While a few people do seem to live their lives almost permanently aboard ship, they really are transportation devices to get you from one place to another and not a place where civilizations form and act independently.
Even so, they're seasteading examples. And some of the most profound changes in society have come from ships such as the voyage of the HMS Beagle on which Charles Darwin made the observations that became the theory of evolution, or any number of decisive sea battles (such as the battles of Midway, Jutland, or Salamis).
It shows he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of his product. That is the very opposite of Walter White.
I shouldn't have to tell you that you're wrong.It's not a cut and dry situation. And yes, it is worth noting that the style of Apple products is just as important as its functionality.
Science is the root of understanding, and if you don't understand something, you don't have expertise at it
Depends on what science is. If it is a methodical study of a subject, then a large number of rival competing approaches are all science. If it is implementation of the scientific method, then it is one method among many. Since one can gain a fairly deep understanding of a subject without implementing a methodical study of the subject, the claim that science is the root of understanding is cast even further in doubt.
Since in addition to that, your premise, that Jobs didn't understand his product, is most likely wrong, there really isn't much point to the observation.
I'm fairly sure that the type and stage of cancer he had had a very low mortality rate.
That "very low" mortality rate is greater than zero? And how much does the mortality rate for that category change over nine months?
A number of permanent RVers or "fulltimers" are residents of South Dakota. The state doesn't require a physical pressure except once every few years to get the driver's license renewed. They get around the permanent mailbox problem by setting up mail forwarding from a permanent address in that state.
Sure, it was. That was a mere ten lines of text on my screen. You mouthed a lot about "compromise", but one part of actual compromise is to listen to the opposition.
When it comes to actions matching words, you fail hard.
So what? None of that is relevant to my observation.
He was known to fight with his engineers against functionality. He would get mad because something didn't look nice, and insist on having his way, even if it broke the product.
In what universe does that make Jobs somehow inexperienced and/or ignorant? His priorities were different than your priorities. That is all.
Jobs was a man often ignorant and sometimes even antagonistic towards science, which is precisely why he is no longer with us.
The last part of that statement is not based on actual evidence. He did delay treatment for his cancer for a significant amount of time and that may have resulted in his cancer becoming untreatable. Or it might have already been untreatable at the time of detection. That's as far as the actual evidence goes.
Anything past that, such as your claims above is by its nature unscientific. I do find it interesting how often claims of others being unscientific are themselves unscientific.
And once again, so what if he was antagonistic towards science? That also is not an indication of experience and knowledge, especially when dealing with the market approach which is a very efficient rival to the scientific method for finding knowledge in the areas where markets apply (if you can buy and sell it, then it is visible to some market and hence, subject to price discovery and the other knowledge revealing aspects of markets).
Sigh. Dan Rather lost his job because of the way he gathered evidence about Bush going AWOL. The story itself was never discredited. But of course, Rather was a bad person, so everything he claimed must have been false, right? Typical ad hominem crap.
If the story is based on falsified evidence as was the case here, then that's a good indicate that it is fake. One shouldn't need to discredit such things since such sources discredit themselves by default.
It is interesting to note here that we have just the word of the literary agent that Obama didn't intend what was presented. Where is the supporting evidence for that assertion?
Basically, it was advantageous in this case for Obama to claim he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (a sexier locale for the potential customers and the venue), and we see that through a proxy he did so whether in error or not.
What makes you think that Steve Jobs didn't have knowledge and expertise? He founded multiple successful companies. That alone indicates a great deal of knowledge and experience. Plus, he apparently had a great deal of design and usability knowledge and experience that applied directly to the products of his businesses.
first you spend a lot of time telling me it's not fair to lay the "You're Evil!" schtick on the Right
Didn't happen. You didn't lay the "schtick" and I didn't say it was unfair.
then you go into an angry, not very coherent "You're Evil" rant
Didn't happen. I never said you were evil. Whether my rant, angry as it is, was "not very coherent" or not is a matter of subjective taste.
But I am a bit surprised that you can't seem to get the message. I repeated "end justifies the means" for a reason. My complaint was about implementation such as forcing mass health insurance, creating a bureau that has the powers and funding immunity akin to the Federal Reserve Bank, or sending thousands of high quality guns to murderous Mexican drug cartels. That's "means".
Desiring "to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off" doesn't address that. That's "ends". There are multiple ways for an end to be achieved. The key question must be asked. Why did the Obama administration and its congressional allies choose notably anti-democratic means to achieve the ends they desired?
