This is going to turn into a debate about conservatism vs. liberalism real soon. There are many people that believe thinking outside the box is a bad idea. Sucks, but people are stupid.
Equally stupid are those that think that because they "think outside the box" that they are automatically correct.
Paul Graham is emphasizing the need to be open-minded, but he is ignoring the need to be "active-minded". If your "outside the box" idea have failed the test, they need to be rejected.
In the first column I have dates. In the next column the current bank account balance. In the next columns I have money in/out. This includes paychecks, mortgage, student loan payments, credit card payments and a column for other expenses.
Most of these dollars in/out columns is setup so that it checks the date in column A. In the case of a paycheck, it checks the day mod 14 (income every two weeks). In the case of the mortgage, it checks to see if the day of the month is the 6th and not a weekend, etc. Some checks are complicated like my water bill-- the due date is the Friday between the 3rd and 9th of each month. I also have to estimate certain payments ahead of time.
Then, all these columns are added together accross the same day and carried over to the next day's current account balance.
It works great. Whenever a check comes in, I just open the spreadsheet, look at everything coming due according to the spreadsheet, and payit. It even lets me see when I've got to carry money in my account over several pay periods to cover automatic widthdraws from my account for things like the mortgage payment.
When new bills come in, I just update my estimates in the spreadsheet or add the amount the other expenses column. When I have take money out of the account to pay for things like groceries, I use a debit card and update the spreadsheet when I get home.
Now you might ask how this solves the problem of getting rid of those paper bills. The key is to create one sheet of paper with all the information you need to handle electronic payments -- things like URL's, etc. When you get paid, go online with this sheet and pay everything you can electronically. I'm to the point now where I only have to write maybe one or two checks a month to pay for things. I keep one small stack of bills that go into this category. It's so small a stack, I don't bother with things like file folders.
I sometime get the feeling that the computer industry is trying to deny that the TRS-80 Color Computer ever even existed.
This was a true geeks computer. The fact that it was offered by radio shack meant that electronics hobbists were always tinkering with it. I learned more about digital electronics from magazines and hardware friends than I did from many of my university courses. It made taking digital logic a breeze.
I know most slashdotters are too young to remember this marvel. First, it had a lovely membrane keyboard. Second, its memory was so low that every time you typed a character the entire screen had to noticably refresh which was really hard to look at.
It turns out that the real reason the screen flashed is that the CPU was responsible for both computations and generating the display. When I say "generating the display", I don't mean the CPU writing to video memory to be displayed by a separate video chip. There was no video chip! So a decision always had to be made: do computations or output to the tv/monitor. It couldn't do both at the same time!
This really allowed them to cut the cost of the computer. It's really very clever, IMO.
The article asserts that the US is opposing the France option because of the Iraq war.
Just because some reporter makes this claim doesn't make it true. What is the source of this? There is nothing in the article to back it up. Maybe the claim comes from a source that is simply guessing as to the US's motives. Maybe the source is trying to divert attention from legitimate objections by claiming this is all politically motivated. We don't know.
This type of weapon would be great against a large massed force, especially the type that the United States usually sends out - tanks, helicopters, aircraft... But what will it do against a single person with an explosive belt who is determined to die and take as many people with them as they can?
Nothing!
The United States doesn't know how to fight against an idea, it only knows how to fight against a militia...
I wouldn't call it "an idea".
Anyone that blows themselves up along will innocent people is insane.
A weapon that cured mental illness is what we really need.
I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Gas prices went through the roof. At their worst, gas was around $3.00/gal (in today's dollars, and yes, I know that's nothing compared to most of Europe). Pretty nasty when very few cars got over 15mpg.
The problem was that the vast majority of our oil was imported from the Middle East then, so when they stopped shipping there was none to be had at any price, hence the legendary gas lines and odd-even rationing.
