Oh, how self-righteous! There is a lot more to it than that. A stock's price goes up or down due to demand, simple as that. Now demand can be caused by all sorts of things. One of which is profit and profit can be generated in any number of ways. Some of which you mention. The question is: why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Obviously the impact on the bottom line would be relatively small, but if labor costs are too high, then it would be a good place to start, since most CEOs are grossly overpaid. Of course if we keep outsourcing labor to other countries, then we will eventually outsource the CEO position as well, because other countries will own our businesses.
"Dr. Octavius says his fusion relies on tritium and that there is only 25 pounds of the substance in the world. In reality, tritium is merely an isotope of hydrogen and is a good deal more common than that. For example, there is a large region of the North Pacific that contains tritium-rich salt water."
Tritium is relatively common but Helium-3 is only relatively adundant in places that have no atmosphere and are subject to solar winds, like the moon.
So he works at MIT and he plays with his toys in the media lab. Big deal. Can someone name any interesting research that has recently come out of the media labs? Yet people continue to be in awe of it. Anyhow, I don't think a single one of his predictions have come true except perhaps in the most trivial ways. Thank god/fate/whatever he doesn't get as much print, bits, etc as he did at one time. We waste less resources that way.
First of all, getting over yourself isn't your biggest problem. Meeting people that are truly your peers or even superior to yourself will happen and you will naturally understand that there are many kinds of intelligence and intelligence isn't the most important thing in the world.
Treating yourself as nothing special, as one person suggested, is just not honest, and it sounds like that person is still dealing with the disappointment of not being the smartest person he knows. Look around; it's a fact; there are people that are smarter than almost everyone else. You may be one of them. In that sense you may be special, however, intelligence in whatever form isn't necessarily the most important thing. Just remember, you may be wrong at any time and the truth can come from any source, even from someone less talented than yourself.
I have mixed feelings about college. I went to one of the better colleges in the country. I met a FEW interesting people. Most of them were fellow students. Almost all of the professors were a waste of time. But that may have had more to do with me than them. The real value of college is being able to try different things in order to find out what you like and what you are good at doing without worrying about where your next meal will come from if you screw up.
Was it worth $140,000? (I paid for my own education with loans and scholarships, etc.) Probably not. I could have spent that money on travel or doing a lot of other things for four years. However if you want to do something technical, your options may be more limited. I do work in technology and my degree is not a technical degree but I'm not sure how common that is. Anyhow, it did get me to where I wanted to be, but I probably could have done it for cheaper by going to a less prestigious college or in some other way or by going to a more prestigious college for a similar cost. Like any solution to a problem college has its trade-offs and it depends on your immediate circumstances, but college is not totally useless.
What you really need to do is figure out what you want out of life. How you do it is really up to you. You can do it in college, by traveling, or by starting your own business. Experiment. Follow your passion. Only experience will tell you what you enjoy. Guiding yourself through life has more to do with developing taste (in the broadest sense) than using your brain to figure out a determinate solution to a fixed problem.
You may end up being less monetarily successful than your peers (and that may matter more than you think when you want to start a family), but you may be more personally successful, assuming acquiring money does not equal being sucessful to you. However, if you want maximize your chances of doing well monetarily, then you have to go to college. In today's world, college doesn't guarantee you anything, but it's not a bad place to figure out what you want to do and it does increase your chances of doing well monetarily, assuming that matters to you.
Remember there is no right answer. I know it sounds trite, but there are only better and worse answers. You are not a machine designed for a single purpose. We all have multiple "purposes" or callings or whatever you want to call them, and fulfilling as many of them as you can as completely as you can is a challenge.
Clearly free trade benefits America at a macro-economic level, but that's really not the point. The point is that at a microeconomic level there are people that need to pay the bills and feed themselves. So, if we want to maintain the macroeconomic benefits of free trade we need to address the microeconomic shortcomings of free trade by providing retraining, free education (?), and more robust unemployment benefits that include things like health insurance. These CEOs keep blathering on about the macroeconomic benefits, but doing so just makes them look even more clueless and out of it. Clearly they are so insulated by their wealth that they can't even relate to the average worker.
Incidentally, the Economist recently criticized the US government for insisting all work for the US government be done in the country because it would raise the cost of goods for taxpayers. I think that if you ask the average American taxpayer whether they want to save 3% on their taxes by outsourcing or instead spend that money to keep an American employed, then most would rather keep an American employed.
