Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
It isn't about being homosexual v. heterosexual (I really don't know the stats on which, if either, group is more likely to contract aids, but that's irrelevant), but about promiscuity. Start sleeping around and you are more likely to end up with a VD/STD.
Abstinence is the best way to avoid AIDS. Period. The next best way is abstinence until a permanent monogamous sexual relationship is established with a person who has followed the same course. This is the EASIEST way to avoid aids.
Now, that said, I don't think that homosexuality does much (especially male homosexuality) to encourage monogamy. Not being homosexual, though, I don't have much to go on there, and am willing to defer authority to those who have legitimately studied the subject.
Or be a professor or student at a university. As a Clemson University grad student, there are thousands of journals that I can easily access from pretty much anywhere in the world (just give me net access).
That said, the university pays several hundred thousand dollars a year for this (and probably into the millions). I'll ask our department librarian the next time I get a chance (since she's also on my thesis committee!).
I hope your battle with lymphoma goes well, especially after having not had it diagnosed quickly.
I don't want to depress you or anything, but I truly do hope the best for you. I have seen someone battle with this particular type of cancer and lose, so I can only hope you do better.
I do think that you are right though, in that CEO's need to be paid at a reasonable market rate. I also agree with the other poster that CEO's need to have some restrictions/penalties for poor performance.
I honestly think that most CEO's are highly overpaid. In this case, the programmers are probably adequately paid--for a 40 hour week. For an 80 hour week they deserve on the order of 3 times the $60k they are making. The company could easily afford to increase its programming force by 100% and still come out with reasonable profit margin and high payouts to stock owners. Additionally, they would make employees happier.
Finally, if the company wants to avoid unionization (which is in their interest), they need to change their strategy. Unions are good for employees in this situation, but ultimately tend to make everyone's job harder (even the employees). Unfortunately, it is extremely hard to boot a union once it is in.
EA, if you are listening--change NOW, or you will be facing a union. Not a good thing, and you DON'T want to be known as THE company that got programmers unionized. If I were CEO of EA, I would do EVERYTHING I could to avoid this. It would make it very hard to get another CEO position (of course, this isn't always a concern, since after this, he will have more than enough to never have to work again!).
Yeah, the Stonehenge wasn't too hard for the Jedi-Druid Masters of Ank-Morpork. Especially not after they built the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids.
It is well known that after building these they leveled Atlantis for the heresy of saying that Cthulu was really Buddha.
And your dates are wrong too--everyone knows that the Jedi-Druid FunkMasters of Ankh-morpork visited the kings of England around 100,000 BC, when they named Arthur king of the Brittains and gave him the magical European Swallow (not to be confused the the African Swallow).
I tend to agree--you have big business on one side and big gov't on the other side--at least traditionally.
Anymore, however, there's big government and big business on both side of the congress aisle. Does it matter? Yes--big business is a huge problem, even though it does bring a certain number of benefits (cheaper goods, larger base of luxury items, etc). Big gov't has some advantages, but overall I am not quite ready for either.
I am libertarian in the sense the people need to be free. I agree with you that to a certain extent, the libertarian ideal is unrealistic, but I do think that by striving for that ideal, we are likely to meet a much more diserable middle ground than be letting the status quo of the left & right (dems & reps) continue unchecked.
There is, unbeknownst to most people, a branch of psychology called mathematical psychology. I've never studied--I am focusing more on statistics and behavior (specifically motivation of behavior, which is something a strict behaviorist, such as BF Skinner, would have boohooed greatly, but is a very important part of psychology).
This area includes game theory, psychophysics, Neural Networks, and more. I think that this is the most likely area in which such a fusion of chaos theory and psychology could easily be melded. Behavioral psychology is ultimately concerned with the prediction of behavior based on what is known about the individual. Behavioral psychohistory would be concerned with the behavior of the society, based on what is known. The more that is known, the more accurate the model. Chaos theory should go a long way in helping with this.
(Just as an aside, there isn't much difference between group psychology and sociology--Asimov's psychohistory, as he described, was more of a branc of sociology than psychology, especially as known at the time he wrote those books).
and thus is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative. I don't condone drug use--I don't do it, and I don't like it. I am, however, willing to allow others to do as they please so long as it doesn't affect me (which is why driving intoxicated or public intoxication should be illegal--because it does affect me). The war on drugs is a conservative thing, however (although the liberal law makers are equally on board that bandwagon). You won't ever find a libertarian in this situation--they don't care what the other guy is doing, as long as they remain harmless.
The moment you come into my home, or threaten my family and/or property, you forfeit that right. If you draw a gun on me in my home, you die. You threaten my family in my home, same thing. You go out in the streets higher than a kite while driving a car, you go to jail. You kill someone while intoxicated, you die. Its simple and effective. I don't think anyone deserves a second chance on those issues. They are clear cut. If you want to stay in your house and dope yourself up beyond reason, fine with me--but the MOMENT you step outside your home, or start to hurt anyone to support your habit--you are done.
