I would have had otherwise from better demand is better for us because I want to remove my worker's right so I can make MORE profit...makes sense...
I don't know, could recessions be caused by...gasp, actual market forces? No it has to be some nefarious plot by either the gubermint or corporations, economics be damned.
It's okay, your (plural you) only soapbox is slashdot. Loons from either side (save the Tea Party exterminsts) haven't made their way to a place where they can actually make important decisions, so I'll only mock your ignorance without worrying that you'll make decisions that will affect my day-to-day life.
But this is an example of where regulation is getting in the way. At least Bloomberg seems willing to get this resolved.
See, government is good in regulating at times as a neccessary evil (I can think of how the world collapsed after Glass-Steagal was repealed), but other times regulation just gets in the way. A way to discriminate is looking at motives: is this business trying to fuck over customers by the discriminations you mentioned? No, they are just trying to reach customers and be more convient. Were the big banks trying to set up an asymmetric ponzi scheme that isn't wise but will fuck over customers? Yes.
I agree with you bud, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but we do need to throw out the bath water:) In this case, the government is in the way and needs to get out of the way so a harmless business can prosper.
I shared it before, but this Congress has passed a pittance of actual legislation. The trade off is whether to have no work or at least something that works. The separation of powers was to avoid abuses, not to obstruct the government from running itself.
May be I'm just looking through my tainted glasses, but here's another example of failure of congress to do it's daily job that the Obama has to step in and issue another executive order. The spirit of Checks and Balances is being broken again because the government as a whole isn't doing its job.
Well, if the right (or Reid for that matter) keep this up, may be a Romney presidency will see at least some legislation passed since they at least have convinced themselves to like him--and may be there will finally be compromise. Who knows.
A wise physicist once said to me,"A perponderance of annecdotes is not evidence". Just because you saw some people on slashdot railing this or railing that means anything. For example, if you read any article on poor job reports and survery the comments, you think Romney's going to win the next election. Then, if you read an article on Romney's taxes and look at the replies, you think Obama's going to win.
How did the actual polls go? Dead heat, at least the last CNN/ORC poll I looked at (might have changed since then).
Not Jesus, it's his disciples after his ascension into heaven, but here's your citation from the Bible:
Acts 4:32-35
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Nature did this? You'd expect more sensible articles from them. Sigh, may be the journalists penning supposedly sensational journalism in what is supposed to be an academic journal should peer-review each other's work.
You do realize that some of Columbus' sailors thought that they would fall off the edge of the earth, right?
Just because some thinking elites of their day understood it doesn't mean the common man of the day did. It's like Newton's gravity and non-abelian gauge theory to explain QCD. Many people have some concept of the former but much less of the latter. Both are modern science (then again, Newton's wrong, but in general, yeah).
You were modded troll...unfortunately, some people can't spot obvious sarcasm. Poe's law etc, but I find jokes funnier when you don't have to explain it afterwards...
It is a good article. It sounds awfully partisan but I somewhat agree with the main point that the tea party holds a large stake in the blame. Still, there are two sides to every conflict so the continued blood spilling owes to dems too. I personally don't worry too much about the Presidency, well, full disclosure, I do lean towards Obama but even if Romney gets elected and shows his more moderate stance from, you know, before this whole shenanigan of moving to the right, I fear the tea party will even block him. I'm more worried about congress this coming election season.
I terribly disagree. Why do you care about who spends or who doesn't? Some of us don't care whether the government or the private sector spends, all that matters is that it gets us out of a recession. People who choose their favorite venue of demand (or supply) are simply singing on extraneous, philosophical things that matter for extraneous, philosophical reasons.
Let me explain with an analogy. There are some religious people who pray for healing of a sickness and perhaps would feel if they went to a doctor it would be a "lack of faith" on their part. Some of us don't care, we just want to live so we go to the doctor and do a subconcious cost-benefit analysis and conclude that they give results at least with a reliable probability so we go.
Now it's fine to believe if you want to but to go in and force your beliefs on everyone else because of their "lack of faith" is unfair.