You may be thinking so how does any of this make Barrett a traitor? In the case of technology workers, they usually have invested tens of thousands of dollars in an education (assuming they got to the best schools like they are "supposed" to) to get a job that will allow them to pay the bills because people like Barrett told them that that is all they needed to do to get a job. Now, CEOs like Barrett say, "Too bad, you graduated from a great school, but we are shipping the jobs to country x,y,z". That's why people feel betrayed.
There are plenty of people who are fully qualified for these jobs, but instead they are sent overseas because it is cheaper. Barrett's insistence that it is because of a lack of qualified labor is completely disingenuous. In fact, Barrett's insistence that the problem is due to unqualified labor exacerbates the situation because it reinforces the belief that by getting a good education we are guaranteed a job. In fact, the issue is the cost of goods. Barrett has nobody to blame besides himself for being called a Benedict Arnold and his current position just makes the situation worse.
However, we need to keep in mind that corporations owe nothing to anybody besides their shareholders. If you happen to be wealthy enough to be a shareholder (50% of Americans) than all of this outsourcing stuff is good news because it increases margins. This is not a real problem. The real problem is a government that will not consider the needs of the not-rich (education, health care, etc) but only the wealthy.
Of course, there are other things to consider. For example, why should a corporation receive special treatment in regards to taxes, etc, when they are increasing the tax burden on others by forcing other taxpayers to foot the bill for any hypothetical job retraining. Not to mention corporations that evade taxes all together. If these corporations were made to pay taxes, the tax burden could be reduced for not-rich workers, etc. But, the main problem is that there are not appropriate microeconmic policies and structures in place in order to compensate for the unwanted outcomes of free trade and outsourcing in particular.
Sure, if it isn't doing anything else. Anyhow, it depends on the processor and the router, but in any case it will negatively impact performance. The question is whether the trade-off is worth it.
What a troll. Yes, because everyone who doesn't setup MD5 is obviously lazy or stupid, unlike you and your smart friends. Please. There is obviously overhead with doing MD5 and it is reasonable not to use it for performance reasons. Anyway, as someone already mentioned, the vulnerability is in TCP which means the MD5 solution works for BGP, which is the most vulnerable, but does nothing for anything else built on TCP (e.g. DNS).
There are a lot of things possible a priori. In fact everything possible as possible is a priori. Otherwise it would be actual and a posteriori. And that's the question: Is it actually the case.
A Klein bottle? If you took the end of the funnel and passed it back through itself it would look just like a klein bottle: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KleinBottle. html
Absolutely wrong? That's pretty harsh and unsubstantiated. Every business in as much as it is a real business exists to make money, and those that don't don't exist long. However, we are basically arguing the same point; the Xbox is Microsoft's way of extending its domination from the desktop to the living room. That's what I meant by calling it a trojan horse. In a sense they have to pursue that strategy as consoles take on more PC-like functions, otherwise their potential market shrinks as PCs are marginalized by consoles. Where we differ is that I don't think they would needlessly throw away money to dominate the home information architecture and to that extent they won't care about emulation because it allows them to make money on games without taking a loss on hardware. They are pursuing this strategy themselves for the next generation console anyhow: http://www.microsoft.com/xna/.
You forgot one thing, they want to dominate the gaming market only to the extent they make money. Emulators will allow them to do this. The XBox has always been a Trojan horse.
That's really interesting. I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.
Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person. You may disagree, but it's not inconsistent. The fact that democrats are also inconsistent doesn't make the Republics any less consistent. Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.
Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you. It's considered a home invasion and a threat to his or her person. Most people would just consider it trespassing...
True, but the US's objection was based on federal law. If it weren't a federal law, states could decide for themselves whether they want to allow internet gambling.
There is no federal law against gambling otherwise states wouldn't be allowed to have legalized gambling. Federal law always trumps state law. In order to ban gambling there would need to be a constitutional amendment because Las Vegas would undoubtedly challenge any law the federal government would issue against gambling and would probably win the case in the supreme court.
Cocaine is a bad example. Importing Columbian cocaine would also violate the law in Columbia and several UN resolutions. Gambling obviously is not in violation of Columbian law, American law, or UN accords, but it is ostensibly a law enforcement issue. The issue at hand is placing bets across state or national border via the telecom infrastructure. That was the legal excuse for what is obviously, according to this representative, a moral objection.
The law was originally put in place in order to give the federal government the ability to prosecute gangsters involved in gambling. It was also a way for the federal government to impose its will on the States without appearing to do so.
Orgnaized crime may be an issue for off shore gambling, but most of these places have been vetted by one of the big accounting firms.
The only reason for the objection seems to be a kind of reactionary moralism. It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.