The only legitimate war on drugs is drug-related crimes (theft, murder, rape, etc). Drugs themselves are not the problem. Oh, and one other thing--seeking to exploit a minor via drug addiction--that should punishable by a severe beating by all the adolescents whose life you are screwing up. Do it, and you get canned.
As far as MS goes--hit 'em where it hurts--the pocket book. Yeah, they may not suffer much in the short term, but for every IT admin that switches to linux and refuses to switch back, that's a few less sales to MS. Eventually this will make them wake up. If they are too late, then they go away. Oh, and if you REALLY want free economy to work, end government subsidies for various big businesses (airlines come to mind), and then end the patent/copyright protections for corporations. They should get 3 years, and not a day more. If they can't make money on it in three years sufficient to justify the R&D, then they are just out of luck. Nvidia certainly makes enough to justify it, as does AMD & Intel--look at their product cycle if you don't believe it.
I am going to heavily disagree on this one::the folks COULD actually die from the kind of hours described in the blog. Heart Failure is a possibility, as are other problems. MOst of them will not be from people who are extremely healthy, but if you have a prior condition, this can kill you.
And, as someone else points out, this is against certain labor laws. I am not generally in favor of unions--they tend to cause certain problems, but I think that in this case that is what is needed.
The workers at EA (and some other places) need to get together quietly and talk to a labor lawyer. They should either then bring in a union OR file a class action suit. Documentation is their friend in this situation.
Another solution (one that would benefit the workers the most) is the elimination of salaried positions for game programmers. Make it an hourly position. This will change the nature of the job dramatically, but will seriously reduce the temptation on the part of management to call for overtime. In fact, it will virtually eliminate overtime.
As far as it goes, this is oppressive--there are fewer and fewer big game companies, and ANY employer involved in this type of action needs to have their VP of HR fired (I'll take the job--I am in the market) and replaced. HR folks should be the liasion between the company and its employees--going to bat for the employees as much as possible, while still representing the companies interests. HR should be the frontline for making sure that employees are treated well, are happy, and AREN'T LIKELY TO SUE!!!
EVERY lawsuit, even frivolous ones, cost the company money. In some ways, the smart thing to do here would be for all the employees to fire separate lawsuits. EA would be forced to settle or fight EACH ONE, costing them a lot of money, both in court costs, lost productivity, and bad press. IF they were smart, they would change some things immediately.
As far as quitting is concerned, it does fix the core problem (which is what I am concerned with). I personally think that humans should be concerned with this. I call for a strike(boycott)--DON'T BUY EA until this is FIXED!
And what skills do you think that they measure? In all honesty, I am a practical person, and if they predict performance in school, which is what they claim to do, then they are valid and useful. If you want to get into validity studies of the GRE/SAT, then you are welcome to--but I don't work for them.
Item Response Theory, which is heavily employed by ETS in making new versions of the tests, does not necessarily cover validity (although it is sometimes used that way).
It is absolutely true that you can improve your scores--knowledge of test taking really helps on the GRE. At the same time, however, many people will argue that the skills that are useful there will help later on.
When you claim that it is "fairly common knowledge..." you need to back that up. I know that there are criticisms of the tests--I am not a big testing fan, but I don't think the debate is that one sided among people who are familiar with psychometrics (and that is what we are talking about).
If you think that the above strategy will get you a perfect score, or that it would be possible for me to follow (having never taken college physics) and get a decent score, then you are mistaken. The test probably will not differentiate among the top 1% or lower 40% very well, but those aren't the levels that colleges are concerned with.
I was going to respond to a comment by someone else, but nothing previously posted merited a response of any sort (with the possible exception of the bitter guy who seems to hate ETS).
Personally, from a psychometrics point of view, which is something I have a more than passing interest in, ETS is incredible. They have data sets that are invaluable, and have done a lot to further the field of testing. Yes, they do make a lot of money, but I can say that they also earn that money.
If you think otherwise, consider it this way--for every test that they publish there are literally thousands of hours of research, testing, and retesting that have been done. Those doing this work need to be paid, and they typically demand fairly generous salaries (IRT analysts aren't that common, and certainly earn their pay).
Now, that said--wait a few years before you spend a ton of money on this one. That time is critical in making absolutely certain that the test really predicts success or ability. In a few years, we'll know.
I'll agree with someone else that replied to you--have you considered that my current situation is not what you think?
I did indeed start graduate school later in life than many (I am one of the older students here, but not the oldest). I have 2 kids, both boys, and I am making ends meet (via loans, assistantships, part-time work, and the occasional contract work). It means that I am very busy, but that's okay.
Why did I choose to have kids while still in school? My first son was born right before I finished undergrad--and it was a wonderful thing. I did great that semester, BTW. To me family is more important than anything else, and I think that it is important to have children while one is still young enough to enjoy playing with them. I know far too many people who delay children until they are older, and then DIE before their children are grown (actually, my father passed away when I was 18, but I only mention that as full disclosure, not a 'pity me' party).