I'm not sure you get the technique of insults. Conflating you with a group you might abhor is a standard tool in the box. It's something your ancestors would have appreciated while looting Frank hovels.
Mainly by a desire to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off.
So why do the ends justify the means, especially when there were sounder and less undemocratic means to achieve similar ends? Fire ants are bad in a yard so does that mean that it is just fine to raze the yard with a flamethrower even though less destructive methods exist to deal with the pests?
Heavy use of recreational drugs are bad so does that mean we need as in the US to outlaw such drugs, even possession of minute amounts, seize property that was used in drug transactions or manufacture, no matter how unintentional or tangential, and otherwise trample on our freedoms and rights? Ends justify the means, right?
Just because there is a perceived need, here, affordable insurance (how one gets that from increasing insurance costs for insurers while simultaneously heavily subsidizing the purchase of such insurance is an exercise for the delusional) and getting ripped off by banks (solution is to go to a bank that doesn't rip you off, such as most credit unions).
BTW, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous.
It means "Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted." Why would you think that I don't understand the term? In the examples I gave, there was no reason for forcing people to do things harmful to their interests (such as forcing healthy people to buy expensive insurance) or creating yet another consumer protection bureau but with unusual lack of oversight and absence of usual constitutional controls.
But then, I'm just one of the Evil Liberals (and crypto-Socialists) who need to be rounded up so you can have your single-party state where all dissent is outlawed.
Well, if you need to be rounded up as you say and shipped to a glue factory or something, then let's do that. Ends justify the means, right?
Look, some people get off on the high stimulation that a so-called world class city provides and some people don't. The latter group just isn't going to do well in world class cities no matter how generically attractive or whatever those cities are.
As to taxes, those few percent can make a big different in growth of wealth over many years.
Why are the tech companies almost always attracted to areas with exceptionally high cost of living?
That isn't the case. Some tech companies are and some aren't. My take is that some companies are where they are, because the CEO lives there. My take is that whatever else you can say about San Fransisco, it is a nice place to be rich.
and it just so happens the same racial groups just so happen to be more likely to be poor all over the world, and it just so happens they have the same problems associated with them, even outside of the US. It just so happens.
We've seen time and time again that deregulation and letting the markets decide in areas where many people are affected is not efficient or successful.
Perhaps you could name one such example? I wager I'll be able to show in turn either: a) that it wasn't a deregulated market, b) that it was efficient and successful contrary to your assertion, or c) some massive government-based distortion of the market existed.
I find it remarkable how people can make such claims without having decent support for their position or understanding of the subject. I feel confident making such predictions simply because poor outcome, in this case your statements above, implies flawed process.
You need to put a certain portion of those fruits into a common kitty that pays for stuff that benefits everybody, like having a road to drive on or an army to protect you from other countries.
And if that was all that governments funded, then we'd all be paying considerably less in taxes.
I've yet to run across someone thumping on the socialism drum that doesn't drive on the interstates, send their kids to public school and plans to take social security and medicare. So apparently SOME socialism is a-okay.
One could use the same argument for multinational corporations (or any other large component of the modern global economy). We buy goods and services from them all the time, hence, by your inane logic, we're all closet neo-liberals and/or explicitly approve of everything that multinational does, be it selling cigarettes to teens or labor busting in the Third World.
Heh, every place has its stories. Where I live and work, Yellowstone National Park, the usual approach is to drive carefree until one sees an elk or bison, then full stop on the road, hop out, and start shooting pictures. If you're lucky, they'll make an attempt to edge off the road a little and close the doors after they get out.
Surface seasteading, on the other hand, seems to be very promising in spite of the fact that nobody has really been successful at doing that with 21st Century technology.
They've been successfully doing it since ancient times. The current very successful model is seasteading by ship with occasional stops in specialized structures called docks and harbors.
The No Compromise with Evil Liberals meme had so thoroughly taken over the GOP
One only needs to look at the actions of the so-called "evil liberals" to see why "no compromise" is not only catching on, but warranted. How can one rationalize even slight support for the abusive and gratuitously anti-constitutional nature of laws such as Obamacare and the act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? As I see it, there are certain compromises that simply are untenable even in a democracy where compromise is the norm, namely, compromises that undermine the very democratic nature of society.