I don't care about your small government, I don't care about your big government. All I care about is some government that works and actually does things. I know it might be hard to believe but Keynsianism and central banking usually works. It worked since the great moderation till the banking crisis so it has some history. It is costly, perhaps even more risky with the debt we have. But taking up a bill for the doctor is better than death, so be it. Take your idealism elsewhere.
I could rap on liberals too but they don't hold a majority of the house and keep things in disorder (well, Harry Reid kinda irks me but, yeah).
I was hinting at that. Dems haven't become any more partisan than they were previously but still, I don't believe it's all because of the part of No. IDK, may be I'm just trying to be "impartial" *shrug*.
You don't need to read it all, the first reason says it all. The entire point of congressional sessions is ot discuss and the whole point of discussion is to change minds. There is none of that from this congress and thus, they don't do their jobs but they get paid anyway.
That could work (at least just in a quick, slashdot comment reasoning pass) with the observation that quitting the herb didn't restore the IQ damage, perhaps the bad IQ behaviors didn't end? Or may be they took the place that weed one had?
As someone who tries to balance use of both sides of his brain, I understand your quandry. It seems a lot of the thinking types seem to have a disdain for these "Designers" and degrade them as useless, or even harmful, perhaps.
Well, think of it this way: Art students I've taken classes recognize the importance of the thinkers, they use a computer and photoshop, so they recognize it as a needed thing. However, they don't switch their major to one in computer science. Why? Because, well, it's not interesting or fulfilling, there's no feeling in it perhaps. Well that's what feelers feed off of, creativity. And while some thinking has creativity in an abstract sense, the arts have the more aesthetic visual appeal, so artists feel more fulfilled in that.
Well, try to flip that. Thinkers feed on precisely the opposite: preciseness, concreteness, definability and ability to discern more quantitatively and not just qualitatively.The thing is that the more feeling/creative stuff doesn't make any sense (unless you are a psychologist and understand how it affects choices, I guess). This is, however, a parrallel to how the thinking stuff doesn't have any soul in the eyes of the artists, I guess.
The only difference is that they are thinkers so they can rationalize their dislike while feelers can't do as well perhaps--at least in an argument on the internet--and not in as consistent a way. (Thinkers, remember, a logical system can be consistent and correct even when its axioms can be junk-full shit!).
I think part of the problem is there is no photoshop for the thinkers: the thing that makes them realize how important design and aesthetics is. I mean, there are examples(exhibit A: Apple. Whether or not you like them, their market share is undeniable; Good design is profitable), but may be they just choose to ignore it. I may be a little cynical here, but it might be that rationalizing process again that can help them ignore those examples. Remember, smarter people can be susceptible to biases, so I guess it is no surprise.
Not quite a hacker, but last night, I stayed up until 3 am doing a single Physics problem...and it's summer. I'm getting a leg up on the semester so I have time to study other things during the year. I don't really mean to brag, but after 6 months, I've basically taught myself through Quantum Field Theory. Although I could use some polishing, I've learned something most Physics students only get to in grad school(well, I should be starting graduate school this coming Fall but need to take another year). If I had a girlfriend, well, if I had any real responsibility other than to a loose job that requires only 4 hours a day at the time of my choosing, I wouldn't be able to binge-learn stuff like I have since my roommate moved out and I could study and read till wee hours to my hearts content.
After passing through a potential, you gain some kinetic. I mean, energy's conserved, right? The time I gain from not having a girlfriend gives me time for Physics while taking a little bit out of other things (companionship, sex, etc). In the end, it all balances. Might not be healthy, but for what I love, it's what I want.
What this whole thing suggests is give the kids something to do and then they'd stop smashing windows. Of course, if you forced a kid to tie thirty knots on thirty pieces of string, he'd be too occupied to do mischief. However, a girlfriend feels good, so they wouldn't complain too much.
This is slashdot, so I'm going to assume I can at least share some "mathy" parts of it (not really the whole thing).