My wife and I are agreed that children are important enough to us that we are willing to work some extra (she is a Kitchen Consultant for a large and well known seller of cook-ware) in order to make ends meet due to the extra cost of having two children. We will not be having a third until I graduate in a year or two (or three), but that's our decision.
If my kids grow up and steal your car, then we can talk, but somehow I doubt that that will happen. As a point of fact, I plan on doing everything that I can to make my kids socially and morally responsible.
As for using condoms--no thanks. Birth control is fine, and we do use it, but condoms are no fun. I'll leave to others to expound on why that is so--personally I'll leave it alone.
Final point--re: your sig.
I am a social and financial conservative, with strong libertarian streaks. I am also extremely practical--I am willing to use a system until a better one is found, even if I am working to change that system.
Swearing at me will change nothing, and at the risk of this degenerating into a flame-fest, I will reply. Your actions are your own.
First, I did check my definitions of atheism. There are a number of definitions, including that given on Wikipedia, that require an atheist to maintain that belief (and it is a belief, if not faith) and disregard all possible evidence. The difference between faith, which I generally define as a belief that tends toward action, and rational belief is small.
Yes, there were holes in my arguments--I freely admit that I did not make all my definitions clear, and that I did not close every logical alternative. I am alone responsible for what I wrote. Allow me a moment, however, to clear up one minor issue, and I'll shut up.
When you say that there can be 100 principles contradicting each other, some of which may make you happier, you are correct in a way. Do not, however, mistake pleasure (which is momentary) for happiness, which is lasting. Furthermore, only the principle that gives the greatest happiness has much importance. I don't care about ideas that only give a few moments of pleasure, but bring sorrow or misery or problems down the road. That's not a rational way to make decisions. The rational decision maker must seek to maximize their long-term happiness. Otherwise they have not maximized their happiness at all, but have sacrificed future happiness for immediate happiness (or pleasure). Now I admit that this isn't always the case--it can be a false dichotomy to think that there is always a trade-off.
Your assertion that religion is used as a post-hoc justification for decent behavior is patently ridiculous. It can be used that way, but so can psychology. Religion can also be applied a priori, and then cause decent behavior. I have seen enough cases of individuals who, prior to joining themselves to a religion were uncivil and treated others horribly, and when they applied the teachings of that religion, became much more pleasant to be around. Can this happen without religion? Certainly--I would be pretty stupid to argue the other way; but to say that religion is only post hoc justification when people have provably become better (eg, more civil and pleasant to be around) as a result of applying the teachings of a religion is an insult to your own intelligence.
As far as "my delusion", I don't think that you have a good understanding of how religion works. Repetition is necessary for any teaching method. Any religion that uses the others (incarceration, sleep deprivation, indoctrination [although I'm not sure what your definition of this is], or electric shocks) is worthless. I have nothing to do with such chicanery and madness. I can honestly say that my church has never used any of those (with the possible exception of indoctrination, which could be defined merely as teaching the doctrines of the religion--but I think you have something more sinister in mind). I cannot, therefore, credit the rest of that comment with any validity.
Just as it seems impossible to persuade a religious person that their viewpoints are "crap", I think that convincing an atheist that there might be some merit to religious is equally impossible. Both seem to have a predisposition to argue their viewpoint and ignore facts.
Regarding your link--there is some evidence there, but I would be very cautious about using that evidence. First, it is being published by an organization which has a clear mission--to promote atheism. That's hardly a nuetral or unbiased entitity. Second, although there is a clear decline in the belief in God, there are many possible reasons for this--one being that it is simply a popular belief. This may be, like many other things, merely a burp in the community--a fad of disbelief, if you will--that will pass given time. Or not. The point is that many scientists recieve their education from other scientists.
Speaking as someone who is in an educational institution as a student, I know how easy it
A few comments: First, I did not say that atheism was irrational. I said it was just as irrational as other forms of belief. Atheism is a form of faith--faith or belief that there is no god. Not that there is no evidence of god (which is more strictly speaking agnosticism), but that there is not, and cannot, be a god. This is an illogical or unreasonable stance in that it makes an assumption, and then attempts to form the world to fit the assumption. The assumption is simple: there is no god, God, gods, Gods, deity, Deity, or Deities. The attempts to explain any potential evidence of the divine is an non-reason based philosophy.
Agnosticism is much more logical, in some variants, that the divine is unknown, and we cannot prove either way. It is unwilling to discount the divine, but unwilling to accept, sans physical evidence, that there is a divine. The agnostic exists at 1.5 in a binary world (it is an analogy, so bear with it).