For example, how can one rationalize forcing people to pay for something they don't want or for that matter need? It is antithetical to democracy to force people to do things. I don't understand why people don't get that. My take is that in a democracy, if you set up a public good which gets leeched, then you either stop providing the public good or you accept the unintended consequences of providing that public good. The creation of powerful bureaucracies to enforce rather dumb public good choice and subsequent unintended consequences such as business-government corruption never made sense to me. But it keeps going on.
Or how can someone rationalize the creation of a powerful, unaccountable bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Regulatory agencies are typically housed under the executive branch and answerable to the US president and funded directly by US Congress. This could have easily been done with the CFPB, say putting it under either the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Commerce. One could still argue the merits of the organization, but it would have firm constitutional standing.
Instead, they put it nominally under the Federal Reserve Bank and funded it through the same. So we have a regulatory agency that doesn't answer to the US President directly. To be blunt, that shouldn't ever be allowed constitutionally, especially, since it will make precedent for further abuses along these lines.
What happens when someone else extends that idea to national security? The creation of a powerful law enforcement agency which is independently funded and controlled is but a small step from the CFPB.
And there's evidence that they didn't stand for it. I gather there's been shifts in voting from other nomination candidates (usually one other candidate) to Romney throughout the Republican nomination process. The usual victim has been Ron Paul, though Gingrich and Santorum have suffered at times. It looks to me like a case of election fraud through suborning of the tabulation process. It'll be interesting to see if this occurs in the actual presidential election as well.
So what? Where's the supporting evidence for your assertion? All we have is the word of the literary agent who at this point has considerable incentive to lie.
Uh, yes. Look I know this is a subtle point. But one doesn't need an organization with a legal status similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in order to enforce regulation for "consumers". The problem is implementation.
In light of the financial shenanigans, some would argue for more oversight, not less.
That is a noble sounding sentiment. But let's look at what actually happened. The law in question created an organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with minimal connection to any existing branch of government. It's basically an attempt to run around some aspects of our current government (namely, that most enforcement of federal regulation is done directly by the executive branch) without a reason, compelling or otherwise, for doing so. If one were to attempt to deliberately undermine what passes for US democracy in an innocuous appearing way, one couldn't do better than this.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can drop a little oil in.
You just happened by chance, get over it.
Or happened on purpose as the case may be. Without evidence one way or another, there's no point to taking a stand on the issue.
While a few people do seem to live their lives almost permanently aboard ship, they really are transportation devices to get you from one place to another and not a place where civilizations form and act independently.
Even so, they're seasteading examples. And some of the most profound changes in society have come from ships such as the voyage of the HMS Beagle on which Charles Darwin made the observations that became the theory of evolution, or any number of decisive sea battles (such as the battles of Midway, Jutland, or Salamis).
It shows he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of his product. That is the very opposite of Walter White.
I shouldn't have to tell you that you're wrong.It's not a cut and dry situation. And yes, it is worth noting that the style of Apple products is just as important as its functionality.
Science is the root of understanding, and if you don't understand something, you don't have expertise at it
Depends on what science is. If it is a methodical study of a subject, then a large number of rival competing approaches are all science. If it is implementation of the scientific method, then it is one method among many. Since one can gain a fairly deep understanding of a subject without implementing a methodical study of the subject, the claim that science is the root of understanding is cast even further in doubt.
Since in addition to that, your premise, that Jobs didn't understand his product, is most likely wrong, there really isn't much point to the observation.
I'm fairly sure that the type and stage of cancer he had had a very low mortality rate.
That "very low" mortality rate is greater than zero? And how much does the mortality rate for that category change over nine months?
A number of permanent RVers or "fulltimers" are residents of South Dakota. The state doesn't require a physical pressure except once every few years to get the driver's license renewed. They get around the permanent mailbox problem by setting up mail forwarding from a permanent address in that state.
TLDR.
Sure, it was. That was a mere ten lines of text on my screen. You mouthed a lot about "compromise", but one part of actual compromise is to listen to the opposition.
When it comes to actions matching words, you fail hard.
He was known to fight with his engineers against functionality. He would get mad because something didn't look nice, and insist on having his way, even if it broke the product.
In what universe does that make Jobs somehow inexperienced and/or ignorant? His priorities were different than your priorities. That is all.
Jobs was a man often ignorant and sometimes even antagonistic towards science, which is precisely why he is no longer with us.
The last part of that statement is not based on actual evidence. He did delay treatment for his cancer for a significant amount of time and that may have resulted in his cancer becoming untreatable. Or it might have already been untreatable at the time of detection. That's as far as the actual evidence goes.
