So? An Athlon XP is also virtually unusable for many tasks now; it's not a reasonable comparison. A more reasonable one would be a comparison to one of the Atom-, ARM-, or Ion-based systems, which are much more capable than the fastest of the old Athlon XP series AND draw less power and produce less heat than both the Athlon XP and Core 2 Duo.
You were taking my comments more literally and absolutely than they were intended; I didn't literally mean a Pentium III should be fine. I meant it relative to, say, a Core i7 or a Phenom II X4 9950. In that context, your Atom is the figurative Pentium III, good enough for 90% of what needs to get done without being SO under-performing that it actually causes a material problem. If it causes perceptual problems, well... be patient and get over it.:-)
What lawn? All I see is a meadow of weeds... *swish* *swish* *thump* Damn, what's a lawnmower doin' in here? Looks like it hasn't been started since the Eighties... which might explain the meadow?
Okay... and how many minutes total out of every 24 hours will that be using close to 100% of each core? Is the process so utterly time-critical that you can't wait a few more seconds or minutes for it to complete on a less expensive, less energy-sucking, less heat-spewing CPU? C'mon, admit it... the answer's no, isn't it?
The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.
It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses, that hardware has been advancing quicker than the typical needs of the software. While everyone may benefit from a quad-core 3GHz CPU once in a while, it's not many of us even here that require it every hour of the day (you guys playing Forged Alliance in Mom's converted basement are excepted). It's that "subjective experience" bit all over again: having to wait longer than an instant for something to complete, even just for a few minutes total a day, is the subjective experience that sticks with us, while we conveniently forget the good times that went on the rest of those 24 hours. It's like what they say about it being the little (negative) things that wind up killing marriages.
Capitalism didn't create those things, human labor did. I hope you don't actually think that human labor - or cooperative human labor - becomes impossible in the absence of a black market economy?
I'd say such things are accomplished IN SPITE OF capitalism, not BECAUSE of it.
I know the valued-added arguments well enough, but I don't accept their validity as an excuse for what takes place in capitalism. "Creating" an EMOTIONAL value is fallacious in my opinion, and other than that it's just reorganizing and reshaping matter that already existed. What you're really talking about is trying to put a price on the value of human labor, on the effort or skill required to perform that reshaping of matter, and that always leads to unfair comparisons, doesn't it?
Socialism (true mutualism, not the politicized variety) may be Utopian and impossible to implement given the state of our species, but at least it correctly identified the ethical problems with capitalism.
Wow. You must actually teach a forensic debate course in ad hominem. I'm utterly crushed... crushed, I tell ya, that you would say such awful humiliating things about people with beards. Santa Claus is gonna be really depressed when he gets your letter and finds out that he's ugly.
You didn't mention, though I suspect the thought crossed your mind, that perhaps the reason why Perelman's choices, reasoning, and decisions "offend" others is because HIS behavior sets an example that calls the righteousness of their own behavior into question? If your suggestion is indeed true that Perelman offends others, I propose it's because he's holding a mirror up to the less-than-altruistic behavior of others and forcing them to take a critical look at themselves, perhaps for the first time.
I think we need more people like Grigori Perelman... many, many more.
The other Anon Coward who replied to you did a fine enough job dissecting your arguments; I wouldn't have even bothered. Do you honestly find your arguments valid? They sound to me like the result of someone trying to hang onto a few cherished delusions. I do wanna respond directly to this bit of self-delusion, though:
(And it would not have been unethical to spend it all on gold-plated violins and ping pong paddles, either; there is nothing unethical about earning, having, or spending your own money)
You're incorrect. "Earning money" can be grossly unethical. Do you not understand that we live on a planet with finite resources, and that it is those resources that underwrite money? If someone is getting wealthy, he's doing it at the expense of a certain number of others: he's hoarding resources and depriving others of the use of those resources. In getting wealthy, that person is disadvantaging others. The wealthier the person is, the more people he had to disadvantage to achieve it. Warren Buffet understands and acknowledges this dynamic... why don't you?
In an ethical economy, the goal is for every transaction to be an equal exchange of value; I was actually taught this concept in Business 101, as best I can recall.
By contrast, in a capitalist economy, the goal - as its very name suggests - is to create as much inequality as possible in every transaction. Does that sound fair or ethical to you? Do you have even a modest mental inventory of the manipulative tactics that people employ to that end? Virtually all capitalist tactics used to disadvantage others fall into one of three classes:
manipulation of the other party's emotions;
deliberate attempts to mis-educate; or
deliberate attempts to deny information.