The Higgs Field is represented by two complex numbers. It is a field, therefore, it has a value in every point in space, kind of like how the temperature across the world varies depending on where you are. In that example, the "temperature field", I'd guess, is represented by a real number at every point.
Now remember that each complex number can be written as two real ones given the form: z = a+bi therefore, technically, the Higgs field is not just two complex numbers but it can be thought of as four real numbers. So think of it as being a bundle field with four numbers for each point. Each number, turns out, becomes a particle.
So there are four particles that come out of the Higgs field. Three of them turn out to be components of the Weak bosons (W+, W-, Z_0), as needed to explain why they have mass while photons don't. But there is one field left. This is identified as a new boson, the Higgs Boson.
So, the Higgs Boson is actually just _part_ of the Higgs Field. It isn't like the photon, which is the particle of the whole EM field. Oddly enough, the Higgs Field itself is massless, I think. But the Higgs Boson recieves mass the same way the other three Weak bosons recieved mass, by the Higgs Mechanism.
Really, you can get all woowy with the conceptual part of the Higgs Mechanism but it really is just a neat math trick that I can't really explain here. Essentially, you start with a mathematically description of the particles with mc^2=0 (remember Einstien's equation, E=mc^2 for the energy stored in mass), ie, the particles are massless. After the math trick involving the Higgs Field (not just the Higgs Boson!) you obtain a term that looks like mc^2, so it's like the mass term arises spontaneously without having to put it in there a priori. Hence how we say the particle has "acquired" mass: We started out modeling out particles as massless but all of a sudden, the math tells us it has it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the unions magically make things worse as the Bush tax cuts magically put us into recession. Fuck those poor people for wanted a say in their wages! They should slave all day and just make ME wealth while I pay them a pittance because I BUILT THIS without any help!
On the other hand, you have our pal who believes gubermint creates recessions because contracting and thus LOSING profit I would have had otherwise from better demand is better for us because I want to remove my worker's right so I can make MORE profit...makes sense...
I don't know, could recessions be caused by...gasp, actual market forces? No it has to be some nefarious plot by either the gubermint or corporations, economics be damned.
It's okay, your (plural you) only soapbox is slashdot. Loons from either side (save the Tea Party exterminsts) haven't made their way to a place where they can actually make important decisions, so I'll only mock your ignorance without worrying that you'll make decisions that will affect my day-to-day life.
Alright, .5 out of 2, so the courts are out on that one.
You wouldn't happen to believe that global warming isn't man made or that we never landed on the moon, would you?
But this is an example of where regulation is getting in the way. At least Bloomberg seems willing to get this resolved.
See, government is good in regulating at times as a neccessary evil (I can think of how the world collapsed after Glass-Steagal was repealed), but other times regulation just gets in the way. A way to discriminate is looking at motives: is this business trying to fuck over customers by the discriminations you mentioned? No, they are just trying to reach customers and be more convient. Were the big banks trying to set up an asymmetric ponzi scheme that isn't wise but will fuck over customers? Yes.
I agree with you bud, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but we do need to throw out the bath water :) In this case, the government is in the way and needs to get out of the way so a harmless business can prosper.
I shared it before, but this Congress has passed a pittance of actual legislation. The trade off is whether to have no work or at least something that works. The separation of powers was to avoid abuses, not to obstruct the government from running itself.
May be I'm just looking through my tainted glasses, but here's another example of failure of congress to do it's daily job that the Obama has to step in and issue another executive order. The spirit of Checks and Balances is being broken again because the government as a whole isn't doing its job.
Well, if the right (or Reid for that matter) keep this up, may be a Romney presidency will see at least some legislation passed since they at least have convinced themselves to like him--and may be there will finally be compromise. Who knows.
A wise physicist once said to me,"A perponderance of annecdotes is not evidence". Just because you saw some people on slashdot railing this or railing that means anything. For example, if you read any article on poor job reports and survery the comments, you think Romney's going to win the next election. Then, if you read an article on Romney's taxes and look at the replies, you think Obama's going to win.