*In my description of atheism and agnosticism, I forgot to mention that there is, according to wikipedia, a division amongst atheists--those who are *weak* atheists who claim that there is insufficient evidence and those who are *strong* atheists, which is what I describe. Weak atheism is probably more reasonable (logical) than either strong atheism, which asserts clearly that there is no god, or agnosticism, which asserts that god is unknowable and unknown. Your should read the descriptions of both atheists and agnostics on wikipedia-both are enlightening, and may help clear up some confusion. Based on your statements, I would guess that you are more of a weak atheist than a strong atheist, but I hesitate to label anyone with something that they do not claim willingly.
Your contention that most scientists are atheists lacks power. There are a good many scientists who are deeply devoted to their religion, and many very religious people who are excellent scientists. Furthermore, many of the famous scientists that came up with ideas that you rely on for modern conveniences where religious. Some men of science have openly clashed with the religious elite (the Catholic Church was particularly harsh, based in part on non-biblical interpretations of the universe--had they stuck strictly to the canonical writings, they would have been better off in this regard, as the Bible says nothing on the ordering of the universe).
I specifically asked for a reasoned argument about why atheists would be better politicians--justification for your inclusion of that criteria. Point me to some research, some logical arguments. Your personal observations are merely anecdotal evidence (n=1), and statistically invalid for that reason, unless you have systematically collected data and can point to a data set, and a history of its collection.
Your claim that the less religious a person is the more likely that they are to make "good" decisions. There are a number of flaws in this, the first being lack of evidence (and I don't think you will find it).
Second, you fail to define what constitutes a "good" decision. It is perfectly plausible (although somewhat misleading) for a religious person to define "good" decisions as those that promote God (though doing so is not something I would recommend). I think that a better way to word your argument would be: But I would claim that the less religious a person is, the more likely he is to make rational decisions, all other things equal.
This has a very clear meaning to those who study decision making (either economic or personal). There are still some problems, but they lie in defining what type of decisions. Do you mean personal decisions? Or perhaps near-instant decisions? You probably mean leadership/management decisions (which is essentially what politicians are engaged in), but I hate to put words in your mouth.
Third, it is essentially an arm-chair type of philosophy. If you are serious about good science, then you need to prove your stance, not
No, I would rather they drop the price to $25, and the subscription to a measly $5/month. I can hack $5. I can usually convince my wife that $5/mo is an acceptable amount.
That said, I won't be purchasing everquest 2, just like I didn't purchase everquest 1. When I am finally out of grad school, have disposable income, and am NOT worried about spending too little time with my kids and wife, THEN I will consider games that require a monthly fee. At that point, my kids will want to play them too, and I'll have to monitor the content of the games as well (I self-monitor as well--I figure if they shouldn't play it, then I shouldn't either (this has limits, but to a certain point, it is a good philosophy, especially as kids move into teen years)).
To those who decry parental censorship--buzz off. It is within my rights, and necessary to a large extent. Good parenting would solve a lot of problems in this world!
Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.
I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.
Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.
BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.
*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.
just checked, thunderbird is taking 41,192K and firefox is taking 58,936K.
Of course I do have 5 inboxes, one of which has 413 messages and the other 327 (the other three all have less than 100 (72, 15, 0)). I have two separate windows open, and two tabs in one and 3 in the other.
What can I say, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. Note that explorer.exe is taking 16,368, and IEXPLORE.EXE with just slashdot takes 17,800 alone.
Is firefox lean? Maybe not as much as it could be, but it is pretty good. THe fact that it opens as fast or faster than IE without the same OS hooks? Bloody ingenious if you ask me.
I was thinking the exact same thing--trouble is, most people don't really know about either (of course the ones who don't probably don't know about rm -rf either).
It's not quite the same argument that I'm making, however. Backwards compatibility is important (M$ has shown that), but not the be-all end-all of upgrades (Apple, Nintendo and others have shown that consumers will buy systems that break backwards-compatibility if its a good product).
My argument, however, was focused on what you do when a vendor ceases to update their product. I happen to work for a company that until recently kept a copy of Win NT for the SOLE purpose of running a single program--their point of sale software that won't run on anything newer. Its an old package that doesn't get updated any more. That's just part of dealing with proprietary source.
Now, with open source, there is a safety net built in--you can either update it yourself (if you know how) or hire someone to do it for you (and in some cases this makes sense--if a replacement package costs a lot).
At the company I work for, we are upgrading to a quad Xeon IBM eServe (with 4GB of Ram), and windows 2K and a POS called Managemore. I didn't make the decision, but Managemore cost us about $10k (and can cost up to twice that). But because our old setup is dying, and we don't want to pay someone to update it (or for the source code), and it is likely that writing our own POS would be more expensive, we are making the switch.
As for an extension in firefox not getting updated, big deal--like I said earlier, write your own, pay someone to do it or (if you can) update it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't about being homosexual v. heterosexual (I really don't know the stats on which, if either, group is more likely to contract aids, but that's irrelevant), but about promiscuity. Start sleeping around and you are more likely to end up with a VD/STD.
Abstinence is the best way to avoid AIDS. Period. The next best way is abstinence until a permanent monogamous sexual relationship is established with a person who has followed the same course. This is the EASIEST way to avoid aids.
