How about if you ask the waiter how much something is, he says $10, but when the bill comes, it merely prints out of a wall-printer next to the table, and a bill machine is waiting for you to insert the proper amount. You feed it the bill, and extra money (to cover the missing item), and it simply gives you more change.
You look around, but there's no one to tell. There's a dropbox where you can list comments or complaints, but no one to make sure you pay the extra price.
Shrug.
I'm not confused at all. Both US parties, for the most part, support free speech at least enough to give lip service to it. Championing that globally is "American".
Half of America doesnt believe in the minimum wage or government oversight on business at all. So it's no surprise at all that we don't champion those rights abroad.
Hell, America was one of the biggest impediments (and still is) to including social issues like wages and access to services in the universal declaration of human rights.
When I was 13 or so, at a sleep-away summer camp, I went on the internet and found the website for our magic counselor (taught card tricks, disappearing, reappearing, etc). It was a members.aol.com site, and it had a guestbook. This was a good 10 years ago.
And I posted a comment to his guestbook. It said he was always looking at the kids in his bunk in a funny way and we were always scared he was always looking at us in the shower.
I wasn't even in this guy's bunk. I didn't even have any issues with this counselor. I was just so amazed at the power of the interweb and that one of our counselors had a wobsite (didnt have a blag, though). I simply had to post something vulger. Me and another kid spent like a day trying to figure out what to post that, to us, was funny. That was it.
Sounds like poor planning and bad decision making to me...
Poor planning right now? Perhaps. But once they make abortion illegal again, it becomes an accident that you have to pay for for the rest of your life.
And if you think abortion rights aren't being chipped away at, why are we passing laws that make it illegal to carry minors across state lines to get abortions?
Peter Senge wrote a book called the Fifth Discipline - the art of the learning organization (or something like that.) He basically says that the only way to make an organization that learns is to have people that learn, and then share the information with each other continually.
If a business is not helping its employees learn, it cannot become a learning organization. The people who learn things on their own will not feel like sharing it with everyone at the workplace (or at least be less likely to) because it was their own sweat and blood with which they gained that knowledge.
But of course, the business also needs to help encourage self-learning... and to do so without being over-bearing or making it seem like simply more work. Asking an employee to work another 10 hours a week in addition to the 40 or 50 they're already pulling is not the right way... it will, again, only make your employees more likely to put your balls to the grindstone with what they've learned, whereas if you help them learn it (via training, etc), it's looked upon more as a joint effort.
There were plenty of factors, each of which probably took its toll on google as some number of investors sold for each reason.
The entire market was down, as parent said. That probably led a few people to sell.
The world oil markets jumped quite a bit due to any number of factors, whether it's Iran, or other things that affect the oil markets. Google is obviously an energy-dependent company.
One month ago, google shot up 50 points in one week. I'm sure that more than a few investors felt that close to a 10% increase in one week was unstable and put the p:e ratio a bit higher than it should have been, and now seemed like a good enough time to take some of that profit home and put it in the bank.
Morgan Stanley *IS* guilty because email now qualifies as memo's did in the past. All paperwork within a corporation must be kept for records and potential audits by the SEC.
There is no such rule regarding the internet and it's users' IP addresses... at least not yet.
It's one thing for the music industry to say that p2p has no legal use for downloading things they own. It's completely another to say that p2p has NO LEGAL USE at all.
If all they were doing were stopping people from downloading THEIR products, this might be a more justifiable action on the part of the school, to cave to the organizations... assuming the teacher was preaching rampant copyright theft. But here, they're trying to ban an entire technology, and shut people up who simply say it has SOME legal uses.
Disagreeing doesn't justify theft, but then theft doesn't justify banning a technology.
It's like living in a world where food costs $50 per meal, and then when people begin to grow their own food in their own gardens, the revenue lost to farmers is extraordinary!
Of course, if food didn't cost that much, maybe poor people would be able to afford paying for it instead of sitting on our streets begging for money.
If you sell 5 handbags at $5,000 a piece, you make $25k revenue and pay very little for expenses. If you sell 5000 handbags at $5 a piece, you do a lot of work and notice less profit (more materials, more labor cost, same revenue, less profit). Of course, this leaves plenty of people without handbags, which doesn't matter for handbags, but the market works the same way for other products.
How do we have people starving in our country, while our government gives our farming industry subsidies to stay alive, and STILL manage to destroy surplus food?? Not that this has anything to do with the topic of course.
I actually just realized something when I re-read that. The name polybius gave to the changing of governments is "Anacyclosis", or "Anaku", which, oddly enough, bears a striking similarity to "Anakin" ?
This is an excerpt from a document that details how the three-branch system of government appeared, and why. It then goes into the problems of rule by one, rule by many, and rule by all. It gets long winded...