I think you make a mistake with this second paragraph. Prices were actually frozen by the government. There WERE sorces of oil to be had -- many domestic -- that were above the price control levels. The oil was there, but the government, through price controls, made it impossible to use profitably. The frozen low-prices also encourged less-efficient use. The price controls threw supply and demand all out of whack. There were huge lines because the price was not high enough to limit demand, and because the price was too low to encourage supply.
One of the first things Reagan did was to remove price controls. More domestic production came online. In 1985 US production actually exceeded that of the Persian Gulf. The short-term increase in prices also forced people to economize. The long lines at the pump went away.
Say what you will about Reagan, but this one act has served us well the past 20+ years.
There's a great review here of the situation by the economist Sowell.
AI will have rights when it becomes blindingly obvious that they know what is better for themselves than we do.
It's that why individual rights is so successful? You are in the best position (often) to know what is best for you. Interference by others, even when those others join together to form a government, is a step backwards.
I think it also explains the general success of decentralized economies over centralized ones -- decision making is spread out and those with the best view of the local situation tend make the best decisions.
Bob Balaban played a network executive on Seinfeld. I think he also played a network executive on Late Shift, the movie about Letterman and Leno.
He's short, but intimidating.
Economics is about human behavior, not numbers
on
Tall People Earn More
·
· Score: 1
When you find yourself doubting this study, consider you behavior around someone that is taller than you. Do you feel a little intimidated? Does your behavior change?
Economics isn't about little knobs on a machine that you twist and turn to see what happens. It isn't bunch of numbers you just munge together.
Economics is about human behavior. That's why you get paid, right? Your little pieces of paper would be worthless if people didn't respond to them. But they do. And you do what you do so you can have these little pieces of paper. Your boss is using them because you respond to them.
People of greater height have an effect on the behavior of others. Maybe they're more likely to motivate others to action. This might mean they make better managers. Maybe their own height gives them more confidence -- they are more likely to succeed because their height affects their own behavior.
Motivation, feelings, happiness, sadness, anticipation, disapointment, etc have a real effect on the economy. You might even say that the economy is the reflection of all these things.
Can we say FDR? If it wasn't for him we wouldn't have been ready for World War 2 and then where would we be now?
FDR made the situation much worse for us. He took a recession and turned it into a 10 year depression and a war that claimed 500,000 Americans. Great guy.
I'm sorry, but when the economy is bad tax cuts are NOT the answer--well not tax cuts to corporate types who will never let it trickle down because they're too worried about the 9 digit salaries.
Tax cuts (without spending cuts) shift the burden of financing government from people currently working to those with savings to invest. During a recession, that is a good thing. Now you don't want that to go on too long of course, but in the short term, it works.
In the long term, you'd like to make government more efficient so you can also spend less.
As far as corporate types never letting it trickle down, what do you think they'll do? Stuff that money in a matress?
Personally, I think I have a better chance of getting that money from them than I do getting it from the government.
On November 27, 1895, a year before his death, Alfred Nobel signed the famous will which would implement some of the goals to which he had devoted so much of his life. Nobel stipulated in his will that most of his estate, more than SEK 31 million (today approximately SEK 1,500 million) should be converted into a fund and invested in "safe securities."
The income from the investments was to be "distributed annually in the form of prizes to those who during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
Read that last part again: greatest benefit on mankind.
It doesn't say the most clever scientist, the most "pure" scientist, or the most religiously skeptical.
This is the guy that took MRI beyond theory and turned it into a machine that saves people's lives everyday.
Yet, the pure theorists get the award and he gets ignored. The decision of the Nobel Foundation is inconsistant with it's own charter.
America is going through a downswing. The trouble is u guys are stuck in a rut just like in the great depression. You need a strong Leader at this time to pull u through and inspire people and not go off to war against terrorists. At least we have Kalam as president and while he is a figure head we consider him to be a great man. And well Vajpayee he may be an old foggy at times, but he was a freedom fighter and a statesman,and he is still very clever. So u see we have belief in our leaders and more importantly we respect them.