Now, that said, I don't think that homosexuality does much (especially male homosexuality) to encourage monogamy. Not being homosexual, though, I don't have much to go on there, and am willing to defer authority to those who have legitimately studied the subject.
Or be a professor or student at a university. As a Clemson University grad student, there are thousands of journals that I can easily access from pretty much anywhere in the world (just give me net access).
That said, the university pays several hundred thousand dollars a year for this (and probably into the millions). I'll ask our department librarian the next time I get a chance (since she's also on my thesis committee!).
Over and out.
I hope your battle with lymphoma goes well, especially after having not had it diagnosed quickly.
I don't want to depress you or anything, but I truly do hope the best for you. I have seen someone battle with this particular type of cancer and lose, so I can only hope you do better.
Good luck!
No you wouldn't. His official salary IIRC is $1.
Enjoy.
And Steve Jobs current "official" salary?
Wrong argument.
I do think that you are right though, in that CEO's need to be paid at a reasonable market rate. I also agree with the other poster that CEO's need to have some restrictions/penalties for poor performance.
I honestly think that most CEO's are highly overpaid. In this case, the programmers are probably adequately paid--for a 40 hour week. For an 80 hour week they deserve on the order of 3 times the $60k they are making. The company could easily afford to increase its programming force by 100% and still come out with reasonable profit margin and high payouts to stock owners. Additionally, they would make employees happier.
Finally, if the company wants to avoid unionization (which is in their interest), they need to change their strategy. Unions are good for employees in this situation, but ultimately tend to make everyone's job harder (even the employees). Unfortunately, it is extremely hard to boot a union once it is in.
EA, if you are listening--change NOW, or you will be facing a union. Not a good thing, and you DON'T want to be known as THE company that got programmers unionized. If I were CEO of EA, I would do EVERYTHING I could to avoid this. It would make it very hard to get another CEO position (of course, this isn't always a concern, since after this, he will have more than enough to never have to work again!).
later.
Has anyone used the XFX brand and know how it does under linux?
I have had a few bad experiences relating to certain brands (such as Jaton) and their performance under linux.
TROLL!
Some people have no sense of humor.
Bah
Yeah, the Stonehenge wasn't too hard for the Jedi-Druid Masters of Ank-Morpork. Especially not after they built the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids.
It is well known that after building these they leveled Atlantis for the heresy of saying that Cthulu was really Buddha.
And your dates are wrong too--everyone knows that the Jedi-Druid FunkMasters of Ankh-morpork visited the kings of England around 100,000 BC, when they named Arthur king of the Brittains and gave him the magical European Swallow (not to be confused the the African Swallow).
I tend to agree--you have big business on one side and big gov't on the other side--at least traditionally.
Anymore, however, there's big government and big business on both side of the congress aisle. Does it matter? Yes--big business is a huge problem, even though it does bring a certain number of benefits (cheaper goods, larger base of luxury items, etc). Big gov't has some advantages, but overall I am not quite ready for either.
I am libertarian in the sense the people need to be free. I agree with you that to a certain extent, the libertarian ideal is unrealistic, but I do think that by striving for that ideal, we are likely to meet a much more diserable middle ground than be letting the status quo of the left & right (dems & reps) continue unchecked.
There is, unbeknownst to most people, a branch of psychology called mathematical psychology. I've never studied--I am focusing more on statistics and behavior (specifically motivation of behavior, which is something a strict behaviorist, such as BF Skinner, would have boohooed greatly, but is a very important part of psychology).
This area includes game theory, psychophysics, Neural Networks, and more. I think that this is the most likely area in which such a fusion of chaos theory and psychology could easily be melded. Behavioral psychology is ultimately concerned with the prediction of behavior based on what is known about the individual. Behavioral psychohistory would be concerned with the behavior of the society, based on what is known. The more that is known, the more accurate the model. Chaos theory should go a long way in helping with this.
(Just as an aside, there isn't much difference between group psychology and sociology--Asimov's psychohistory, as he described, was more of a branc of sociology than psychology, especially as known at the time he wrote those books).
and thus is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative. I don't condone drug use--I don't do it, and I don't like it. I am, however, willing to allow others to do as they please so long as it doesn't affect me (which is why driving intoxicated or public intoxication should be illegal--because it does affect me). The war on drugs is a conservative thing, however (although the liberal law makers are equally on board that bandwagon). You won't ever find a libertarian in this situation--they don't care what the other guy is doing, as long as they remain harmless.
The moment you come into my home, or threaten my family and/or property, you forfeit that right. If you draw a gun on me in my home, you die. You threaten my family in my home, same thing. You go out in the streets higher than a kite while driving a car, you go to jail. You kill someone while intoxicated, you die. Its simple and effective. I don't think anyone deserves a second chance on those issues. They are clear cut. If you want to stay in your house and dope yourself up beyond reason, fine with me--but the MOMENT you step outside your home, or start to hurt anyone to support your habit--you are done.