As business processes become business services (i.e. business processes transformed into web services), entire companies will become virtualized... Nearly every single component of a company will be outsource-able... Not only that, most of these business services will be automated rather than done by people (e.g. customer support will almost be self-service). Yes, there will still be people doing customer support, but it will be a skeleton crew. In short, the tech boom in India is another bubble because what they are doing now will be automated in the future. It might go to China or the Philipines first, but ultimately it will be automated. The folks in India better move up the food chain pretty quick. Otherwise, they will be lefft behind.
Ok, well, I read the article about his work and it sounds like something that somebody who has had 6 months of university would put forward as a theory. I need to read his original work, but my guess is that he doesn't understand the concept of infinity. Infinity allows itself to be determined but is not in itself determined. In a sense it is a discontinuity between two numbers. This understanding of infinity is built into calculus and physics. How else do you think you would be able to do calculus?
Aleph was good, but I agree that the coneection between the Kabbalah and Cantor's use of the aleph was completely unsubstantiated. It did serve as an interesting trope, however.
Yes, while it is stressful to be significantly different in beliefs or ability (positively or negatively) from ones peers, it doesn't mean that that person is going to be insane. It's very similar to the romantic tradition of the poet or artist as the mad man. Even Nietzsche's prophet in the Gay Science who announces that God is dead is a mad man.
Russell is a pompous ass. I never really liked anything he wrote from an aesthetic perspective, but he is damn clever. And no, being that clever does not entitle him to be an ass. I was surprised by how many of the British philosophers that I met revere him. Incidentally, isn't it a bit much to cast aspersions based on a possible typo?
The notation has changed and not necessarily for the better. It's now a confusing plethora of ambiguous symbols that are restricted in meaning to the particular sub-domain of logic in which you may be working. Yes, of course, they are usually defined within the proof, but somehow it feels like it is easier to read the older stuff. Most of it is not of significance. It is just short hand. I suppose logic is a victim of its own success.
I look forward to reading Everything and More. Hopefully it will be more substantial than The Mystery of the Aleph.
It shouldn't be shocking... The concept of a coin toss was always a mathematical idealization. Of course when contextualized in physical space it has a bias. It's the reason that there is such a thing as history. Anyone who thought a coin toss had equal odds was making a category mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, how self-righteous! There is a lot more to it than that. A stock's price goes up or down due to demand, simple as that. Now demand can be caused by all sorts of things. One of which is profit and profit can be generated in any number of ways. Some of which you mention. The question is: why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Obviously the impact on the bottom line would be relatively small, but if labor costs are too high, then it would be a good place to start, since most CEOs are grossly overpaid. Of course if we keep outsourcing labor to other countries, then we will eventually outsource the CEO position as well, because other countries will own our businesses.
"Dr. Octavius says his fusion relies on tritium and that there is only 25 pounds of the substance in the world. In reality, tritium is merely an isotope of hydrogen and is a good deal more common than that. For example, there is a large region of the North Pacific that contains tritium-rich salt water."
Tritium is relatively common but Helium-3 is only relatively adundant in places that have no atmosphere and are subject to solar winds, like the moon.
So he works at MIT and he plays with his toys in the media lab. Big deal. Can someone name any interesting research that has recently come out of the media labs? Yet people continue to be in awe of it. Anyhow, I don't think a single one of his predictions have come true except perhaps in the most trivial ways. Thank god/fate/whatever he doesn't get as much print, bits, etc as he did at one time. We waste less resources that way.
First of all, getting over yourself isn't your biggest problem. Meeting people that are truly your peers or even superior to yourself will happen and you will naturally understand that there are many kinds of intelligence and intelligence isn't the most important thing in the world.
Treating yourself as nothing special, as one person suggested, is just not honest, and it sounds like that person is still dealing with the disappointment of not being the smartest person he knows. Look around; it's a fact; there are people that are smarter than almost everyone else. You may be one of them. In that sense you may be special, however, intelligence in whatever form isn't necessarily the most important thing. Just remember, you may be wrong at any time and the truth can come from any source, even from someone less talented than yourself.
I have mixed feelings about college. I went to one of the better colleges in the country. I met a FEW interesting people. Most of them were fellow students. Almost all of the professors were a waste of time. But that may have had more to do with me than them. The real value of college is being able to try different things in order to find out what you like and what you are good at doing without worrying about where your next meal will come from if you screw up.
Was it worth $140,000? (I paid for my own education with loans and scholarships, etc.) Probably not. I could have spent that money on travel or doing a lot of other things for four years. However if you want to do something technical, your options may be more limited. I do work in technology and my degree is not a technical degree but I'm not sure how common that is. Anyhow, it did get me to where I wanted to be, but I probably could have done it for cheaper by going to a less prestigious college or in some other way or by going to a more prestigious college for a similar cost. Like any solution to a problem college has its trade-offs and it depends on your immediate circumstances, but college is not totally useless.