In contrast however the american sentiment is not very flattering towards Bush.
Bah. We don't need leaders. We lead ourselves. That's what America is about - freedom to control your own destiny.
When America pulls out of this it will be because we led ourselves out. We don't need some savior. So what if Bush is mediocre? Big deal.
It's just that kind of attitude that keeps us from dictatorship. It's that kind of attitude that allows us to do things like start our our businesses. We don't need "big brother" to tell us what to do and how to do it.
You go ahead and look to Vajpayee and Kalam. Keep looking. Look so much you miss the opportunities that we see.
Stop beating down bright, but anxious boys in school. Let them do what they love instead of forcing some idea of "social adjustment on them". Allow them more time for science and engineering. Devote less time to "teaching" them how to bullshit their way to a 6 page term paper about nothing. Give them less Ritalin.
Some may not like to hear this but boys are the primary source of young engineers and right now, public education is taking a big dump on them.
I have several friends in the industry that are good engineers, but without degrees. Public education pushed them away. They are the kind of people I'm talking about. What's a PHB going to do when he compares them with someone from another country that has his degree?
>And how do you judge "fitness"? There's the rub. >The faculty get to decide if they are fit or not. >Guess what they think. And often when it comes to >teaching the humanities, fit == leftist politics. >Who do you think they hire?
And what method would you suggest instead? Quotas?
How about a system that included the people actually paying the bills? What about a mixture of students and interested citizens? How about an elected board?
What about making political diversity a requirement for accreditation? The US department of Education is required to recognize a list of accrediting bodies. Make political diversity a requirement of recognition.
There are many ways to handle this besides quotas.
that article's bullshit. Maybe it just so happens that "liberals" are a lot more fit to teach at a liberal arts college than "conservatives"?
Oh, and one more thing:
Someone who called himself "liberal" would have to consider alternate viewpoints. Considering the general lack of alternate viewpoints available at universities, faculty should consider themselves merely "leftist".
that article's bullshit. Maybe it just so happens that "liberals" are a lot more fit to teach at a liberal arts college than "conservatives"?
And how do you judge "fitness"? There's the rub. The faculty get to decide if they are fit or not. Guess what they think. And often when it comes to teaching the humanities, fit == leftist politics. Who do you think they hire?
It's a very incestuous situation. And the biggest problem is that there is NO check on the process. It's all built to maintain the power of leftists in academia. How can someone else "break in" to express alternate views?
They can't.
I'd bet you could find that most CEOs are republicans.
Sure. The difference is companies don't care as much about politics as they do money. If a Democrat CEO can bring in the bucks, then do be it.
This is different than what happens at a university. The money flows to a group of people that use the hiring process to make sure people of the same politics can continue the chain. It's all very self-sustaining.
And it's unfair to those on the other side of the political fence.
Seriously, the article confuses correlation and causation.
Most claims of causation start by noting correlation first. So what?
Look. When you see the huge, and it is huge, bias in political opionion at universities, you have to ask: is this just chance? C'mon.
Don't kid yourselves. Politics is part of the process and I don't mean personal politics. I mean political positions on things like school choice, regulation of the economy, etc.
The question is: would Newton be smart enough to keep his mouth shut?
One winter a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. "Oh," cried the Farmer with his last breath, "I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel."
The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.
Slashdot Mirror
This is going to turn into a debate about conservatism vs. liberalism real soon. There are many people that believe thinking outside the box is a bad idea. Sucks, but people are stupid.
Equally stupid are those that think that because they "think outside the box" that they are automatically correct.
Paul Graham is emphasizing the need to be open-minded, but he is ignoring the need to be "active-minded". If your "outside the box" idea have failed the test, they need to be rejected.
Was the crater there before the attempted landing?
I created a spreadsheet to solve this problem.
In the first column I have dates. In the next column the current bank account balance. In the next columns I have money in/out. This includes paychecks, mortgage, student loan payments, credit card payments and a column for other expenses.
