Strawman? Fighting to hold the position of breeding alpha is not the same as "naturally clubbing each other to death".
My cat has been in lots of fights. I'm sure he hasn't won them all, but he's certainly not died in any of them either. Disputes in the animal kingdom tend to be very ritualistic, but if it comes to blows, the blows are limited to what's needed to complete the job - of protecting young, or asserting dominance, or whatever. Fights among humans involve an insane level of organisation for the task of killing huge amounts of people, and are an extremely inefficient way of solving disputes.
Um...Humans naturally club each other to death in attempt to be dominant.
No, we don't. This would be such a useless trait to evolve. Social animals can team up and engage in raids from time to time, but the usual order of things is peace and cooperation. The amount of war we've enjoyed recently (and C20 was the bloodiest century for humans since forever, as people often like pointing out) is a product of broken civilisation, not the bonds of nature.
"Central control of the money supply" just means he favored central banks like the Federal Reserve and the ECB, not that he though some government bureaucracy should be in control of everybody's money.
Which is central control of the money supply. Which determines the real value of any given wage.
Friedman recognized that the free market was not perfect, but he recognized it as the best and most efficient system we have available.
Humans naturally cooperate. Competition isn't a religious edict - it's just that we have a fucked up society where everyone at the bottom is told to compete while everyone at the top plays golf together.
Oh, I've worked with them. They're far better at salesmanship than I'll ever be. I give the client the truth, and the marketing department gives them everything else.
This isn't the '70s, you dirty hippy. MIT is full of unassailable geniuses and either they or Apple did everything first. If you aren't monetising it by sending the design to a Chinese factory, it didn't happen.
These days most sponsors just trust their ad broker to correctly report genuine clicks and withold payment for fraudulent clicks. Because there would be no incentive for an ad broker to under-report genuine clicks, and underreporting by even 100 clicks per sponsor when you have hundreds of thousands of sponsors won't gain you a couple of extra million dollars here and there.
At the other extreme, some, myself included, have come across material in a math aptitude test unrelated to anything seen before, grasped the new concept and answered the question correctly.
You're missing the point entirely. That doesn't put you at any "extreme" - it just means that you're doing what any well-trained brain does: recognise patterns and apply well-honed problem-solving skills to answer unfamiliar questions about them. Most people are really poorly educated, and haven't even begun to realise their brain's potential; the remainder usually don't even care to try - at least not before the reality of adulthood hits them.
My training and field is mathematics. I got there by working hard. The key to getting good at solving problems is practice, practice, practice - and that doesn't just mean slogging it, but always improving your techniques. When I tutor people, I measure my progress by how often I hear them say, "Eureka!" (well, or English equivalent), IOW how often they leap their own mental hurdles. That's what intellectual progress is all about.
Both inborn ability and good enough teaching are important, and those who deny it have an axe to grind.
Thanks, professor, for that well-reasoned ad hominem.
A person texting on their cell phone, looking down into their lap or over at the center console or at their steering wheel or wherever they're holding it, is functionally equivalent to A BLIND PERSON DRIVING.
Oh, that's a shame, I was thinking you had accidentally misinterpreted a statistic (I couldn't confirm/deny it as you haven't quoted any source), but it seems you're deliberately quoting an irrelevant one.
I don't care that motorcyclists like to drive like dbags; that's somebody else's problem and doesn't affect my risk level if I get on a motorcycle. What affects my risk level is absolute survivability of a collision at speed, and how much controllable risk I effect on myself.
OK, it's the Wobegon effect again. "All that matters is that the likelihood of surviving a collision at some speed is no higher for motorcycles, and that I'm a much better driver than everyone else."
Glass deliberately DOES NOT obstruct your vision. It is above your normal vision, and if you were to look up at it you would see nothing but clear Glass,
Could you explain exactly what you mean here by "above" vs "looking up"? It sounds like you're saying I can't look directly at it. And, sitting in a car, where is low enough for me to read but high enough that it doesn't obstruct my view out of the windscreen/windshield? It would change anyway depending on which way my head is looking, wouldn't it? So if I had to look down for something, I'd end up with the Glass display over the center of the windshield, wouldn't I?
The Glass display does not illuminate unless
I'm not sure I would find things appearing and disappearing in a place relative to the position of my head less distracting than things always being in a specific place. A regular HUD can be effective, but that's relative to the car.
Defeats auto-focus? Not sure what you mean here, I find it improves my focus on the road, because the GPS displays focal length is not nearby, it is six or seven feet in front of you, closer to the focal range of the road than an in-dash GPS.
You have to overcome "there's a little speck of dirt really close to my eye". Maybe some people do this better than others.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would be a sufficient retort if all wages were spent the moment they were earnt, which opposes the very principle of capital.
Strawman? Fighting to hold the position of breeding alpha is not the same as "naturally clubbing each other to death".
My cat has been in lots of fights. I'm sure he hasn't won them all, but he's certainly not died in any of them either. Disputes in the animal kingdom tend to be very ritualistic, but if it comes to blows, the blows are limited to what's needed to complete the job - of protecting young, or asserting dominance, or whatever. Fights among humans involve an insane level of organisation for the task of killing huge amounts of people, and are an extremely inefficient way of solving disputes.
Um...Humans naturally club each other to death in attempt to be dominant.
