I agree. We need government regulation and oversight of companies. But let's not make the mistake of thinking government is more or less trustworthy than corporations. The government needs to be transparent in order to be effective. What happens now is "regulation" == "licensing and red tape," not really oversight. Also let's not forget that corporations own our politicians. As I said, I trust neither of them.
Does it matter? Tell me, which party is in favor of more individual liberty, less government intrusion? Is it the bureaucracy-saves-the-children Democrats, or the military-saves-the-world Republicans?
Which is more open and transparent -- the free market, with all its flaws, or the Federal Government, with all its self-proclaimed good intentions? Personally, I don't trust either one. We have to be vigilant of both.
... is government regulation of corporate spying -- because in the end corporations and government will collude to spy on everyone else. Only the rich will be able to afford to know what's really going on.
Unfortunately, the vigilance has to come before the transparency. We have to bitch and bitch and bitch and complain and threaten. Politicians are like 5 year olds, their full time job is to trick you into giving them what they want for themselves and nothing else matters.
I think you'd have to explain your own motivation, but I think those come under the banner of "enjoying the technical exploration." I think that's a motivator for many Linux lovers. Personally going through all that work to get Mac OS working on a PC defeats the primary points of Mac OS X -- easy integration, low maintenance and quick startup times, for example. But knock yourself out!
I use Linux and Mac at work. I avoid Windows if I can as I feel it has both a second class GUI and a second class command line. Windows 7 is definitely a decent offering though compared to earlier efforts. Each have their place, clearly. There is no "best answer for everyone."
I didn't know that Al Jazeera was state-owned. I'm curious, then, does Al Jazeera criticize its owners? That's going to be hard to do for any news outlet, of course.
A foolish preoccupation with "getting a bargain" is not the way to get what you want in life. Personally I think it's worth spending more when you see value in doing so for yourself. That's what Mac users like myself are doing -- I appreciate and value the design and usability of Macs, so I buy them. Maintenance hassle seems far lower to me. If you think Windows is just as good as Mac, or better, or you prefer that gritty and down to the metal Linux experience, or you just like Linux better, etc., then definitely it makes sense to go Windows or Linux I think and put your financial priorities elsewhere. Enjoy!
looked in particular at controversial entries, not ones about obscure duck-hunting equipment or long-settled standards.
Wow, so editing of controversial entries turns out being not very collaborative. What's next? Victims of abuse are more likely to be unhappy in their marriage? Come on. what's the point here?
Signed, a guy who didn't RTFA.:-)
Yes, you beat me to it! I thought that was strange too. I could see women's shelters, but prisons and schools are very strange additions to the privacy list. You mean students and prisoners have an expectation of privacy while going to their cells? Good luck with that.
When did schools become "sensitive facilities?" I thought that was strange -- part of the apparent "there's a stalker behind every bush" mindset of modern parents.
I agree we are something.:-) The duality occurs because of the looking but is not there in reality, I think. All dualities are simply a function of a distinction drawn by an observer. Evolution has taught us to value patterns and we classify them to communicate, but the classification is an artifact of mind. Or so it all seems to me.:-) Reincarnation seems to be another attempt to see beyond the grave, which is futile from what I can tell. Beyond death all is just confusion -- I suspect this is because there is no "beyond death." We cannot comprehend our own annihilation. And that's the big mystery to me. That I comprehend at all, and cannot comprehend not comprehending anything.:-)
Thank you for your thoughts and the leads on other thinkers. Yes, I've read some Ben-Shahar, but not Epstein, and the Happiness Advantage is by one of his students as I recall. I understand what you mean by not believing in brain, and I agree, as well as taking your point about MS and, perhaps, implicitly epigenetics and mind-body. I personally identify more with an idea of mind-body that itself is an illusion formed from dualist thinking. I have not seen anything that makes me believe that we truly are anything in particular in the sense you seem to mean. "There is no dance and no dancer, there is only you dancing." Your measured IQ is larger than mine and your achievements are as well, congratulations.:-) I am sorry for your wife's trouble and can see you love her. Speaking of M.S., if your wife by chance has that ailment, then have you seen or heard of Dr. Wahls' diet?