In Book VI of his Histories (6.4.6-11; cf. 6.3.5), the ancient Greek historian Polybius outlines three simple forms of constitution--each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).6 According to the historian, these three simple constitutions each degenerate, over time, into their respective corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule) by a cycle of gradual decline which he calls anacyclosis or "political revolution" (6.9.10: politeiw=n a)naku/klwsij; 6.4.7-11; cf. 6.3.9). 7
For monarchy, he claims, inevitably degrades into tyranny. Tyranny is then replaced by aristocracy, which in turn degrades into oligarchy. Oligarchy then is overthrown by democracy, which ultimately falls into its own corresponding distortion, mob-rule (or ochlocracy). In Polybius' analysis, the cycle then starts up again (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) since anarchy inevitably creates a void that some new demagogue will fill.8 'Anaku/klwsij, the sliding from one form of constitution into another, is unavoidable because of the inherent weakness of each simple form of constitution.9
The catalyst for the decay in each simple form, Polybius says (6.7.7), is hereditary succession--the automatic handing down of the privileges of a particular form of government to future generations without their ever having to internalize for themselves the discipline necessary to maintain those privileges.
Each of the three simple forms of constitution serves well enough at its inception, since founder kings arise out of their very excellence of character, aristocracies (by definition at least) form from the noblest of society, and democracies too embrace the highest ideals at the outset. The problem lies not with the initial impetus that forms these governments but with the fact that they each suffer entropy, or internal decay.
Polybius explains his theory in fuller detail, describing the mechanism by which hereditary succession weakens the state. When the crown is inherited generation upon generation, kings are no longer then chosen by excellence of leadership but by accident of birth. When monarchs are born to privilege, they no longer have any incentive to serve the state (since their privileges are no longer tied to their performance as leaders). They eventually expend their daily energies in merely fulfilling the desires of their own appetites. Having become arrogant and self-serving, the last in the line of tyrants is pushed aside by those who are close enough to the throne to notice his corruption, namely the members of the aristocracy (Polyb. 6.8.1).
They, in turn, serve the state well initially. After all, these were the nobles so offended by the king's excesses that principle drove them to take action against him. Unfortunately, here again, when the grandchildren of these nobles inherit position, they are ill equipped to handle the power of rule (since they were born to privilege and identify less and less with the problems of the common man). The aristocracy then degrades proportionally by each generation into an oligarchy, just as the kings degenerated into tyrants (6.8.5). The oligarchs then are banished or killed by the people, who finally assume the responsibility of ruling themselves.
The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefit
Dawkins tries to describe how life originated in his book "The Selfish Gene".
Basically, he starts by suggesting that survival of the fittest really started as survival of the most stable. Crystals and rocks are his examples here. Non-stable patterns break down, stable patterns stay together. Before rocks and crystals, everything was liquid, a part of the primordial ooze.
And at some point, somewhere, a molecule formed that could replicate. It didn't have a cell wall. It didn't produce proteins. It didn't do anything. As a matter of fact, it was almost no different than crystals, as crystals also attract the same molecules on top of it in much the same pattern.
The big difference here is that the new layer of the molecule would break away from the old. It'd be seperate, and could then attract its own new layer.
Copying errors at this point resulted in probably a very quick destabalization of the molecule and potentially even breaking apart... unless it was a better result that could perhaps stay stable longer.
If you think about it, these early replicators, the first at least, didn't even need to stay stable for all that long at all. It just needed to stay stable enough to make a handful of copies, some of which would not stay together, and others would be better or the same.
I know I haven't given Dawkins the justice he deserves, but I thought this might explain some of the correlaries to Darwinism.
Slashdot Mirror
where can I get this snoop dog / muppet video? A link is requested.
How about if you ask the waiter how much something is, he says $10, but when the bill comes, it merely prints out of a wall-printer next to the table, and a bill machine is waiting for you to insert the proper amount. You feed it the bill, and extra money (to cover the missing item), and it simply gives you more change. You look around, but there's no one to tell. There's a dropbox where you can list comments or complaints, but no one to make sure you pay the extra price. Shrug.
I'm not confused at all. Both US parties, for the most part, support free speech at least enough to give lip service to it. Championing that globally is "American".
Half of America doesnt believe in the minimum wage or government oversight on business at all. So it's no surprise at all that we don't champion those rights abroad.
Hell, America was one of the biggest impediments (and still is) to including social issues like wages and access to services in the universal declaration of human rights.
(5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+1000000)/10 = 100,004.5 I'm pretty sure that's an average, and I'm pretty sure 90% of those fall below the average.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=70+miles+ %2F+hour+*+2+seconds+in+feet&btnG=Search
When I was 13 or so, at a sleep-away summer camp, I went on the internet and found the website for our magic counselor (taught card tricks, disappearing, reappearing, etc). It was a members.aol.com site, and it had a guestbook. This was a good 10 years ago.