No, we don't. This would be such a useless trait to evolve. Social animals can team up and engage in raids from time to time, but the usual order of things is peace and cooperation. The amount of war we've enjoyed recently (and C20 was the bloodiest century for humans since forever, as people often like pointing out) is a product of broken civilisation, not the bonds of nature.
"Central control of the money supply" just means he favored central banks like the Federal Reserve and the ECB, not that he though some government bureaucracy should be in control of everybody's money.
Which is central control of the money supply. Which determines the real value of any given wage.
Friedman recognized that the free market was not perfect, but he recognized it as the best and most efficient system we have available.
*hypothesised.
and communism
*state capitalism.
Humans naturally cooperate. Competition isn't a religious edict - it's just that we have a fucked up society where everyone at the bottom is told to compete while everyone at the top plays golf together.
Your mother is a sign of infantility and/or lack of discussion skills.
If you can't convince, punch.
If you can't share, hoard.
and so on, and so on.
Everything humans do is based on finding something else harder.
It's funny because Friedman was far from laissez-faire and believed in central control of the money supply.
It's just that the baboons who pass for talking heads nowadays haven't actually read his work.
This.
Anyway, I'm way less worried about some lame malware developer's effect on society than Google's.
So you're to blame for everything that's wrong with me!
Yeah, I imagine by "job offer" they mean "recruiter spam".
And by "high level of cybersecurity awareness" they mean that some cunt installed Norton on the desktops.
I am glad that you are taking steps to observe bad behaviour and to try not to copy it.
Study please.
(No points for citing the HLDI bulletin, since that's not what it says.)
Oh, I've worked with them. They're far better at salesmanship than I'll ever be. I give the client the truth, and the marketing department gives them everything else.
This isn't the '70s, you dirty hippy. MIT is full of unassailable geniuses and either they or Apple did everything first. If you aren't monetising it by sending the design to a Chinese factory, it didn't happen.
Now if it were a sentence like "buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" I'd understand your problem with it.
Indeed - without the proper noun correctly identified, it's meaningless.
I could parse it too, but that doesn't mean it's well written. Good communication is mostly the responsibility of the speaker.
I think it's absurd that sponsors don't demand a separation of roles of tracker and broker, with consortium control / a lot of auditing on the first.
So you play in a band, you tinker with programming, and you've done a few routine jobs.
Gotta say, you are good at bigging up the average.
To be a geek with "time for girls" is to be a pacifist with "time for war".
This sort of thing is so 1999, however.
These days most sponsors just trust their ad broker to correctly report genuine clicks and withold payment for fraudulent clicks. Because there would be no incentive for an ad broker to under-report genuine clicks, and underreporting by even 100 clicks per sponsor when you have hundreds of thousands of sponsors won't gain you a couple of extra million dollars here and there.
Tell me more about these raves.
At the other extreme, some, myself included, have come across material in a math aptitude test unrelated to anything seen before, grasped the new concept and answered the question correctly.
You're missing the point entirely. That doesn't put you at any "extreme" - it just means that you're doing what any well-trained brain does: recognise patterns and apply well-honed problem-solving skills to answer unfamiliar questions about them. Most people are really poorly educated, and haven't even begun to realise their brain's potential; the remainder usually don't even care to try - at least not before the reality of adulthood hits them.
My training and field is mathematics. I got there by working hard. The key to getting good at solving problems is practice, practice, practice - and that doesn't just mean slogging it, but always improving your techniques. When I tutor people, I measure my progress by how often I hear them say, "Eureka!" (well, or English equivalent), IOW how often they leap their own mental hurdles. That's what intellectual progress is all about.
Both inborn ability and good enough teaching are important, and those who deny it have an axe to grind.
Thanks, professor, for that well-reasoned ad hominem.
A person texting on their cell phone, looking down into their lap or over at the center console or at their steering wheel or wherever they're holding it, is functionally equivalent to A BLIND PERSON DRIVING.
Are you trolling, please?
Oh, that's a shame, I was thinking you had accidentally misinterpreted a statistic (I couldn't confirm/deny it as you haven't quoted any source), but it seems you're deliberately quoting an irrelevant one.
I don't care that motorcyclists like to drive like dbags; that's somebody else's problem and doesn't affect my risk level if I get on a motorcycle. What affects my risk level is absolute survivability of a collision at speed, and how much controllable risk I effect on myself.
OK, it's the Wobegon effect again. "All that matters is that the likelihood of surviving a collision at some speed is no higher for motorcycles, and that I'm a much better driver than everyone else."
Glass deliberately DOES NOT obstruct your vision. It is above your normal vision, and if you were to look up at it you would see nothing but clear Glass,
Could you explain exactly what you mean here by "above" vs "looking up"? It sounds like you're saying I can't look directly at it. And, sitting in a car, where is low enough for me to read but high enough that it doesn't obstruct my view out of the windscreen/windshield? It would change anyway depending on which way my head is looking, wouldn't it? So if I had to look down for something, I'd end up with the Glass display over the center of the windshield, wouldn't I?
The Glass display does not illuminate unless
I'm not sure I would find things appearing and disappearing in a place relative to the position of my head less distracting than things always being in a specific place. A regular HUD can be effective, but that's relative to the car.
Defeats auto-focus? Not sure what you mean here, I find it improves my focus on the road, because the GPS displays focal length is not nearby, it is six or seven feet in front of you, closer to the focal range of the road than an in-dash GPS.
You have to overcome "there's a little speck of dirt really close to my eye". Maybe some people do this better than others.