Anything past that, such as your claims above is by its nature unscientific. I do find it interesting how often claims of others being unscientific are themselves unscientific.
And once again, so what if he was antagonistic towards science? That also is not an indication of experience and knowledge, especially when dealing with the market approach which is a very efficient rival to the scientific method for finding knowledge in the areas where markets apply (if you can buy and sell it, then it is visible to some market and hence, subject to price discovery and the other knowledge revealing aspects of markets).
Sigh. Dan Rather lost his job because of the way he gathered evidence about Bush going AWOL. The story itself was never discredited. But of course, Rather was a bad person, so everything he claimed must have been false, right? Typical ad hominem crap.
If the story is based on falsified evidence as was the case here, then that's a good indicate that it is fake. One shouldn't need to discredit such things since such sources discredit themselves by default.
It is interesting to note here that we have just the word of the literary agent that Obama didn't intend what was presented. Where is the supporting evidence for that assertion?
Basically, it was advantageous in this case for Obama to claim he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (a sexier locale for the potential customers and the venue), and we see that through a proxy he did so whether in error or not.
What makes you think that Steve Jobs didn't have knowledge and expertise? He founded multiple successful companies. That alone indicates a great deal of knowledge and experience. Plus, he apparently had a great deal of design and usability knowledge and experience that applied directly to the products of his businesses.
first you spend a lot of time telling me it's not fair to lay the "You're Evil!" schtick on the Right
Didn't happen. You didn't lay the "schtick" and I didn't say it was unfair.
then you go into an angry, not very coherent "You're Evil" rant
Didn't happen. I never said you were evil. Whether my rant, angry as it is, was "not very coherent" or not is a matter of subjective taste.
But I am a bit surprised that you can't seem to get the message. I repeated "end justifies the means" for a reason. My complaint was about implementation such as forcing mass health insurance, creating a bureau that has the powers and funding immunity akin to the Federal Reserve Bank, or sending thousands of high quality guns to murderous Mexican drug cartels. That's "means".
Desiring "to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off" doesn't address that. That's "ends". There are multiple ways for an end to be achieved. The key question must be asked. Why did the Obama administration and its congressional allies choose notably anti-democratic means to achieve the ends they desired?
I'm not sure you get the technique of insults. Conflating you with a group you might abhor is a standard tool in the box. It's something your ancestors would have appreciated while looting Frank hovels.
Mainly by a desire to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off.
So why do the ends justify the means, especially when there were sounder and less undemocratic means to achieve similar ends? Fire ants are bad in a yard so does that mean that it is just fine to raze the yard with a flamethrower even though less destructive methods exist to deal with the pests?
Heavy use of recreational drugs are bad so does that mean we need as in the US to outlaw such drugs, even possession of minute amounts, seize property that was used in drug transactions or manufacture, no matter how unintentional or tangential, and otherwise trample on our freedoms and rights? Ends justify the means, right?
Just because there is a perceived need, here, affordable insurance (how one gets that from increasing insurance costs for insurers while simultaneously heavily subsidizing the purchase of such insurance is an exercise for the delusional) and getting ripped off by banks (solution is to go to a bank that doesn't rip you off, such as most credit unions).
BTW, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous.
It means "Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted." Why would you think that I don't understand the term? In the examples I gave, there was no reason for forcing people to do things harmful to their interests (such as forcing healthy people to buy expensive insurance) or creating yet another consumer protection bureau but with unusual lack of oversight and absence of usual constitutional controls.
But then, I'm just one of the Evil Liberals (and crypto-Socialists) who need to be rounded up so you can have your single-party state where all dissent is outlawed.
Well, if you need to be rounded up as you say and shipped to a glue factory or something, then let's do that. Ends justify the means, right?
Look, some people get off on the high stimulation that a so-called world class city provides and some people don't. The latter group just isn't going to do well in world class cities no matter how generically attractive or whatever those cities are.
As to taxes, those few percent can make a big different in growth of wealth over many years.
Why are the tech companies almost always attracted to areas with exceptionally high cost of living?
That isn't the case. Some tech companies are and some aren't. My take is that some companies are where they are, because the CEO lives there. My take is that whatever else you can say about San Fransisco, it is a nice place to be rich.
and it just so happens the same racial groups just so happen to be more likely to be poor all over the world, and it just so happens they have the same problems associated with them, even outside of the US. It just so happens.
