"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." -Henry David Thoreau
This idea goes at least as far back as the Greek stoic philosophers, and probably further. It didn't make it's debut in Fight Club, and no, the hippies didn't invent it in the 60's either.
It sounds like he's just upset that the average consumer has other things to be concerned about besides how many times they're allowed to burn the same CD over and over. In other words, he's upset that the average person isn't more like him.
That's exactly it. It sort of reminds me of Richard Stallman trying to convince people that proprietary software makes them into slaves, when their software decisions are based on criteria other than (his idea of) morality. They just can't fathom that it's a matter of preference, and not people being duped out of their freedoms. To the average person, this sort of thing sounds like someone saying, "Yes, I know you *think* you prefer vanilla ice cream, but you really want chocolate. In fact, who cares if you like vanilla? You must have chocolate! Vanilla is EEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLL."
As a DDR fan reporting from SIGGRAPH, I'm disappointed to say that the gameplay is more like striking a series of "poses" than actual dancing. "Okay, now put your arms straight up. Now put them in a V. Now lean over sideways. It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A!..."
I am wondering why askslashdot is being used to push agendas/post news stories, i know this isn't a new thing, but aren't there real questions to be answered? Why couldn't this story just be a normal news submission?
Seriously: agenda-pushing "stories", hyperbolic summaries, rhetorical questions? What is this, BoingBoing?
You're absolutely correct that the article summary is somewhat statistically (and economically) illiterate. Instead of "Worst Tech CEOs Earn the Most Money," why not "Struggling Companies Pay CEOs Top Dollar to Turn Things Around"?
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is a coincidence. There's no way Slashdotters would have so grossly misinterpreted a study correlating, say, video games and violence -- because the party line around here is that video games are a Good Thing. A lot of geeks, however, have complete disdain for the "suits" and "pointy haired bosses" in management. "Why do the 'clueless' managers make so much money, when I'm obviously so much smarter? Why do I have less job security when I'm the one working 100 hour weeks, fueled by Mountain Dew and fear of downsizing?" It's true that there are bad managers out there, but much of this attitude is just scapegoating for one's own job dissatisfaction... like people who complain that "The Man" is keeping them down.
It also shows a profound misunderstanding of business. To the disgruntled coder, it may seem like the business world is stupid and arbitrary -- where people make more money the "dumber" they are -- because they don't understand it. But really, it's little different than if the CEO said: "I don't understand your C++ code; it just looks like a bunch of random characters you threw together. Therefore, it's stupid." Like it or not, there is such a thing as skill in business -- and oftentimes, it's rarer and less replaceable than technical skill. Just take a look at the career of Steve Wozniak, with and without Steve Jobs. Now look at the career of Steve Jobs, with and without Steve Wozniak.
This seems logical enough to me -- but just to play devil's advocate, couldn't this result be due to survivorship bias? According to the "hygiene hypothesis," exposure early in life to infections from household dust, germy siblings or surfaces may reduce the risk of developing disease in adulthood. But let's add a few words to the end of that sentence: among those who survived the original infections.
What if it's simply the case that the wild rats have more robust immune systems because those who didn't were killed off by disease? Perhaps living in filth doesn't make you healthier -- maybe it just kills off the sick, so that you only see the healthy ones who survived when you collect your sample?
It seems like you'd need to do an honest-to-goodness randomized experiment to rule out this possibility.
The problem with the simple explanation is that 100 or so of the (former) lessees wanted to buy them, and were willing to absolve GM of any liability, service, or warranty obligations. Many of these people were fairly wealthy, and probably would have paid good money for the cars. Certainly enough to let GM come out ahead after processing the fairly trivial legal paperwork involved. Yet GM went out of its way to collect the cars and crush them into oblivion.
Although IANAL, I'd be willing to bet that GM's lawyers weren't convinced that they'd truly be absolved of liability. One of the reasons the EV1 was leased -- with a service contract, and with terms prohibiting outside servicing -- was the technical expertise required to work on a car with potentially lethal voltages. Just imagine the poor widow of an auto mechanic being trotted up in front of a jury, sobbing about how her husband got fried by the car that big, bad GM knew was dangerous. Any possible revenue from selling the cars would have been chump change compared to the 2 BILLION they had already lost on the program, and it's not unreasonable that they cut their losses rather than exposing themselves to potential lawsuits.
This usenet post has some great information, from someone who worked in the division of GM that produced the car.