Thanks for the interesting link. I will see if I can find time to read it. A casual perusal shows me nothing there about happiness, though. I have not spoken of E.Q. and am not a fan either -- it's an interesting but outdated idea, I think, modeled on another inadequate idea: I.Q. That is not the measure of which I speak. I'm talking about observing the human brain and human behavior that precedes and apparently causes people to report themselves as happy. These things can be measured and reported. Also, we can observe the human brain with increasing fidelity and see what this thing "happiness" is in other terms to see what more can be understood about it.
OK, I can buy that my post was not clear. If you are more interested in the subject and wish to explore more causal and interesting studies, please look at "The Happiness Advantage." I cannot find my copy at the moment, or I'd cite some of its studies. It's on Amazon and it's cheap and a good read. I would quibble with your argument that success and failure are not very important. They are sometimes important and sometimes not. What's skewed in our present culture is our insistence than every success and failure is a measure of the worth of the people seeking their results. That itself works against happiness. I also would say as a footnote that happiness is measurable, definable and achievable. And to attain it might be called a type of success, no? Thus showing that some successes are important.:-)
In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success.
I don't know where you read that, but psychology and neurosciences (there are several) will never be able to show that, because happiness and success are totally unrelated !
I'll just quote myself from another post here which you probably missed. I'm saying as a matter of fact, based on good science, that the human brain is generally more productive and powerful when it's happy, which leads to increased success, but having success does not reliably trigger happy brain states. Clear enough?
For just one study, see Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. & Diener, E. (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Firstly, because you need to define what success is. If success is living a life doing a lot of things, you'll get a rich life, but probably not a wealthy one.
If success is making a lot of money, it just means that you tend to take risks, it's like betting your life on your choices.
The risk of getting unsuccessful is greater than the risk of getting successful.
In any case, I don't see how this can lead to happiness.... blah blah more stuff to show you missed my point entirely....
The happy guys never brag about being happy.
Read my post again. I did not say that success leads to happiness. You are arguing against a straw man.
"In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success. If we could grasp that one fact we'd all be better off."
That's philosophy. Let's stick to the facts: what can a math or physics genius become in the US? Maybe a university professor, making 100-150 K$ a year. Or maybe the R&D leader of a major company, but the salary would be nearly the same, the only way to get "rich" would be with stock options, which depend on factors that have nothing to do with R&D (marketing makes a company more profitable than R&D). An hollywood weirdo makes 10 millions per movie instead.
That's the obvious consequence of the mighty law of "supply and demand" that nobody wants to oppose: people are retarded and spend lots of money to go to the movies rather than financing scientific research. That's the "demand", so the "supply" will act accordingly. And who doesn't agree with this system is considered a "communist".
Now, who's more useful to mankind, a physicist or an actress?
If answering "a phycicist" makes me a communist, well I'm proud to be one.
No, that's not philosophy. That's science. The facts are on my side, not yours. Read "The Happiness Advantage" for details. I'm not denying supply and demand, arguing that a physicist makes more than Tom Cruise (although in general physicists make more than actors), or anything else you might think I'm saying. I'm saying as a matter of fact, based on good science, that the human brain is generally more productive and powerful when it's happy, which leads to increased success, but having success does not reliably trigger happy brain states.
There's nothing wrong with the American economy -- what's wrong I think is that we have a culture that success leads to happiness. In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success. If we could grasp that one fact we'd all be better off.
It sounds more like it was just a set of openly visible coupons.
I assumed it was in an envelope, because when a single retailer sends targeted ads to a person by name, as opposed to bundling with other retailers as part of a super cheap "to resident" kind of thing, it's always in an envelope. The article did not say but I think my theory is more reasonable. When was the last time you saw a set of openly visible targeted coupons from a retailer addressed to you by name?
If the father did have to open something and did it without his daughter's permission, well, guess what? He just committed a federal crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. We need government regulation and oversight of companies. But let's not make the mistake of thinking government is more or less trustworthy than corporations. The government needs to be transparent in order to be effective. What happens now is "regulation" == "licensing and red tape," not really oversight. Also let's not forget that corporations own our politicians. As I said, I trust neither of them.