And I posted a comment to his guestbook. It said he was always looking at the kids in his bunk in a funny way and we were always scared he was always looking at us in the shower.
I wasn't even in this guy's bunk. I didn't even have any issues with this counselor. I was just so amazed at the power of the interweb and that one of our counselors had a wobsite (didnt have a blag, though). I simply had to post something vulger. Me and another kid spent like a day trying to figure out what to post that, to us, was funny. That was it.
I wasn't invited back to the camp.
Sounds like poor planning and bad decision making to me...
Poor planning right now? Perhaps. But once they make abortion illegal again, it becomes an accident that you have to pay for for the rest of your life. And if you think abortion rights aren't being chipped away at, why are we passing laws that make it illegal to carry minors across state lines to get abortions?
Maybe you should alert them to your prior-art (with source code if your management approves), instead of just hoping they stumble upon it...
Seriously, we apologize. We had no idea you guys were still around :(
As the US Dollar continues to fall relative to the rest of the world, rest assured, hiring US programmers will make itself valuable once again!
Peter Senge wrote a book called the Fifth Discipline - the art of the learning organization (or something like that.) He basically says that the only way to make an organization that learns is to have people that learn, and then share the information with each other continually.
If a business is not helping its employees learn, it cannot become a learning organization. The people who learn things on their own will not feel like sharing it with everyone at the workplace (or at least be less likely to) because it was their own sweat and blood with which they gained that knowledge.
But of course, the business also needs to help encourage self-learning... and to do so without being over-bearing or making it seem like simply more work. Asking an employee to work another 10 hours a week in addition to the 40 or 50 they're already pulling is not the right way... it will, again, only make your employees more likely to put your balls to the grindstone with what they've learned, whereas if you help them learn it (via training, etc), it's looked upon more as a joint effort.
I agree... make the top left a curve as well.
There were plenty of factors, each of which probably took its toll on google as some number of investors sold for each reason.
The entire market was down, as parent said. That probably led a few people to sell.
The world oil markets jumped quite a bit due to any number of factors, whether it's Iran, or other things that affect the oil markets. Google is obviously an energy-dependent company.
One month ago, google shot up 50 points in one week. I'm sure that more than a few investors felt that close to a 10% increase in one week was unstable and put the p:e ratio a bit higher than it should have been, and now seemed like a good enough time to take some of that profit home and put it in the bank.
Vader on Wheel of Fortune
NOOOOlercoaster
Vader on the Internet
The starfox crew, and Vader, mourn Fox's death
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Vader, Paddle, NOOOO
Vader loses his Stapler
Vader wants to be a millionaire
CNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Vader's NOO dance
The price is not Vader
The King teaches Darth Vader about the Truth
Vader gives his son the talk
I am your father
Lindsay Lohan NOOO
Vader makes a YTMND
Vader vs Chapelle NOOO
The Knights who say NOOOO
Vader joines Destiny's Child
Bohemian Vader
Where everybody KNOOOOOOOOOWs Your Name
Vader Ice Cream
I think thats quite enough actually... laugh
I love John Gatto... I live in NYC and I've only read one of his essays in full, but I've skimmed his other stuff and yeah... good stuff
I mean, Napoleon had been steaming in there, you know, 100 years before:
"I've - going to kill them, I'm going to kill them, going to - oooh, it's a bit cold, it's a bit cold. Right! Ok, ok bad idea."
And then Hitler:
"I've got a better idea, got a better idea, oooh, it's the same idea, it's the same idea, it's the same idea..."
- Eddie Izzard, Dressed To Kill
Morgan Stanley *IS* guilty because email now qualifies as memo's did in the past. All paperwork within a corporation must be kept for records and potential audits by the SEC.
There is no such rule regarding the internet and it's users' IP addresses... at least not yet.
It's one thing for the music industry to say that p2p has no legal use for downloading things they own. It's completely another to say that p2p has NO LEGAL USE at all. If all they were doing were stopping people from downloading THEIR products, this might be a more justifiable action on the part of the school, to cave to the organizations... assuming the teacher was preaching rampant copyright theft. But here, they're trying to ban an entire technology, and shut people up who simply say it has SOME legal uses. Disagreeing doesn't justify theft, but then theft doesn't justify banning a technology.
It's like living in a world where food costs $50 per meal, and then when people begin to grow their own food in their own gardens, the revenue lost to farmers is extraordinary!
Of course, if food didn't cost that much, maybe poor people would be able to afford paying for it instead of sitting on our streets begging for money.