How did the actual polls go? Dead heat, at least the last CNN/ORC poll I looked at (might have changed since then).
Not Jesus, it's his disciples after his ascension into heaven, but here's your citation from the Bible:
Acts 4:32-35
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
If anything, the early church was a commune.
Nature did this? You'd expect more sensible articles from them. Sigh, may be the journalists penning supposedly sensational journalism in what is supposed to be an academic journal should peer-review each other's work.
You do realize that some of Columbus' sailors thought that they would fall off the edge of the earth, right?
Just because some thinking elites of their day understood it doesn't mean the common man of the day did. It's like Newton's gravity and non-abelian gauge theory to explain QCD. Many people have some concept of the former but much less of the latter. Both are modern science (then again, Newton's wrong, but in general, yeah).
You were modded troll...unfortunately, some people can't spot obvious sarcasm. Poe's law etc, but I find jokes funnier when you don't have to explain it afterwards...
No, bury him. That way his carbon will return to the earth. Burning him will contribute to CO2 levels.
`grep' is the command, it goes first.
Also, enclose the multiple words you want to grep for in quotes, unless you intend to grep multiple files...
*Black Sabbath starts playing*
It is a good article. It sounds awfully partisan but I somewhat agree with the main point that the tea party holds a large stake in the blame. Still, there are two sides to every conflict so the continued blood spilling owes to dems too. I personally don't worry too much about the Presidency, well, full disclosure, I do lean towards Obama but even if Romney gets elected and shows his more moderate stance from, you know, before this whole shenanigan of moving to the right, I fear the tea party will even block him. I'm more worried about congress this coming election season.
I terribly disagree. Why do you care about who spends or who doesn't? Some of us don't care whether the government or the private sector spends, all that matters is that it gets us out of a recession. People who choose their favorite venue of demand (or supply) are simply singing on extraneous, philosophical things that matter for extraneous, philosophical reasons.
Let me explain with an analogy. There are some religious people who pray for healing of a sickness and perhaps would feel if they went to a doctor it would be a "lack of faith" on their part. Some of us don't care, we just want to live so we go to the doctor and do a subconcious cost-benefit analysis and conclude that they give results at least with a reliable probability so we go.
Now it's fine to believe if you want to but to go in and force your beliefs on everyone else because of their "lack of faith" is unfair.
I don't care about your small government, I don't care about your big government. All I care about is some government that works and actually does things. I know it might be hard to believe but Keynsianism and central banking usually works. It worked since the great moderation till the banking crisis so it has some history. It is costly, perhaps even more risky with the debt we have. But taking up a bill for the doctor is better than death, so be it. Take your idealism elsewhere.
I could rap on liberals too but they don't hold a majority of the house and keep things in disorder (well, Harry Reid kinda irks me but, yeah).
I was hinting at that. Dems haven't become any more partisan than they were previously but still, I don't believe it's all because of the part of No. IDK, may be I'm just trying to be "impartial" *shrug*.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/
You don't need to read it all, the first reason says it all. The entire point of congressional sessions is ot discuss and the whole point of discussion is to change minds. There is none of that from this congress and thus, they don't do their jobs but they get paid anyway.
Lol...just lol.
Because lol.
That could work (at least just in a quick, slashdot comment reasoning pass) with the observation that quitting the herb didn't restore the IQ damage, perhaps the bad IQ behaviors didn't end? Or may be they took the place that weed one had?
As someone who tries to balance use of both sides of his brain, I understand your quandry. It seems a lot of the thinking types seem to have a disdain for these "Designers" and degrade them as useless, or even harmful, perhaps.
Well, think of it this way: Art students I've taken classes recognize the importance of the thinkers, they use a computer and photoshop, so they recognize it as a needed thing. However, they don't switch their major to one in computer science. Why? Because, well, it's not interesting or fulfilling, there's no feeling in it perhaps. Well that's what feelers feed off of, creativity. And while some thinking has creativity in an abstract sense, the arts have the more aesthetic visual appeal, so artists feel more fulfilled in that.