The shitty thing is, you have to pay for minutes you were ripped off. It's one of the few businesses that you can have stolen more than you have. If I have a warehouse ripped off, I am only out the equipment in that warehouse. With tollfraud, I can be out 300,000 dollars more than my whole business is worth.
Actually, you can lose more than you're worth whenever you buy something on credit -- this isn't unique to VOIP at all. Monthly billing, essentially, lets you buy minutes on credit until you have to repay your debt at the end of the month. Suppose you ran a retail store and bought your inventory on credit, expecting to pay for it with the revenue from selling the inventory. If your store gets robbed, you're in the same boat -- you owe money that you don't have. (Or suppose you run a restaurant, and your fridge breaks down, spoiling all the food that you bought on credit...)
The problem is obviously solved if you already own all your inventory, in which case you can only lose what you've already paid for. With VOIP, the same would be true if you pre-paid for your minutes.
I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.
It's important to understand the distinction between being a communist and being a member of the Communist Party. (A lot of people miss this distinction in discussions of McCarthyism, for example.) Being a communist is one thing -- i.e. believing in and espousing communist ideals, associating with other communists, etc. The Communist Party, however, was actually an American branch of the Party in the U.S.S.R. -- it took orders from Moscow, had the goal of violently overthrowing the U.S. government, and was involved in espionage within the U.S. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA.)
Basically, it's the difference between being sympathetic with Al Qaeda (totally legal, if not moral) and being an active member of Al Qaeda.
Of course, everyone is all for rebuilding New Orleans. How could anyone, aside from a cold-blooded sociopath, be against it? But if you discovered that the government's idea of "rebuilding" is to turn a major part of your business into a government-owned monopoly -- and not only that, but they expected you to help them with this plan -- well, I think you'd be a bit miffed, too. I know that New Orleans' stated motive for "free" (TANSTAAFL) municipal WiFi is to stimulate business, but showing a penchant for nationalizing industries isn't exactly a great way to say, "Hey, Mr. CEO, bring your business to New Orleans!"
There's a perfectly good reason why people like beta software. Sure, it contains bugs -- but so does production software. However, beta software is in a state of constant improvement. Actual people, right now, are working on the product to make it better. If you run into a problem, there's a good chance it'll be fixed reasonably soon. Designating software as a final release means that the developers (or managers) think it's "good enough" for now. Still not good enough for you? Well, too bad.
This is part of the appeal of open source software: the software is in a constant state of improvement. If the original developers aren't improving it, you can improve it yourself, or find someone who will. The software is never "final," and never orphaned, as long as it's open.
Grüsser says that addictions stem from relying too heavily on one coping strategy, which eventually becomes the only activity that can activate the dopamine system and bring a person relief. "It's the same mechanism in all addicts," she says.
You mean the brain doesn't have completely separate mechanisms for addictions to video games and drugs (and gambling, and sex...)? Gee, I wonder how evolution missed that one. In related news, the human body reacts similarly to getting hit by a baseball bat as getting hit by a cricket bat. No kidding... the same mechanism!:)
Your mistake is buying 2GB of RAM from Apple. They overchage for RAM unlike anything i have ever seen. Save yoruself some money and buy from someone else.
I agree that Apple sells generic Samsung RAM at an obscene markup -- although I went through a couple bad sticks of cheapo RAM when upgrading my PowerBook, which was extremely frustrating. My theory is that Apple probably tests the snot out of their RAM to make sure it's good, because it would look supremely bad for Apple's image if they sold RAM that crashed your computer and didn't "just work". NewEgg, on the other hand, probably just throws the same RAM into a box without testing. This would account for at least part of the price premium, if it's true. Does anyone have any information that would confirm/refute this?
Of course, you can have the best of both worlds by buying cheap RAM, installing it, and letting Hardware Test run overnight on a loop before you start using it regularly.
For some reason, this quote always reminds me of rich people who say that there's more to life than money. It's much easier to say when you've got it in spades.
I always hate it when people say that NASA should be on its way out, and private industry should take over. NO! Failures! F-! Private industry is out looking for profit, finding a dollar in something. If there isn't a dollar to be earned, they won't be in business very long. Private industry isn't interested in furthering the field of science, they don't care too much about contributing to the knowledge of mankind. This is why we need NASA-- to make scientific breakthroughs that are available to ALL for (ideally) noble causes.