Most of these dollars in/out columns is setup so that it checks the date in column A. In the case of a paycheck, it checks the day mod 14 (income every two weeks). In the case of the mortgage, it checks to see if the day of the month is the 6th and not a weekend, etc. Some checks are complicated like my water bill-- the due date is the Friday between the 3rd and 9th of each month. I also have to estimate certain payments ahead of time.
Then, all these columns are added together accross the same day and carried over to the next day's current account balance.
It works great. Whenever a check comes in, I just open the spreadsheet, look at everything coming due according to the spreadsheet, and payit. It even lets me see when I've got to carry money in my account over several pay periods to cover automatic widthdraws from my account for things like the mortgage payment.
When new bills come in, I just update my estimates in the spreadsheet or add the amount the other expenses column. When I have take money out of the account to pay for things like groceries, I use a debit card and update the spreadsheet when I get home.
Now you might ask how this solves the problem of getting rid of those paper bills. The key is to create one sheet of paper with all the information you need to handle electronic payments -- things like URL's, etc. When you get paid, go online with this sheet and pay everything you can electronically. I'm to the point now where I only have to write maybe one or two checks a month to pay for things. I keep one small stack of bills that go into this category. It's so small a stack, I don't bother with things like file folders.
I sometime get the feeling that the computer industry is trying to deny that the TRS-80 Color Computer ever even existed.
This was a true geeks computer. The fact that it was offered by radio shack meant that electronics hobbists were always tinkering with it. I learned more about digital electronics from magazines and hardware friends than I did from many of my university courses. It made taking digital logic a breeze.
I know most slashdotters are too young to remember this marvel. First, it had a lovely membrane keyboard. Second, its memory was so low that every time you typed a character the entire screen had to noticably refresh which was really hard to look at.
It turns out that the real reason the screen flashed is that the CPU was responsible for both computations and generating the display. When I say "generating the display", I don't mean the CPU writing to video memory to be displayed by a separate video chip. There was no video chip! So a decision always had to be made: do computations or output to the tv/monitor. It couldn't do both at the same time!
This really allowed them to cut the cost of the computer. It's really very clever, IMO.
The article asserts that the US is opposing the France option because of the Iraq war.
Just because some reporter makes this claim doesn't make it true. What is the source of this? There is nothing in the article to back it up. Maybe the claim comes from a source that is simply guessing as to the US's motives. Maybe the source is trying to divert attention from legitimate objections by claiming this is all politically motivated. We don't know.
Take this article with a grain of salt.
Again, if you read the article rather than skimmed, it mentioned that the flight time was six minues (600 seconds)
Ah, finally someone else is using metric time.
Anyway, I've got to run. This chilly Smarch weather has made me sleepy and it's only 25 o'clock!
This type of weapon would be great against a large massed force, especially the type that the United States usually sends out - tanks, helicopters, aircraft...
But what will it do against a single person with an explosive belt who is determined to die and take as many people with them as they can?
Nothing!
The United States doesn't know how to fight against an idea, it only knows how to fight against a militia...
I wouldn't call it "an idea".
Anyone that blows themselves up along will innocent people is insane.
A weapon that cured mental illness is what we really need.
I'd be the first volunteer for testing.
We have had network problems in the past. China has opted to bet the farm on Linux after seeing the Windows Source Code.
Even worse, maybe China never intended to use Windows but just wanted the source so that they might discover more vulnerabilities.
I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Gas prices went through the roof. At their worst, gas was around $3.00/gal (in today's dollars, and yes, I know that's nothing compared to most of Europe). Pretty nasty when very few cars got over 15mpg.
The problem was that the vast majority of our oil was imported from the Middle East then, so when they stopped shipping there was none to be had at any price, hence the legendary gas lines and odd-even rationing.