Well, try to flip that. Thinkers feed on precisely the opposite: preciseness, concreteness, definability and ability to discern more quantitatively and not just qualitatively.The thing is that the more feeling/creative stuff doesn't make any sense (unless you are a psychologist and understand how it affects choices, I guess). This is, however, a parrallel to how the thinking stuff doesn't have any soul in the eyes of the artists, I guess.
The only difference is that they are thinkers so they can rationalize their dislike while feelers can't do as well perhaps--at least in an argument on the internet--and not in as consistent a way. (Thinkers, remember, a logical system can be consistent and correct even when its axioms can be junk-full shit!).
I think part of the problem is there is no photoshop for the thinkers: the thing that makes them realize how important design and aesthetics is. I mean, there are examples(exhibit A: Apple. Whether or not you like them, their market share is undeniable; Good design is profitable), but may be they just choose to ignore it. I may be a little cynical here, but it might be that rationalizing process again that can help them ignore those examples. Remember, smarter people can be susceptible to biases, so I guess it is no surprise.
What makes this any more of candidate for a free desktop system than Linux?
I did a quick search and found that it has the whole consistency thing. Is that what is the key to the desktop, apparently?
Linux is hardly a dead horse. AmigaOS? Perhaps.
Not quite a hacker, but last night, I stayed up until 3 am doing a single Physics problem...and it's summer. I'm getting a leg up on the semester so I have time to study other things during the year. I don't really mean to brag, but after 6 months, I've basically taught myself through Quantum Field Theory. Although I could use some polishing, I've learned something most Physics students only get to in grad school(well, I should be starting graduate school this coming Fall but need to take another year). If I had a girlfriend, well, if I had any real responsibility other than to a loose job that requires only 4 hours a day at the time of my choosing, I wouldn't be able to binge-learn stuff like I have since my roommate moved out and I could study and read till wee hours to my hearts content.
After passing through a potential, you gain some kinetic. I mean, energy's conserved, right? The time I gain from not having a girlfriend gives me time for Physics while taking a little bit out of other things (companionship, sex, etc). In the end, it all balances. Might not be healthy, but for what I love, it's what I want.
What this whole thing suggests is give the kids something to do and then they'd stop smashing windows. Of course, if you forced a kid to tie thirty knots on thirty pieces of string, he'd be too occupied to do mischief. However, a girlfriend feels good, so they wouldn't complain too much.
This is slashdot, so I'm going to assume I can at least share some "mathy" parts of it (not really the whole thing).
The Higgs Field is represented by two complex numbers. It is a field, therefore, it has a value in every point in space, kind of like how the temperature across the world varies depending on where you are. In that example, the "temperature field", I'd guess, is represented by a real number at every point.
Now remember that each complex number can be written as two real ones given the form:
z = a+bi
therefore, technically, the Higgs field is not just two complex numbers but it can be thought of as four real numbers. So think of it as being a bundle field with four numbers for each point. Each number, turns out, becomes a particle.
So there are four particles that come out of the Higgs field. Three of them turn out to be components of the Weak bosons (W+, W-, Z_0), as needed to explain why they have mass while photons don't. But there is one field left. This is identified as a new boson, the Higgs Boson.
So, the Higgs Boson is actually just _part_ of the Higgs Field. It isn't like the photon, which is the particle of the whole EM field. Oddly enough, the Higgs Field itself is massless, I think. But the Higgs Boson recieves mass the same way the other three Weak bosons recieved mass, by the Higgs Mechanism.
Really, you can get all woowy with the conceptual part of the Higgs Mechanism but it really is just a neat math trick that I can't really explain here. Essentially, you start with a mathematically description of the particles with mc^2=0 (remember Einstien's equation, E=mc^2 for the energy stored in mass), ie, the particles are massless. After the math trick involving the Higgs Field (not just the Higgs Boson!) you obtain a term that looks like mc^2, so it's like the mass term arises spontaneously without having to put it in there a priori. Hence how we say the particle has "acquired" mass: We started out modeling out particles as massless but all of a sudden, the math tells us it has it.