This is absolutely false. Not all private organizations are for-profit -- non-profit organizations are private as well! There is indeed a market for "unprofitable" research, just as there is for charity and other activities. The market consists of people like you (and many other commenters) who are eager to fund space exploration, disaster relief, homeless shelters, etc.
The advantage to you, as a "consumer" of space exploration research, is that you can choose among many companies to get the most bang for your buck. Think company X gets the job done better than company Y? Give to them instead. Prefer unmanned expeditions to Mars colonization? There could be a niche for that, too. Even without a profit motive, this market would force non-profits to compete with one another, become more efficient, and meet market demand. With the government monopoly, however, there's no competition and little accountability. If you like space shuttles and NASA decides to scrap the program -- well, you can't take your money elsewhere. You're just S.O.L.
If I still haven't convinced you that private industry is interested in science -- well, I guess I'll just get back to working on my PhD at a private (non-profit) university, funded by a private fellowship.:)
Several of the people I work with in Caltech's Control and Dynamical Systems department work on celestial mechanics and calculating space flight trajectories -- and I can assure you, it's some pretty complicated stuff, involving invariant manifolds and (IIRC) patching together different three-body systems. There's a good popular article about this in Science News, and you can find more info (in as much detail as you'd like!) on Shane Ross' homepage.
Slashdot Mirror
"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." -Henry David Thoreau
This idea goes at least as far back as the Greek stoic philosophers, and probably further. It didn't make it's debut in Fight Club, and no, the hippies didn't invent it in the 60's either.
Cheers,
IT
It sounds like he's just upset that the average consumer has other things to be concerned about besides how many times they're allowed to burn the same CD over and over. In other words, he's upset that the average person isn't more like him.
That's exactly it. It sort of reminds me of Richard Stallman trying to convince people that proprietary software makes them into slaves, when their software decisions are based on criteria other than (his idea of) morality. They just can't fathom that it's a matter of preference, and not people being duped out of their freedoms. To the average person, this sort of thing sounds like someone saying, "Yes, I know you *think* you prefer vanilla ice cream, but you really want chocolate. In fact, who cares if you like vanilla? You must have chocolate! Vanilla is EEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLL."
Cheers,
IT
As a DDR fan reporting from SIGGRAPH, I'm disappointed to say that the gameplay is more like striking a series of "poses" than actual dancing. "Okay, now put your arms straight up. Now put them in a V. Now lean over sideways. It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A! ..."
Cheers,
IT
I am wondering why askslashdot is being used to push agendas/post news stories, i know this isn't a new thing, but aren't there real questions to be answered? Why couldn't this story just be a normal news submission?
Seriously: agenda-pushing "stories", hyperbolic summaries, rhetorical questions? What is this, BoingBoing?
Cheers,
Ari
"Dude, it was so funny I literally shit my pants!"
"Well, what did you do?"
"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."
"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"
"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"
Cheers,
Ari
You're absolutely correct that the article summary is somewhat statistically (and economically) illiterate. Instead of "Worst Tech CEOs Earn the Most Money," why not "Struggling Companies Pay CEOs Top Dollar to Turn Things Around"?
... like people who complain that "The Man" is keeping them down.
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is a coincidence. There's no way Slashdotters would have so grossly misinterpreted a study correlating, say, video games and violence -- because the party line around here is that video games are a Good Thing. A lot of geeks, however, have complete disdain for the "suits" and "pointy haired bosses" in management. "Why do the 'clueless' managers make so much money, when I'm obviously so much smarter? Why do I have less job security when I'm the one working 100 hour weeks, fueled by Mountain Dew and fear of downsizing?" It's true that there are bad managers out there, but much of this attitude is just scapegoating for one's own job dissatisfaction
It also shows a profound misunderstanding of business. To the disgruntled coder, it may seem like the business world is stupid and arbitrary -- where people make more money the "dumber" they are -- because they don't understand it. But really, it's little different than if the CEO said: "I don't understand your C++ code; it just looks like a bunch of random characters you threw together. Therefore, it's stupid." Like it or not, there is such a thing as skill in business -- and oftentimes, it's rarer and less replaceable than technical skill. Just take a look at the career of Steve Wozniak, with and without Steve Jobs. Now look at the career of Steve Jobs, with and without Steve Wozniak.
Cheers,
IT
This seems logical enough to me -- but just to play devil's advocate, couldn't this result be due to survivorship bias? According to the "hygiene hypothesis," exposure early in life to infections from household dust, germy siblings or surfaces may reduce the risk of developing disease in adulthood. But let's add a few words to the end of that sentence: among those who survived the original infections.