What you really need to do is figure out what you want out of life. How you do it is really up to you. You can do it in college, by traveling, or by starting your own business. Experiment. Follow your passion. Only experience will tell you what you enjoy. Guiding yourself through life has more to do with developing taste (in the broadest sense) than using your brain to figure out a determinate solution to a fixed problem.
You may end up being less monetarily successful than your peers (and that may matter more than you think when you want to start a family), but you may be more personally successful, assuming acquiring money does not equal being sucessful to you. However, if you want maximize your chances of doing well monetarily, then you have to go to college. In today's world, college doesn't guarantee you anything, but it's not a bad place to figure out what you want to do and it does increase your chances of doing well monetarily, assuming that matters to you.
Remember there is no right answer. I know it sounds trite, but there are only better and worse answers. You are not a machine designed for a single purpose. We all have multiple "purposes" or callings or whatever you want to call them, and fulfilling as many of them as you can as completely as you can is a challenge.
than a G3! Otherwise it would have run in real time... ;-)
I can see why they might be a little cautious... ;-)
Clearly free trade benefits America at a macro-economic level, but that's really not the point. The point is that at a microeconomic level there are people that need to pay the bills and feed themselves. So, if we want to maintain the macroeconomic benefits of free trade we need to address the microeconomic shortcomings of free trade by providing retraining, free education (?), and more robust unemployment benefits that include things like health insurance. These CEOs keep blathering on about the macroeconomic benefits, but doing so just makes them look even more clueless and out of it. Clearly they are so insulated by their wealth that they can't even relate to the average worker.
Incidentally, the Economist recently criticized the US government for insisting all work for the US government be done in the country because it would raise the cost of goods for taxpayers. I think that if you ask the average American taxpayer whether they want to save 3% on their taxes by outsourcing or instead spend that money to keep an American employed, then most would rather keep an American employed.
You may be thinking so how does any of this make Barrett a traitor? In the case of technology workers, they usually have invested tens of thousands of dollars in an education (assuming they got to the best schools like they are "supposed" to) to get a job that will allow them to pay the bills because people like Barrett told them that that is all they needed to do to get a job. Now, CEOs like Barrett say, "Too bad, you graduated from a great school, but we are shipping the jobs to country x,y,z". That's why people feel betrayed.
There are plenty of people who are fully qualified for these jobs, but instead they are sent overseas because it is cheaper. Barrett's insistence that it is because of a lack of qualified labor is completely disingenuous. In fact, Barrett's insistence that the problem is due to unqualified labor exacerbates the situation because it reinforces the belief that by getting a good education we are guaranteed a job. In fact, the issue is the cost of goods. Barrett has nobody to blame besides himself for being called a Benedict Arnold and his current position just makes the situation worse.
However, we need to keep in mind that corporations owe nothing to anybody besides their shareholders. If you happen to be wealthy enough to be a shareholder (50% of Americans) than all of this outsourcing stuff is good news because it increases margins. This is not a real problem. The real problem is a government that will not consider the needs of the not-rich (education, health care, etc) but only the wealthy.
Of course, there are other things to consider. For example, why should a corporation receive special treatment in regards to taxes, etc, when they are increasing the tax burden on others by forcing other taxpayers to foot the bill for any hypothetical job retraining. Not to mention corporations that evade taxes all together. If these corporations were made to pay taxes, the tax burden could be reduced for not-rich workers, etc. But, the main problem is that there are not appropriate microeconmic policies and structures in place in order to compensate for the unwanted outcomes of free trade and outsourcing in particular.
"maybe that just means you travel at the speed of light.."
We all travel at the speed of light, it's just a question of what degree it is in time and of what degree it is in space...
Sure, if it isn't doing anything else. Anyhow, it depends on the processor and the router, but in any case it will negatively impact performance. The question is whether the trade-off is worth it.
In most cases it uses UDP, however, when doing a zone transfer it uses TCP.
What a troll. Yes, because everyone who doesn't setup MD5 is obviously lazy or stupid, unlike you and your smart friends. Please. There is obviously overhead with doing MD5 and it is reasonable not to use it for performance reasons. Anyway, as someone already mentioned, the vulnerability is in TCP which means the MD5 solution works for BGP, which is the most vulnerable, but does nothing for anything else built on TCP (e.g. DNS).
There are a lot of things possible a priori. In fact everything possible as possible is a priori. Otherwise it would be actual and a posteriori. And that's the question: Is it actually the case.