The only legitimate war on drugs is drug-related crimes (theft, murder, rape, etc). Drugs themselves are not the problem. Oh, and one other thing--seeking to exploit a minor via drug addiction--that should punishable by a severe beating by all the adolescents whose life you are screwing up. Do it, and you get canned.
As far as MS goes--hit 'em where it hurts--the pocket book. Yeah, they may not suffer much in the short term, but for every IT admin that switches to linux and refuses to switch back, that's a few less sales to MS. Eventually this will make them wake up. If they are too late, then they go away. Oh, and if you REALLY want free economy to work, end government subsidies for various big businesses (airlines come to mind), and then end the patent/copyright protections for corporations. They should get 3 years, and not a day more. If they can't make money on it in three years sufficient to justify the R&D, then they are just out of luck. Nvidia certainly makes enough to justify it, as does AMD & Intel--look at their product cycle if you don't believe it.
I am going to heavily disagree on this one::the folks COULD actually die from the kind of hours described in the blog. Heart Failure is a possibility, as are other problems. MOst of them will not be from people who are extremely healthy, but if you have a prior condition, this can kill you.
And, as someone else points out, this is against certain labor laws. I am not generally in favor of unions--they tend to cause certain problems, but I think that in this case that is what is needed.
The workers at EA (and some other places) need to get together quietly and talk to a labor lawyer. They should either then bring in a union OR file a class action suit. Documentation is their friend in this situation.
Another solution (one that would benefit the workers the most) is the elimination of salaried positions for game programmers. Make it an hourly position. This will change the nature of the job dramatically, but will seriously reduce the temptation on the part of management to call for overtime. In fact, it will virtually eliminate overtime.
As far as it goes, this is oppressive--there are fewer and fewer big game companies, and ANY employer involved in this type of action needs to have their VP of HR fired (I'll take the job--I am in the market) and replaced. HR folks should be the liasion between the company and its employees--going to bat for the employees as much as possible, while still representing the companies interests. HR should be the frontline for making sure that employees are treated well, are happy, and AREN'T LIKELY TO SUE!!!
EVERY lawsuit, even frivolous ones, cost the company money. In some ways, the smart thing to do here would be for all the employees to fire separate lawsuits. EA would be forced to settle or fight EACH ONE, costing them a lot of money, both in court costs, lost productivity, and bad press. IF they were smart, they would change some things immediately.
As far as quitting is concerned, it does fix the core problem (which is what I am concerned with). I personally think that humans should be concerned with this. I call for a strike(boycott)--DON'T BUY EA until this is FIXED!
Thanks.
And what skills do you think that they measure? In all honesty, I am a practical person, and if they predict performance in school, which is what they claim to do, then they are valid and useful. If you want to get into validity studies of the GRE/SAT, then you are welcome to--but I don't work for them.
Item Response Theory, which is heavily employed by ETS in making new versions of the tests, does not necessarily cover validity (although it is sometimes used that way).
It is absolutely true that you can improve your scores--knowledge of test taking really helps on the GRE. At the same time, however, many people will argue that the skills that are useful there will help later on.
When you claim that it is "fairly common knowledge..." you need to back that up. I know that there are criticisms of the tests--I am not a big testing fan, but I don't think the debate is that one sided among people who are familiar with psychometrics (and that is what we are talking about).
If you think that the above strategy will get you a perfect score, or that it would be possible for me to follow (having never taken college physics) and get a decent score, then you are mistaken. The test probably will not differentiate among the top 1% or lower 40% very well, but those aren't the levels that colleges are concerned with.
I was going to respond to a comment by someone else, but nothing previously posted merited a response of any sort (with the possible exception of the bitter guy who seems to hate ETS).
Personally, from a psychometrics point of view, which is something I have a more than passing interest in, ETS is incredible. They have data sets that are invaluable, and have done a lot to further the field of testing. Yes, they do make a lot of money, but I can say that they also earn that money.
If you think otherwise, consider it this way--for every test that they publish there are literally thousands of hours of research, testing, and retesting that have been done. Those doing this work need to be paid, and they typically demand fairly generous salaries (IRT analysts aren't that common, and certainly earn their pay).
Now, that said--wait a few years before you spend a ton of money on this one. That time is critical in making absolutely certain that the test really predicts success or ability. In a few years, we'll know.
I'll agree with someone else that replied to you--have you considered that my current situation is not what you think?
I did indeed start graduate school later in life than many (I am one of the older students here, but not the oldest). I have 2 kids, both boys, and I am making ends meet (via loans, assistantships, part-time work, and the occasional contract work). It means that I am very busy, but that's okay.
Why did I choose to have kids while still in school? My first son was born right before I finished undergrad--and it was a wonderful thing. I did great that semester, BTW. To me family is more important than anything else, and I think that it is important to have children while one is still young enough to enjoy playing with them. I know far too many people who delay children until they are older, and then DIE before their children are grown (actually, my father passed away when I was 18, but I only mention that as full disclosure, not a 'pity me' party).