If you sell 5 handbags at $5,000 a piece, you make $25k revenue and pay very little for expenses. If you sell 5000 handbags at $5 a piece, you do a lot of work and notice less profit (more materials, more labor cost, same revenue, less profit). Of course, this leaves plenty of people without handbags, which doesn't matter for handbags, but the market works the same way for other products.
How do we have people starving in our country, while our government gives our farming industry subsidies to stay alive, and STILL manage to destroy surplus food?? Not that this has anything to do with the topic of course.
I actually just realized something when I re-read that. The name polybius gave to the changing of governments is "Anacyclosis", or "Anaku", which, oddly enough, bears a striking similarity to "Anakin" ?
Mebbe I'm just seeing too much into things.
This is an excerpt from a document that details how the three-branch system of government appeared, and why. It then goes into the problems of rule by one, rule by many, and rule by all. It gets long winded...
http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/intro.htm
--------
In Book VI of his Histories (6.4.6-11; cf. 6.3.5), the ancient Greek historian Polybius outlines three simple forms of constitution--each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).6 According to the historian, these three simple constitutions each degenerate, over time, into their respective corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule) by a cycle of gradual decline which he calls anacyclosis or "political revolution" (6.9.10: politeiw=n a)naku/klwsij; 6.4.7-11; cf. 6.3.9). 7
For monarchy, he claims, inevitably degrades into tyranny. Tyranny is then replaced by aristocracy, which in turn degrades into oligarchy. Oligarchy then is overthrown by democracy, which ultimately falls into its own corresponding distortion, mob-rule (or ochlocracy). In Polybius' analysis, the cycle then starts up again (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) since anarchy inevitably creates a void that some new demagogue will fill.8 'Anaku/klwsij, the sliding from one form of constitution into another, is unavoidable because of the inherent weakness of each simple form of constitution.9
The catalyst for the decay in each simple form, Polybius says (6.7.7), is hereditary succession--the automatic handing down of the privileges of a particular form of government to future generations without their ever having to internalize for themselves the discipline necessary to maintain those privileges.
Each of the three simple forms of constitution serves well enough at its inception, since founder kings arise out of their very excellence of character, aristocracies (by definition at least) form from the noblest of society, and democracies too embrace the highest ideals at the outset. The problem lies not with the initial impetus that forms these governments but with the fact that they each suffer entropy, or internal decay.
Polybius explains his theory in fuller detail, describing the mechanism by which hereditary succession weakens the state. When the crown is inherited generation upon generation, kings are no longer then chosen by excellence of leadership but by accident of birth. When monarchs are born to privilege, they no longer have any incentive to serve the state (since their privileges are no longer tied to their performance as leaders). They eventually expend their daily energies in merely fulfilling the desires of their own appetites. Having become arrogant and self-serving, the last in the line of tyrants is pushed aside by those who are close enough to the throne to notice his corruption, namely the members of the aristocracy (Polyb. 6.8.1).
They, in turn, serve the state well initially. After all, these were the nobles so offended by the king's excesses that principle drove them to take action against him. Unfortunately, here again, when the grandchildren of these nobles inherit position, they are ill equipped to handle the power of rule (since they were born to privilege and identify less and less with the problems of the common man). The aristocracy then degrades proportionally by each generation into an oligarchy, just as the kings degenerated into tyrants (6.8.5). The oligarchs then are banished or killed by the people, who finally assume the responsibility of ruling themselves.
The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefit
What's the difference between a dead baby and a trampoline?
When you jump on a trampoline, you take your boots off.
http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
What do you get after nailing a dead baby to the wall with a giant spike through its chest? ...
I don't know about you... but I get an erection...
Dawkins tries to describe how life originated in his book "The Selfish Gene". Basically, he starts by suggesting that survival of the fittest really started as survival of the most stable. Crystals and rocks are his examples here. Non-stable patterns break down, stable patterns stay together. Before rocks and crystals, everything was liquid, a part of the primordial ooze. And at some point, somewhere, a molecule formed that could replicate. It didn't have a cell wall. It didn't produce proteins. It didn't do anything. As a matter of fact, it was almost no different than crystals, as crystals also attract the same molecules on top of it in much the same pattern. The big difference here is that the new layer of the molecule would break away from the old. It'd be seperate, and could then attract its own new layer. Copying errors at this point resulted in probably a very quick destabalization of the molecule and potentially even breaking apart... unless it was a better result that could perhaps stay stable longer. If you think about it, these early replicators, the first at least, didn't even need to stay stable for all that long at all. It just needed to stay stable enough to make a handful of copies, some of which would not stay together, and others would be better or the same. I know I haven't given Dawkins the justice he deserves, but I thought this might explain some of the correlaries to Darwinism.
Didn't we just got rid of them? / just askin