Does it matter? Tell me, which party is in favor of more individual liberty, less government intrusion? Is it the bureaucracy-saves-the-children Democrats, or the military-saves-the-world Republicans?
Which is more open and transparent -- the free market, with all its flaws, or the Federal Government, with all its self-proclaimed good intentions? Personally, I don't trust either one. We have to be vigilant of both.
... is government regulation of corporate spying -- because in the end corporations and government will collude to spy on everyone else. Only the rich will be able to afford to know what's really going on.
Well, it's fortunate in that it means we have the power. It's only unfortunate because we have to accept blame now for the mess the country is in.
Unfortunately, the vigilance has to come before the transparency. We have to bitch and bitch and bitch and complain and threaten. Politicians are like 5 year olds, their full time job is to trick you into giving them what they want for themselves and nothing else matters.
I don't want an inefficient government. I want a transparent government and a vigilant citizenry.
Actually, the good news for diabetics is already here
I loved Bob Mansfield because he made me laugh.
BTW -- by "quick startup times" I don't mean boot time, I mean shallow learning curve.
I think you'd have to explain your own motivation, but I think those come under the banner of "enjoying the technical exploration." I think that's a motivator for many Linux lovers. Personally going through all that work to get Mac OS working on a PC defeats the primary points of Mac OS X -- easy integration, low maintenance and quick startup times, for example. But knock yourself out! I use Linux and Mac at work. I avoid Windows if I can as I feel it has both a second class GUI and a second class command line. Windows 7 is definitely a decent offering though compared to earlier efforts. Each have their place, clearly. There is no "best answer for everyone."
I didn't know that Al Jazeera was state-owned. I'm curious, then, does Al Jazeera criticize its owners? That's going to be hard to do for any news outlet, of course.
A foolish preoccupation with "getting a bargain" is not the way to get what you want in life. Personally I think it's worth spending more when you see value in doing so for yourself. That's what Mac users like myself are doing -- I appreciate and value the design and usability of Macs, so I buy them. Maintenance hassle seems far lower to me. If you think Windows is just as good as Mac, or better, or you prefer that gritty and down to the metal Linux experience, or you just like Linux better, etc., then definitely it makes sense to go Windows or Linux I think and put your financial priorities elsewhere. Enjoy!
looked in particular at controversial entries, not ones about obscure duck-hunting equipment or long-settled standards.
Wow, so editing of controversial entries turns out being not very collaborative. What's next? Victims of abuse are more likely to be unhappy in their marriage? Come on. what's the point here? Signed, a guy who didn't RTFA. :-)
Yes, you beat me to it! I thought that was strange too. I could see women's shelters, but prisons and schools are very strange additions to the privacy list. You mean students and prisoners have an expectation of privacy while going to their cells? Good luck with that.
When did schools become "sensitive facilities?" I thought that was strange -- part of the apparent "there's a stalker behind every bush" mindset of modern parents.
I agree we are something. :-) The duality occurs because of the looking but is not there in reality, I think. All dualities are simply a function of a distinction drawn by an observer. Evolution has taught us to value patterns and we classify them to communicate, but the classification is an artifact of mind. Or so it all seems to me. :-) Reincarnation seems to be another attempt to see beyond the grave, which is futile from what I can tell. Beyond death all is just confusion -- I suspect this is because there is no "beyond death." We cannot comprehend our own annihilation. And that's the big mystery to me. That I comprehend at all, and cannot comprehend not comprehending anything. :-)
Thank you for your thoughts and the leads on other thinkers. Yes, I've read some Ben-Shahar, but not Epstein, and the Happiness Advantage is by one of his students as I recall. I understand what you mean by not believing in brain, and I agree, as well as taking your point about MS and, perhaps, implicitly epigenetics and mind-body. I personally identify more with an idea of mind-body that itself is an illusion formed from dualist thinking. I have not seen anything that makes me believe that we truly are anything in particular in the sense you seem to mean. "There is no dance and no dancer, there is only you dancing." Your measured IQ is larger than mine and your achievements are as well, congratulations. :-) I am sorry for your wife's trouble and can see you love her. Speaking of M.S., if your wife by chance has that ailment, then have you seen or heard of Dr. Wahls' diet?