My wife and I are agreed that children are important enough to us that we are willing to work some extra (she is a Kitchen Consultant for a large and well known seller of cook-ware) in order to make ends meet due to the extra cost of having two children. We will not be having a third until I graduate in a year or two (or three), but that's our decision.
If my kids grow up and steal your car, then we can talk, but somehow I doubt that that will happen. As a point of fact, I plan on doing everything that I can to make my kids socially and morally responsible.
As for using condoms--no thanks. Birth control is fine, and we do use it, but condoms are no fun. I'll leave to others to expound on why that is so--personally I'll leave it alone.
Final point--re: your sig.
I am a social and financial conservative, with strong libertarian streaks. I am also extremely practical--I am willing to use a system until a better one is found, even if I am working to change that system.
Swearing at me will change nothing, and at the risk of this degenerating into a flame-fest, I will reply. Your actions are your own.
First, I did check my definitions of atheism. There are a number of definitions, including that given on Wikipedia, that require an atheist to maintain that belief (and it is a belief, if not faith) and disregard all possible evidence. The difference between faith, which I generally define as a belief that tends toward action, and rational belief is small.
Yes, there were holes in my arguments--I freely admit that I did not make all my definitions clear, and that I did not close every logical alternative. I am alone responsible for what I wrote. Allow me a moment, however, to clear up one minor issue, and I'll shut up.
When you say that there can be 100 principles contradicting each other, some of which may make you happier, you are correct in a way. Do not, however, mistake pleasure (which is momentary) for happiness, which is lasting. Furthermore, only the principle that gives the greatest happiness has much importance. I don't care about ideas that only give a few moments of pleasure, but bring sorrow or misery or problems down the road. That's not a rational way to make decisions. The rational decision maker must seek to maximize their long-term happiness. Otherwise they have not maximized their happiness at all, but have sacrificed future happiness for immediate happiness (or pleasure). Now I admit that this isn't always the case--it can be a false dichotomy to think that there is always a trade-off.
Your assertion that religion is used as a post-hoc justification for decent behavior is patently ridiculous. It can be used that way, but so can psychology. Religion can also be applied a priori, and then cause decent behavior. I have seen enough cases of individuals who, prior to joining themselves to a religion were uncivil and treated others horribly, and when they applied the teachings of that religion, became much more pleasant to be around. Can this happen without religion? Certainly--I would be pretty stupid to argue the other way; but to say that religion is only post hoc justification when people have provably become better (eg, more civil and pleasant to be around) as a result of applying the teachings of a religion is an insult to your own intelligence.
As far as "my delusion", I don't think that you have a good understanding of how religion works. Repetition is necessary for any teaching method. Any religion that uses the others (incarceration, sleep deprivation, indoctrination [although I'm not sure what your definition of this is], or electric shocks) is worthless. I have nothing to do with such chicanery and madness. I can honestly say that my church has never used any of those (with the possible exception of indoctrination, which could be defined merely as teaching the doctrines of the religion--but I think you have something more sinister in mind). I cannot, therefore, credit the rest of that comment with any validity.
Just as it seems impossible to persuade a religious person that their viewpoints are "crap", I think that convincing an atheist that there might be some merit to religious is equally impossible. Both seem to have a predisposition to argue their viewpoint and ignore facts.
Regarding your link--there is some evidence there, but I would be very cautious about using that evidence. First, it is being published by an organization which has a clear mission--to promote atheism. That's hardly a nuetral or unbiased entitity. Second, although there is a clear decline in the belief in God, there are many possible reasons for this--one being that it is simply a popular belief. This may be, like many other things, merely a burp in the community--a fad of disbelief, if you will--that will pass given time. Or not. The point is that many scientists recieve their education from other scientists.
Speaking as someone who is in an educational institution as a student, I know how easy it
A few comments:
First, I did not say that atheism was irrational. I said it was just as irrational as other forms of belief. Atheism is a form of faith--faith or belief that there is no god. Not that there is no evidence of god (which is more strictly speaking agnosticism), but that there is not, and cannot, be a god. This is an illogical or unreasonable stance in that it makes an assumption, and then attempts to form the world to fit the assumption. The assumption is simple: there is no god, God, gods, Gods, deity, Deity, or Deities. The attempts to explain any potential evidence of the divine is an non-reason based philosophy.
Agnosticism is much more logical, in some variants, that the divine is unknown, and we cannot prove either way. It is unwilling to discount the divine, but unwilling to accept, sans physical evidence, that there is a divine. The agnostic exists at 1.5 in a binary world (it is an analogy, so bear with it).
*In my description of atheism and agnosticism, I forgot to mention that there is, according to wikipedia, a division amongst atheists--those who are *weak* atheists who claim that there is insufficient evidence and those who are *strong* atheists, which is what I describe. Weak atheism is probably more reasonable (logical) than either strong atheism, which asserts clearly that there is no god, or agnosticism, which asserts that god is unknowable and unknown. Your should read the descriptions of both atheists and agnostics on wikipedia-both are enlightening, and may help clear up some confusion. Based on your statements, I would guess that you are more of a weak atheist than a strong atheist, but I hesitate to label anyone with something that they do not claim willingly.