I think you make a mistake with this second paragraph. Prices were actually frozen by the government. There WERE sorces of oil to be had -- many domestic -- that were above the price control levels. The oil was there, but the government, through price controls, made it impossible to use profitably. The frozen low-prices also encourged less-efficient use. The price controls threw supply and demand all out of whack. There were huge lines because the price was not high enough to limit demand, and because the price was too low to encourage supply.
One of the first things Reagan did was to remove price controls. More domestic production came online. In 1985 US production actually exceeded that of the Persian Gulf. The short-term increase in prices also forced people to economize. The long lines at the pump went away.
Say what you will about Reagan, but this one act has served us well the past 20+ years.
There's a great review here of the situation by the economist Sowell.
Sorry, building an intelligent, sentient machine requires alot more than pure computational capacity.
It might even be impossible using machines that are discrete.
It may be that intelligence requires analog circuits. It's a question we can't answer just yet.
AI will have rights when it becomes blindingly obvious that they know what is better for themselves than we do.
It's that why individual rights is so successful? You are in the best position (often) to know what is best for you. Interference by others, even when those others join together to form a government, is a step backwards.
I think it also explains the general success of decentralized economies over centralized ones -- decision making is spread out and those with the best view of the local situation tend make the best decisions.
Bob Balaban played a network executive on Seinfeld. I think he also played a network executive on Late Shift, the movie about Letterman and Leno.
He's short, but intimidating.
When you find yourself doubting this study, consider you behavior around someone that is taller than you. Do you feel a little intimidated? Does your behavior change?
Economics isn't about little knobs on a machine that you twist and turn to see what happens. It isn't bunch of numbers you just munge together.
Economics is about human behavior. That's why you get paid, right? Your little pieces of paper would be worthless if people didn't respond to them. But they do. And you do what you do so you can have these little pieces of paper. Your boss is using them because you respond to them.
People of greater height have an effect on the behavior of others. Maybe they're more likely to motivate others to action. This might mean they make better managers. Maybe their own height gives them more confidence -- they are more likely to succeed because their height affects their own behavior.
Motivation, feelings, happiness, sadness, anticipation, disapointment, etc have a real effect on the economy. You might even say that the economy is the reflection of all these things.
The feds are supposed to be a bit aggressive on the side of prosecuting, just like defenders are supposed to be aggressive in their defence.
The real problem is with the judge.
Can we say FDR? If it wasn't for him we wouldn't have been ready for World War 2 and then where would we be now?
FDR made the situation much worse for us. He took a recession and turned it into a 10 year depression and a war that claimed 500,000 Americans. Great guy.
I'm sorry, but when the economy is bad tax cuts are NOT the answer--well not tax cuts to corporate types who will never let it trickle down because they're too worried about the 9 digit salaries.
Tax cuts (without spending cuts) shift the burden of financing government from people currently working to those with savings to invest. During a recession, that is a good thing. Now you don't want that to go on too long of course, but in the short term, it works.
In the long term, you'd like to make government more efficient so you can also spend less.
As far as corporate types never letting it trickle down, what do you think they'll do? Stuff that money in a matress?
Personally, I think I have a better chance of getting that money from them than I do getting it from the government.
From http://www.nobel.se/nobel/nobel-foundation/finan-m anag.html
On November 27, 1895, a year before his death, Alfred Nobel signed the famous will which would implement some of the goals to which he had devoted so much of his life. Nobel stipulated in his will that most of his estate, more than SEK 31 million (today approximately SEK 1,500 million) should be converted into a fund and invested in "safe securities."
The income from the investments was to be "distributed annually in the form of prizes to those who during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
Read that last part again: greatest benefit on mankind.
It doesn't say the most clever scientist, the most "pure" scientist, or the most religiously skeptical.
This is the guy that took MRI beyond theory and turned it into a machine that saves people's lives everyday.
Yet, the pure theorists get the award and he gets ignored. The decision of the Nobel Foundation is inconsistant with it's own charter.
He's a business person, and in the eyes of intellectuals, this makes him less than worthy.