A Klein bottle? If you took the end of the funnel and passed it back through itself it would look just like a klein bottle:. html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KleinBottle
Absolutely wrong? That's pretty harsh and unsubstantiated. Every business in as much as it is a real business exists to make money, and those that don't don't exist long. However, we are basically arguing the same point; the Xbox is Microsoft's way of extending its domination from the desktop to the living room. That's what I meant by calling it a trojan horse. In a sense they have to pursue that strategy as consoles take on more PC-like functions, otherwise their potential market shrinks as PCs are marginalized by consoles. Where we differ is that I don't think they would needlessly throw away money to dominate the home information architecture and to that extent they won't care about emulation because it allows them to make money on games without taking a loss on hardware. They are pursuing this strategy themselves for the next generation console anyhow: http://www.microsoft.com/xna/.
You forgot one thing, they want to dominate the gaming market only to the extent they make money. Emulators will allow them to do this. The XBox has always been a Trojan horse.
That's really interesting. I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.
Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person. You may disagree, but it's not inconsistent. The fact that democrats are also
inconsistent doesn't make the Republics any less consistent. Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.
Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you. It's considered a home invasion and a threat to his or her person. Most people would just consider it trespassing...
True, but the US's objection was based on federal law. If it weren't a federal law, states could decide for themselves whether they want to allow internet gambling.
There is no federal law against gambling otherwise states wouldn't be allowed to have legalized gambling. Federal law always trumps state law. In order to ban gambling there would need to be a constitutional amendment because Las Vegas would undoubtedly challenge any law the federal government would issue against gambling and would probably win the case in the supreme court.
Cocaine is a bad example. Importing Columbian cocaine would also violate the law in Columbia and several UN resolutions. Gambling obviously is not in violation of Columbian law, American law, or UN accords, but it is ostensibly a law enforcement issue. The issue at hand is placing bets across state or national border via the telecom infrastructure. That was the legal excuse for what is obviously, according to this representative, a moral objection.
The law was originally put in place in order to give the federal government the ability to prosecute gangsters involved in gambling. It was also a way for the federal government to impose its will on the States without appearing to do so.
Orgnaized crime may be an issue for off shore gambling, but most of these places have been vetted by one of the big accounting firms.
The only reason for the objection seems to be a kind of reactionary moralism. It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.
As business processes become business services (i.e. business processes transformed into web services), entire companies will become virtualized... Nearly every single component of a company will be outsource-able... Not only that, most of these business services will be automated rather than done by people (e.g. customer support will almost be self-service). Yes, there will still be people doing customer support, but it will be a skeleton crew. In short, the tech boom in India is another bubble because what they are doing now will be automated in the future. It might go to China or the Philipines first, but ultimately it will be automated. The folks in India better move up the food chain pretty quick. Otherwise, they will be lefft behind.
Ok, well, I read the article about his work and it sounds like something that somebody who has had 6 months of university would put forward as a theory. I need to read his original work, but my guess is that he doesn't understand the concept of infinity. Infinity allows itself to be determined but is not in itself determined. In a sense it is a discontinuity between two numbers. This understanding of infinity is built into calculus and physics. How else do you think you would be able to do calculus?
TSITP.
Aleph was good, but I agree that the coneection between the Kabbalah and Cantor's use of the aleph was completely unsubstantiated. It did serve as an interesting trope, however.
Yes, while it is stressful to be significantly different in beliefs or ability (positively or negatively) from ones peers, it doesn't mean that that person is going to be insane. It's very similar to the romantic tradition of the poet or artist as the mad man. Even Nietzsche's prophet in the Gay Science who announces that God is dead is a mad man.
Russell is a pompous ass. I never really liked anything he wrote from an aesthetic perspective, but he is damn clever. And no, being that clever does not entitle him to be an ass. I was surprised by how many of the British philosophers that I met revere him. Incidentally, isn't it a bit much to cast aspersions based on a possible typo?
The notation has changed and not necessarily for the better. It's now a confusing plethora of ambiguous symbols that are restricted in meaning to the particular sub-domain of logic in which you may be working. Yes, of course, they are usually defined within the proof, but somehow it feels like it is easier to read the older stuff. Most of it is not of significance. It is just short hand. I suppose logic is a victim of its own success.
I look forward to reading Everything and More. Hopefully it will be more substantial than The Mystery of the Aleph.
are obviously not the same people... QTs numbers would be much higher...
It shouldn't be shocking... The concept of a coin toss was always a mathematical idealization. Of course when contextualized in physical space it has a bias. It's the reason that there is such a thing as history. Anyone who thought a coin toss had equal odds was making a category mistake.