Thanks for the interesting link. I will see if I can find time to read it. A casual perusal shows me nothing there about happiness, though. I have not spoken of E.Q. and am not a fan either -- it's an interesting but outdated idea, I think, modeled on another inadequate idea: I.Q. That is not the measure of which I speak. I'm talking about observing the human brain and human behavior that precedes and apparently causes people to report themselves as happy. These things can be measured and reported. Also, we can observe the human brain with increasing fidelity and see what this thing "happiness" is in other terms to see what more can be understood about it.
OK, I can buy that my post was not clear. If you are more interested in the subject and wish to explore more causal and interesting studies, please look at "The Happiness Advantage." I cannot find my copy at the moment, or I'd cite some of its studies. It's on Amazon and it's cheap and a good read. I would quibble with your argument that success and failure are not very important. They are sometimes important and sometimes not. What's skewed in our present culture is our insistence than every success and failure is a measure of the worth of the people seeking their results. That itself works against happiness. I also would say as a footnote that happiness is measurable, definable and achievable. And to attain it might be called a type of success, no? Thus showing that some successes are important. :-)
In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success.
I don't know where you read that, but psychology and neurosciences (there are several) will never be able to show that, because happiness and success are totally unrelated !
I'll just quote myself from another post here which you probably missed. I'm saying as a matter of fact, based on good science, that the human brain is generally more productive and powerful when it's happy, which leads to increased success, but having success does not reliably trigger happy brain states. Clear enough? For just one study, see Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. & Diener, E. (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Firstly, because you need to define what success is. If success is living a life doing a lot of things, you'll get a rich life, but probably not a wealthy one. If success is making a lot of money, it just means that you tend to take risks, it's like betting your life on your choices. The risk of getting unsuccessful is greater than the risk of getting successful.
It's a good thing to think about. I define success in the dictionary definition: the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.
In any case, I don't see how this can lead to happiness.... blah blah more stuff to show you missed my point entirely.... The happy guys never brag about being happy.
Read my post again. I did not say that success leads to happiness. You are arguing against a straw man.
Whenever this thought occurs to me, I generally avoid acting on it. I don't think that Facebook should acquire stuff just because it has money.
"In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success. If we could grasp that one fact we'd all be better off."
That's philosophy. Let's stick to the facts: what can a math or physics genius become in the US? Maybe a university professor, making 100-150 K$ a year. Or maybe the R&D leader of a major company, but the salary would be nearly the same, the only way to get "rich" would be with stock options, which depend on factors that have nothing to do with R&D (marketing makes a company more profitable than R&D). An hollywood weirdo makes 10 millions per movie instead.
That's the obvious consequence of the mighty law of "supply and demand" that nobody wants to oppose: people are retarded and spend lots of money to go to the movies rather than financing scientific research. That's the "demand", so the "supply" will act accordingly. And who doesn't agree with this system is considered a "communist".
Now, who's more useful to mankind, a physicist or an actress? If answering "a phycicist" makes me a communist, well I'm proud to be one.
No, that's not philosophy. That's science. The facts are on my side, not yours. Read "The Happiness Advantage" for details. I'm not denying supply and demand, arguing that a physicist makes more than Tom Cruise (although in general physicists make more than actors), or anything else you might think I'm saying. I'm saying as a matter of fact, based on good science, that the human brain is generally more productive and powerful when it's happy, which leads to increased success, but having success does not reliably trigger happy brain states.
There's nothing wrong with the American economy -- what's wrong I think is that we have a culture that success leads to happiness. In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success. If we could grasp that one fact we'd all be better off.
It sounds more like it was just a set of openly visible coupons.
I assumed it was in an envelope, because when a single retailer sends targeted ads to a person by name, as opposed to bundling with other retailers as part of a super cheap "to resident" kind of thing, it's always in an envelope. The article did not say but I think my theory is more reasonable. When was the last time you saw a set of openly visible targeted coupons from a retailer addressed to you by name?
If the father did have to open something and did it without his daughter's permission, well, guess what? He just committed a federal crime.
You didn't give me a chance to guess.