America is going through a downswing. The trouble is u guys are stuck in a rut just like in the great depression. You need a strong Leader at this time to pull u through and inspire people and not go off to war against terrorists. At least we have Kalam as president and while he is a figure head we consider him to be a great man. And well Vajpayee he may be an old foggy at times, but he was a freedom fighter and a statesman,and he is still very clever. So u see we have belief in our leaders and more importantly we respect them.
In contrast however the american sentiment is not very flattering towards Bush.
Bah. We don't need leaders. We lead ourselves. That's what America is about - freedom to control your own destiny.
When America pulls out of this it will be because we led ourselves out. We don't need some savior. So what if Bush is mediocre? Big deal.
It's just that kind of attitude that keeps us from dictatorship. It's that kind of attitude that allows us to do things like start our our businesses. We don't need "big brother" to tell us what to do and how to do it.
You go ahead and look to Vajpayee and Kalam. Keep looking. Look so much you miss the opportunities that we see.
Stop beating down bright, but anxious boys in school. Let them do what they love instead of forcing some idea of "social adjustment on them". Allow them more time for science and engineering. Devote less time to "teaching" them how to bullshit their way to a 6 page term paper about nothing. Give them less Ritalin.
Some may not like to hear this but boys are the primary source of young engineers and right now, public education is taking a big dump on them.
I have several friends in the industry that are good engineers, but without degrees. Public education pushed them away. They are the kind of people I'm talking about. What's a PHB going to do when he compares them with someone from another country that has his degree?
There's some other stuff here:
The War Against Boys
>And how do you judge "fitness"? There's the rub.
>The faculty get to decide if they are fit or not.
>Guess what they think. And often when it comes to
>teaching the humanities, fit == leftist politics.
>Who do you think they hire?
And what method would you suggest instead? Quotas?
How about a system that included the people actually paying the bills? What about a mixture of students and interested citizens? How about an elected board?
What about making political diversity a requirement for accreditation? The US department of Education is required to recognize a list of accrediting bodies. Make political diversity a requirement of recognition.
There are many ways to handle this besides quotas.
that article's bullshit. Maybe it just so happens that "liberals" are a lot more fit to teach at a liberal arts college than "conservatives"?
Oh, and one more thing:
Someone who called himself "liberal" would have to consider alternate viewpoints. Considering the general lack of alternate viewpoints available at universities, faculty should consider themselves merely "leftist".
that article's bullshit. Maybe it just so happens that "liberals" are a lot more fit to teach at a liberal arts college than "conservatives"?
And how do you judge "fitness"? There's the rub. The faculty get to decide if they are fit or not. Guess what they think. And often when it comes to teaching the humanities, fit == leftist politics. Who do you think they hire?
It's a very incestuous situation. And the biggest problem is that there is NO check on the process. It's all built to maintain the power of leftists in academia. How can someone else "break in" to express alternate views?
They can't.
I'd bet you could find that most CEOs are republicans.
Sure. The difference is companies don't care as much about politics as they do money. If a Democrat CEO can bring in the bucks, then do be it.
This is different than what happens at a university. The money flows to a group of people that use the hiring process to make sure people of the same politics can continue the chain. It's all very self-sustaining.
And it's unfair to those on the other side of the political fence.
Seriously, the article confuses correlation and causation.
Most claims of causation start by noting correlation first. So what?
Look. When you see the huge, and it is huge, bias in political opionion at universities, you have to ask: is this just chance? C'mon.
Don't kid yourselves. Politics is part of the process and I don't mean personal politics. I mean political positions on things like school choice, regulation of the economy, etc.
The question is: would Newton be smart enough to keep his mouth shut?
He would have to stay off the blacklist.
That works for me.
1. Move to Vancouver
2. Open a bar
3. Don't treat your patrons as criminals
4. Profit
Reminds me of one of Aesop's fables:
The Farmer and the Snake
One winter a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. "Oh," cried the Farmer with his last breath, "I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel."
The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.