Counterexamples: Irish and Italians.
We've seen time and time again that deregulation and letting the markets decide in areas where many people are affected is not efficient or successful.
Perhaps you could name one such example? I wager I'll be able to show in turn either: a) that it wasn't a deregulated market, b) that it was efficient and successful contrary to your assertion, or c) some massive government-based distortion of the market existed.
I find it remarkable how people can make such claims without having decent support for their position or understanding of the subject. I feel confident making such predictions simply because poor outcome, in this case your statements above, implies flawed process.
You need to put a certain portion of those fruits into a common kitty that pays for stuff that benefits everybody, like having a road to drive on or an army to protect you from other countries.
And if that was all that governments funded, then we'd all be paying considerably less in taxes.
I've yet to run across someone thumping on the socialism drum that doesn't drive on the interstates, send their kids to public school and plans to take social security and medicare. So apparently SOME socialism is a-okay.
One could use the same argument for multinational corporations (or any other large component of the modern global economy). We buy goods and services from them all the time, hence, by your inane logic, we're all closet neo-liberals and/or explicitly approve of everything that multinational does, be it selling cigarettes to teens or labor busting in the Third World.
Heh, every place has its stories. Where I live and work, Yellowstone National Park, the usual approach is to drive carefree until one sees an elk or bison, then full stop on the road, hop out, and start shooting pictures. If you're lucky, they'll make an attempt to edge off the road a little and close the doors after they get out.
Surface seasteading, on the other hand, seems to be very promising in spite of the fact that nobody has really been successful at doing that with 21st Century technology.
They've been successfully doing it since ancient times. The current very successful model is seasteading by ship with occasional stops in specialized structures called docks and harbors.
The No Compromise with Evil Liberals meme had so thoroughly taken over the GOP
One only needs to look at the actions of the so-called "evil liberals" to see why "no compromise" is not only catching on, but warranted. How can one rationalize even slight support for the abusive and gratuitously anti-constitutional nature of laws such as Obamacare and the act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? As I see it, there are certain compromises that simply are untenable even in a democracy where compromise is the norm, namely, compromises that undermine the very democratic nature of society.
For example, how can one rationalize forcing people to pay for something they don't want or for that matter need? It is antithetical to democracy to force people to do things. I don't understand why people don't get that. My take is that in a democracy, if you set up a public good which gets leeched, then you either stop providing the public good or you accept the unintended consequences of providing that public good. The creation of powerful bureaucracies to enforce rather dumb public good choice and subsequent unintended consequences such as business-government corruption never made sense to me. But it keeps going on.
Or how can someone rationalize the creation of a powerful, unaccountable bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Regulatory agencies are typically housed under the executive branch and answerable to the US president and funded directly by US Congress. This could have easily been done with the CFPB, say putting it under either the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Commerce. One could still argue the merits of the organization, but it would have firm constitutional standing.
Instead, they put it nominally under the Federal Reserve Bank and funded it through the same. So we have a regulatory agency that doesn't answer to the US President directly. To be blunt, that shouldn't ever be allowed constitutionally, especially, since it will make precedent for further abuses along these lines.
What happens when someone else extends that idea to national security? The creation of a powerful law enforcement agency which is independently funded and controlled is but a small step from the CFPB.
And there's evidence that they didn't stand for it. I gather there's been shifts in voting from other nomination candidates (usually one other candidate) to Romney throughout the Republican nomination process. The usual victim has been Ron Paul, though Gingrich and Santorum have suffered at times. It looks to me like a case of election fraud through suborning of the tabulation process. It'll be interesting to see if this occurs in the actual presidential election as well.
So what? Where's the supporting evidence for your assertion? All we have is the word of the literary agent who at this point has considerable incentive to lie.
Seriously?
Uh, yes. Look I know this is a subtle point. But one doesn't need an organization with a legal status similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in order to enforce regulation for "consumers". The problem is implementation.
In light of the financial shenanigans, some would argue for more oversight, not less.
That is a noble sounding sentiment. But let's look at what actually happened. The law in question created an organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with minimal connection to any existing branch of government. It's basically an attempt to run around some aspects of our current government (namely, that most enforcement of federal regulation is done directly by the executive branch) without a reason, compelling or otherwise, for doing so. If one were to attempt to deliberately undermine what passes for US democracy in an innocuous appearing way, one couldn't do better than this.