What if it's simply the case that the wild rats have more robust immune systems because those who didn't were killed off by disease? Perhaps living in filth doesn't make you healthier -- maybe it just kills off the sick, so that you only see the healthy ones who survived when you collect your sample?
It seems like you'd need to do an honest-to-goodness randomized experiment to rule out this possibility.
Cheers,
IT
The problem with the simple explanation is that 100 or so of the (former) lessees wanted to buy them, and were willing to absolve GM of any liability, service, or warranty obligations. Many of these people were fairly wealthy, and probably would have paid good money for the cars. Certainly enough to let GM come out ahead after processing the fairly trivial legal paperwork involved. Yet GM went out of its way to collect the cars and crush them into oblivion.
Although IANAL, I'd be willing to bet that GM's lawyers weren't convinced that they'd truly be absolved of liability. One of the reasons the EV1 was leased -- with a service contract, and with terms prohibiting outside servicing -- was the technical expertise required to work on a car with potentially lethal voltages. Just imagine the poor widow of an auto mechanic being trotted up in front of a jury, sobbing about how her husband got fried by the car that big, bad GM knew was dangerous. Any possible revenue from selling the cars would have been chump change compared to the 2 BILLION they had already lost on the program, and it's not unreasonable that they cut their losses rather than exposing themselves to potential lawsuits.
This usenet post has some great information, from someone who worked in the division of GM that produced the car.
Cheers,
IT
The shitty thing is, you have to pay for minutes you were ripped off. It's one of the few businesses that you can have stolen more than you have. If I have a warehouse ripped off, I am only out the equipment in that warehouse. With tollfraud, I can be out 300,000 dollars more than my whole business is worth.
...)
Actually, you can lose more than you're worth whenever you buy something on credit -- this isn't unique to VOIP at all. Monthly billing, essentially, lets you buy minutes on credit until you have to repay your debt at the end of the month. Suppose you ran a retail store and bought your inventory on credit, expecting to pay for it with the revenue from selling the inventory. If your store gets robbed, you're in the same boat -- you owe money that you don't have. (Or suppose you run a restaurant, and your fridge breaks down, spoiling all the food that you bought on credit
The problem is obviously solved if you already own all your inventory, in which case you can only lose what you've already paid for. With VOIP, the same would be true if you pre-paid for your minutes.
Cheers,
IT
adapted from Strong Bad's famous family recipe:
Ingredients:
3 or 7 medium sized Hairy Lobsters
2 salt
40 pancakes
Instructions:
Get down off smokestack. Then cook that
ugly thing.
(NOTE: For best results, dip the Hairy Lobster in egg wash before shaving or else he'll get those red shaving bumpies all over him. Ugh.)
Cheers,
IT
"Knock Knock"
"Who's There?"
"d7ff8a900e3ef2ab33edc32aa9bf2ed7"
That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
Cheers,
IT
Does having fun make ANY job more enjoyable?.................. *yes*.
So in this case, does IT stand for "Information Tautology"?
Cheers,
IT
I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.
)
It's important to understand the distinction between being a communist and being a member of the Communist Party. (A lot of people miss this distinction in discussions of McCarthyism, for example.) Being a communist is one thing -- i.e. believing in and espousing communist ideals, associating with other communists, etc. The Communist Party, however, was actually an American branch of the Party in the U.S.S.R. -- it took orders from Moscow, had the goal of violently overthrowing the U.S. government, and was involved in espionage within the U.S. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA.
Basically, it's the difference between being sympathetic with Al Qaeda (totally legal, if not moral) and being an active member of Al Qaeda.
Cheers,
IT
Of course, everyone is all for rebuilding New Orleans. How could anyone, aside from a cold-blooded sociopath, be against it? But if you discovered that the government's idea of "rebuilding" is to turn a major part of your business into a government-owned monopoly -- and not only that, but they expected you to help them with this plan -- well, I think you'd be a bit miffed, too. I know that New Orleans' stated motive for "free" (TANSTAAFL) municipal WiFi is to stimulate business, but showing a penchant for nationalizing industries isn't exactly a great way to say, "Hey, Mr. CEO, bring your business to New Orleans!"