That's the capitalist playbook, right there; does that sound ethical to you?
More accurate might be to say that people who find it impossible to keep their emotions aside from the reasoning process are the ones who have a limited and perverted grasp of ethics, but I'll settle for "everyone not on the autistic spectrum" in a pinch. Not everyone on the Spectrum actually has that ability to sandbox emotions from reasoning, but it seems to be a trait more common among people who have some autistic traits. There's a well established disruptive effect of emotions on ethical choices. Fortunately there's rumor that the Spectrum is growing and widening, so there might be hope - ethical and otherwise - for the species yet.
That's a curious thing to say. I thought his explanations of his motives seemed rather well thought-out, frankly, and I suspect he left out quite a bit of the thought that went into it. I'm also not at all convinced that your alternative diagnosis is the correct one.
So you're saying that people with OCPD cannot be ethical? That seems quite a stretch, regardless whether it even applies to Perelman or not.
Ummm... there's only ONE neurotypical type, by definition. There can only be one mean or average. I very much do have a firm grasp of what that average looks like.
Any other stereotypical accusations of stereotyping you wanna throw at me? I'm not cowed by your cries of political incorrectness or "insensitivity". The only stereotyping that's "bad" is stereotyping that's inaccurate... and my application of it here wasn't inaccurate. The ethical mean for Homo sapiens is still, after all this much-ballyhooed evolution, "whatever I can get away with without being slapped around by an angry mob".
Yeah, because then you don't need ethics* at all. See, he's smarter than you gave him credit!
* (At least not Homocentric ethics... you'd still be on the hook for environmental and interspecies ethics, unless you're "withdrawn" because you're in a pine box six feet under.)
Just in that limited context that you mention, that could seem plausible, but the larger context of his life screams otherwise: his limited social engagement, his obsession with both math and music, his social and moral rigidity, his inability to adapt... those are all trademark clues. It's the sum of his behaviors that gives it away, not any one of them taken singularly.
Another person I'd suggest is a close parallel: John Draper, aka Cap'n Crunch.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is. Haven't you heard? It's the opiate of the masses.
"Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...." ... as he sits in a dark jail cell somewhere waiting to be convicted of treason. We hope.
I wouldn't expect that to be the case. Citations? I need to see proof. :-)
So? An Athlon XP is also virtually unusable for many tasks now; it's not a reasonable comparison. A more reasonable one would be a comparison to one of the Atom-, ARM-, or Ion-based systems, which are much more capable than the fastest of the old Athlon XP series AND draw less power and produce less heat than both the Athlon XP and Core 2 Duo.
Smash all the cameras.
Ummm, can we make this article Moment #88?
Wrong! I live deep in the recesses of a cave, so I don't have a worldview!
You were taking my comments more literally and absolutely than they were intended; I didn't literally mean a Pentium III should be fine. I meant it relative to, say, a Core i7 or a Phenom II X4 9950. In that context, your Atom is the figurative Pentium III, good enough for 90% of what needs to get done without being SO under-performing that it actually causes a material problem. If it causes perceptual problems, well... be patient and get over it. :-)
What lawn? All I see is a meadow of weeds... *swish* *swish*
*thump* Damn, what's a lawnmower doin' in here? Looks like it hasn't been started since the Eighties... which might explain the meadow?
I think the whole comment was a wildcard.
Okay... and how many minutes total out of every 24 hours will that be using close to 100% of each core? Is the process so utterly time-critical that you can't wait a few more seconds or minutes for it to complete on a less expensive, less energy-sucking, less heat-spewing CPU? C'mon, admit it... the answer's no, isn't it?
And why would you actually want such a thing to take place, unless:
(a) you're a hopeless ADD case addicted to the next shiny thing*, or
(b) you're in the business of selling overpriced computer hardware?
* In which case, build yer own damned next shiny thing and pestering the rest of us.
Get what done?
The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.
It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses, that hardware has been advancing quicker than the typical needs of the software. While everyone may benefit from a quad-core 3GHz CPU once in a while, it's not many of us even here that require it every hour of the day (you guys playing Forged Alliance in Mom's converted basement are excepted). It's that "subjective experience" bit all over again: having to wait longer than an instant for something to complete, even just for a few minutes total a day, is the subjective experience that sticks with us, while we conveniently forget the good times that went on the rest of those 24 hours. It's like what they say about it being the little (negative) things that wind up killing marriages.
Capitalism didn't create those things, human labor did. I hope you don't actually think that human labor - or cooperative human labor - becomes impossible in the absence of a black market economy?