Your contention that most scientists are atheists lacks power. There are a good many scientists who are deeply devoted to their religion, and many very religious people who are excellent scientists. Furthermore, many of the famous scientists that came up with ideas that you rely on for modern conveniences where religious. Some men of science have openly clashed with the religious elite (the Catholic Church was particularly harsh, based in part on non-biblical interpretations of the universe--had they stuck strictly to the canonical writings, they would have been better off in this regard, as the Bible says nothing on the ordering of the universe).
I specifically asked for a reasoned argument about why atheists would be better politicians--justification for your inclusion of that criteria. Point me to some research, some logical arguments. Your personal observations are merely anecdotal evidence (n=1), and statistically invalid for that reason, unless you have systematically collected data and can point to a data set, and a history of its collection.
Your claim that the less religious a person is the more likely that they are to make "good" decisions. There are a number of flaws in this, the first being lack of evidence (and I don't think you will find it).
Second, you fail to define what constitutes a "good" decision. It is perfectly plausible (although somewhat misleading) for a religious person to define "good" decisions as those that promote God (though doing so is not something I would recommend). I think that a better way to word your argument would be:
But I would claim that the less religious a person is, the more likely he is to make rational decisions, all other things equal.
This has a very clear meaning to those who study decision making (either economic or personal). There are still some problems, but they lie in defining what type of decisions. Do you mean personal decisions? Or perhaps near-instant decisions? You probably mean leadership/management decisions (which is essentially what politicians are engaged in), but I hate to put words in your mouth.
Third, it is essentially an arm-chair type of philosophy. If you are serious about good science, then you need to prove your stance, not
No, I would rather they drop the price to $25, and the subscription to a measly $5/month. I can hack $5. I can usually convince my wife that $5/mo is an acceptable amount.
That said, I won't be purchasing everquest 2, just like I didn't purchase everquest 1. When I am finally out of grad school, have disposable income, and am NOT worried about spending too little time with my kids and wife, THEN I will consider games that require a monthly fee. At that point, my kids will want to play them too, and I'll have to monitor the content of the games as well (I self-monitor as well--I figure if they shouldn't play it, then I shouldn't either (this has limits, but to a certain point, it is a good philosophy, especially as kids move into teen years)).
To those who decry parental censorship--buzz off. It is within my rights, and necessary to a large extent. Good parenting would solve a lot of problems in this world!
Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.
I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.
Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.
BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.
*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.
just checked, thunderbird is taking 41,192K and firefox is taking 58,936K.
Of course I do have 5 inboxes, one of which has 413 messages and the other 327 (the other three all have less than 100 (72, 15, 0)). I have two separate windows open, and two tabs in one and 3 in the other.
What can I say, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. Note that explorer.exe is taking 16,368, and IEXPLORE.EXE with just slashdot takes 17,800 alone.
Is firefox lean? Maybe not as much as it could be, but it is pretty good. THe fact that it opens as fast or faster than IE without the same OS hooks? Bloody ingenious if you ask me.
I was thinking the exact same thing--trouble is, most people don't really know about either (of course the ones who don't probably don't know about rm -rf either).
Stupid clueless users.
The question is why can't I get Portuguese sausage? I want it! Guess I'd better move...
no,
none of the drives reviewed have ranier support.
From what I can tell, its pretty good. Frankly, however, I know very little about it. I do their web design/development, and only part-time at that.
As for win2k, its a POS alright, but then again, it CAME FROM M$! Seriously though, I think we'll be happy with the system.
It's not quite the same argument that I'm making, however. Backwards compatibility is important (M$ has shown that), but not the be-all end-all of upgrades (Apple, Nintendo and others have shown that consumers will buy systems that break backwards-compatibility if its a good product).
My argument, however, was focused on what you do when a vendor ceases to update their product. I happen to work for a company that until recently kept a copy of Win NT for the SOLE purpose of running a single program--their point of sale software that won't run on anything newer. Its an old package that doesn't get updated any more. That's just part of dealing with proprietary source.
Now, with open source, there is a safety net built in--you can either update it yourself (if you know how) or hire someone to do it for you (and in some cases this makes sense--if a replacement package costs a lot).
At the company I work for, we are upgrading to a quad Xeon IBM eServe (with 4GB of Ram), and windows 2K and a POS called Managemore. I didn't make the decision, but Managemore cost us about $10k (and can cost up to twice that). But because our old setup is dying, and we don't want to pay someone to update it (or for the source code), and it is likely that writing our own POS would be more expensive, we are making the switch.
As for an extension in firefox not getting updated, big deal--like I said earlier, write your own, pay someone to do it or (if you can) update it yourself.
It's fairly simple really.