Cheers,
IT
There's a perfectly good reason why people like beta software. Sure, it contains bugs -- but so does production software. However, beta software is in a state of constant improvement. Actual people, right now, are working on the product to make it better. If you run into a problem, there's a good chance it'll be fixed reasonably soon. Designating software as a final release means that the developers (or managers) think it's "good enough" for now. Still not good enough for you? Well, too bad.
This is part of the appeal of open source software: the software is in a constant state of improvement. If the original developers aren't improving it, you can improve it yourself, or find someone who will. The software is never "final," and never orphaned, as long as it's open.
Cheers,
IT
Sounds like Google may be ready to go starbucks.
As it turns out, the same news source has recently revealed Google's "phase two" plans.
Cheers,
IT
What happens if you ferment a bunch of Abelian grapes in a Klein bottle?
I suppose you'd get very disoriented.
Cheers,
IT
From TFA:
...)? Gee, I wonder how evolution missed that one. In related news, the human body reacts similarly to getting hit by a baseball bat as getting hit by a cricket bat. No kidding ... the same mechanism! :)
Grüsser says that addictions stem from relying too heavily on one coping strategy, which eventually becomes the only activity that can activate the dopamine system and bring a person relief. "It's the same mechanism in all addicts," she says.
You mean the brain doesn't have completely separate mechanisms for addictions to video games and drugs (and gambling, and sex
Cheers,
IT
Your mistake is buying 2GB of RAM from Apple. They overchage for RAM unlike anything i have ever seen. Save yoruself some money and buy from someone else.
I agree that Apple sells generic Samsung RAM at an obscene markup -- although I went through a couple bad sticks of cheapo RAM when upgrading my PowerBook, which was extremely frustrating. My theory is that Apple probably tests the snot out of their RAM to make sure it's good, because it would look supremely bad for Apple's image if they sold RAM that crashed your computer and didn't "just work". NewEgg, on the other hand, probably just throws the same RAM into a box without testing. This would account for at least part of the price premium, if it's true. Does anyone have any information that would confirm/refute this?
Of course, you can have the best of both worlds by buying cheap RAM, installing it, and letting Hardware Test run overnight on a loop before you start using it regularly.
Cheers,
IT
. However, are these internet degrees even worth the paper their printed on?
Yeah, probably about that much.
Cheers,
IT
"Imagination is more important than knowledge..."
For some reason, this quote always reminds me of rich people who say that there's more to life than money. It's much easier to say when you've got it in spades.
Cheers,
IT
What's next? "The 5th derivative of FreeBSD growth is negative! Netcraft confirms it!" God forbid anything should have less than exponential growth.
Cheers,
IT
I always hate it when people say that NASA should be on its way out, and private industry should take over. NO! Failures! F-! Private industry is out looking for profit, finding a dollar in something. If there isn't a dollar to be earned, they won't be in business very long. Private industry isn't interested in furthering the field of science, they don't care too much about contributing to the knowledge of mankind. This is why we need NASA-- to make scientific breakthroughs that are available to ALL for (ideally) noble causes.
:)
This is absolutely false. Not all private organizations are for-profit -- non-profit organizations are private as well! There is indeed a market for "unprofitable" research, just as there is for charity and other activities. The market consists of people like you (and many other commenters) who are eager to fund space exploration, disaster relief, homeless shelters, etc.
The advantage to you, as a "consumer" of space exploration research, is that you can choose among many companies to get the most bang for your buck. Think company X gets the job done better than company Y? Give to them instead. Prefer unmanned expeditions to Mars colonization? There could be a niche for that, too. Even without a profit motive, this market would force non-profits to compete with one another, become more efficient, and meet market demand. With the government monopoly, however, there's no competition and little accountability. If you like space shuttles and NASA decides to scrap the program -- well, you can't take your money elsewhere. You're just S.O.L.
If I still haven't convinced you that private industry is interested in science -- well, I guess I'll just get back to working on my PhD at a private (non-profit) university, funded by a private fellowship.
Cheers,
IT
No, that's a googol
Maybe it's a "google" if the zeros get broken up indiscriminately by the lameness filter.
Cheers,
IT
Several of the people I work with in Caltech's Control and Dynamical Systems department work on celestial mechanics and calculating space flight trajectories -- and I can assure you, it's some pretty complicated stuff, involving invariant manifolds and (IIRC) patching together different three-body systems. There's a good popular article about this in Science News, and you can find more info (in as much detail as you'd like!) on Shane Ross' homepage.
Cheers,
IT