I'd say such things are accomplished IN SPITE OF capitalism, not BECAUSE of it.
I know the valued-added arguments well enough, but I don't accept their validity as an excuse for what takes place in capitalism. "Creating" an EMOTIONAL value is fallacious in my opinion, and other than that it's just reorganizing and reshaping matter that already existed. What you're really talking about is trying to put a price on the value of human labor, on the effort or skill required to perform that reshaping of matter, and that always leads to unfair comparisons, doesn't it?
Socialism (true mutualism, not the politicized variety) may be Utopian and impossible to implement given the state of our species, but at least it correctly identified the ethical problems with capitalism.
And God is a Slashdot troll?
Wow. You must actually teach a forensic debate course in ad hominem. I'm utterly crushed... crushed, I tell ya, that you would say such awful humiliating things about people with beards. Santa Claus is gonna be really depressed when he gets your letter and finds out that he's ugly.
Just SOME? Try most....
You didn't mention, though I suspect the thought crossed your mind, that perhaps the reason why Perelman's choices, reasoning, and decisions "offend" others is because HIS behavior sets an example that calls the righteousness of their own behavior into question? If your suggestion is indeed true that Perelman offends others, I propose it's because he's holding a mirror up to the less-than-altruistic behavior of others and forcing them to take a critical look at themselves, perhaps for the first time.
I think we need more people like Grigori Perelman... many, many more.
The other Anon Coward who replied to you did a fine enough job dissecting your arguments; I wouldn't have even bothered. Do you honestly find your arguments valid? They sound to me like the result of someone trying to hang onto a few cherished delusions. I do wanna respond directly to this bit of self-delusion, though:
You're incorrect. "Earning money" can be grossly unethical. Do you not understand that we live on a planet with finite resources, and that it is those resources that underwrite money? If someone is getting wealthy, he's doing it at the expense of a certain number of others: he's hoarding resources and depriving others of the use of those resources. In getting wealthy, that person is disadvantaging others. The wealthier the person is, the more people he had to disadvantage to achieve it. Warren Buffet understands and acknowledges this dynamic... why don't you?
In an ethical economy, the goal is for every transaction to be an equal exchange of value; I was actually taught this concept in Business 101, as best I can recall.
By contrast, in a capitalist economy, the goal - as its very name suggests - is to create as much inequality as possible in every transaction. Does that sound fair or ethical to you? Do you have even a modest mental inventory of the manipulative tactics that people employ to that end? Virtually all capitalist tactics used to disadvantage others fall into one of three classes:
That's the capitalist playbook, right there; does that sound ethical to you?
*sigh* And here I thought I had nothing in reply.
More accurate might be to say that people who find it impossible to keep their emotions aside from the reasoning process are the ones who have a limited and perverted grasp of ethics, but I'll settle for "everyone not on the autistic spectrum" in a pinch. Not everyone on the Spectrum actually has that ability to sandbox emotions from reasoning, but it seems to be a trait more common among people who have some autistic traits. There's a well established disruptive effect of emotions on ethical choices. Fortunately there's rumor that the Spectrum is growing and widening, so there might be hope - ethical and otherwise - for the species yet.
That's a curious thing to say. I thought his explanations of his motives seemed rather well thought-out, frankly, and I suspect he left out quite a bit of the thought that went into it. I'm also not at all convinced that your alternative diagnosis is the correct one.
So you're saying that people with OCPD cannot be ethical? That seems quite a stretch, regardless whether it even applies to Perelman or not.
Ummm... there's only ONE neurotypical type, by definition. There can only be one mean or average. I very much do have a firm grasp of what that average looks like.
Any other stereotypical accusations of stereotyping you wanna throw at me? I'm not cowed by your cries of political incorrectness or "insensitivity". The only stereotyping that's "bad" is stereotyping that's inaccurate... and my application of it here wasn't inaccurate. The ethical mean for Homo sapiens is still, after all this much-ballyhooed evolution, "whatever I can get away with without being slapped around by an angry mob".
Yeah, because then you don't need ethics* at all. See, he's smarter than you gave him credit!
* (At least not Homocentric ethics... you'd still be on the hook for environmental and interspecies ethics, unless you're "withdrawn" because you're in a pine box six feet under.)
Just in that limited context that you mention, that could seem plausible, but the larger context of his life screams otherwise: his limited social engagement, his obsession with both math and music, his social and moral rigidity, his inability to adapt... those are all trademark clues. It's the sum of his behaviors that gives it away, not any one of them taken singularly.
Another person I'd suggest is a close parallel: John Draper, aka Cap'n Crunch.