Now that he has a billion dollars, I would hope that Mr Zuckerburg invests in a CEO or COO-- someone over 40 that can at least give the appearance of a "real" company. Yes, I realize that means selling out to a certain degree and it also maybe takes away some (okay most) of the fun, but it also means that certain people (investors) won't think that the staff at facebook is making shit up as they go along.
That's the obvious solution. A certain 20-something business founder once decided to do the same thing back in the day, hiring a cola executive to be the new CEO. Said cola executive ran the founder out of the company and almost ran the company into the ground.
At this point, the person most experienced as and qualified to be CEO of Facebook is Zuckerburg.
Also, I think that Max Planck might have been being just a bit facetious in the quote you mentioned; while powerful, wrong-headed opponents may be the bane of every great endeavor, simply waiting for them to die still doesn't make you right. If you die first, it doesn't make you wrong, either.
No, you wait until you're both dead, and whoever managed to convince the most survivors by that point was probably right.
You get what you expect, gentlemen. And generations of ladies have gotten that message. It doesn't matter if we're smart or like UNIX or believe that astrology, deities, and the like are bunk. What matters is how sexy the package is.
What we really want is not having to choose between looks and smarts.
Ironically, Benito Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time, no matter how much he tried. Other failed projects included righting the Leaning Tower of Pisa and World War II.
There is enough information available for any government employee to determine when you are on holiday or away on a business trip to know when to send their mates round to burgle your home.
From what I gather, they can send their mates round to burgle your home even when you're not away, because it's legally impossible to use any force at all to stop them.
It's not really a trick: in Jobs' case, he honestly thinks that compared to what he's developing, everything that already exists does suck, or that it always sucked until he came along to reinvent it.
Guns. Now what are they for? They have one purpose, and one purpose only. To kill people.
I've shot hundreds of rounds from dozens of guns in my life, and I haven't killed a single person. Mind telling me where I went wrong and misused those guns?
As for the rest, your illogical arguments underwhelm me.
Yeah, it's always been easier for you to deliver absurd insults than to actually refute my arguments. How can I tell? Easily: you've successfully delivered absurd insults.
But of course, that is all far away from the main bit, which started all this, which is that nobody has a right to "free speech" on a private network, and nobody has a "right" to drive, never mind a "right" to "take their safety into their own hands" and ignore seatbelt laws.
I simply pointed out that your analogy was not well taken.
The only person here who is acting in a paternalistic manner is you - you insist that YOU know better than voters, everyone who voted for them, etc.
Well, someone here doesn't know what "paternalism" means, and it's not me.
Really? You've already indicated that you see no problem with a form of darwinism "taking care of the problem" of people too stupid to use seatbelts - and you have the nerve to accuse me of being callous.
I never accused you of being callous. Look, you've been a pretty decent troll but just plain making shit up isn't getting the job done anymore, you've got to throw in some more red herrings and irrelevant passages of research to really do it right.
The seatbelt law isn't intrusive - you are NOT required to drive on public roads. It's a shared resource, like bandwidth. Play by the rules, or fuck off
Non-sequitur...
The seatbelt law is necessary - before the law was enacted, fewer people wore seat belts. Now, more do.
...completely missing the point...
They also belt their kids since they have no choice now (its not like the kids are able to exercise judgment)
See, a law that only required that I'd be alright with.
Besides, when you really get down to it, you have no "rights" except those accorded by law. There is no such thing as a "natural right" - the universe doesn't give 2 shits about humans one way or the other.
More irrelevant bullshit about rights (a subject I never brought up in the first place.)
How could you miss a typo like that. Are you blindd?
I didn't miss the typo; I'm not blind but even if I were I'm sure I could have caught it with a screenreader; nice touch making a typo of your own to cap it off.
You're forgetting the long tail; this is a situation where the median would be much more useful.
I'm assuming a standard distribution, in which case the mean is the median.
The mean may be 10 years, but consider that he could die 25 years from now. On the other hand, it's impossible for him to have already died five years ago.
That's probably the main reason a standard distribution wouldn't work well.
You lied. You put words in my mouth, said I said things I didn't (the whole "strawman" thing).Every time I point out another inconsistency, you change the topic. Kitchen getting to hot?
You still haven't told me what you've done to make more and stricter seatbelt laws a reality, by the way. Nor have your observations about the legal profession, your personal judgment of what I choose to major in in college, or your extensive discussions of how air bags are designed to work proven the slightest bit relevant to the arguments of mine you were replying to. And you accuse me of changing the subject?
So, what would you call "fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands"? You don't believe that's saying you should have the "right" to control your own activities wrt safety / seatbelts / etc?
I'm certainly not claiming those laws infringe my rights. What I am saying is something completely different. In particular, "fuck your paternalistic laws" is an expression of contempt for the seatbelt law, suggesting the reason for that contempt (paternalism). "My safety should be in my hands" is simply a restatement of "my personal safety isn't a good subject for public legislation", which summarizes and clarifies the problem with paternalism.
The concept of rights is neither invoked in, nor necessary to my sentiments. It sufficient to simply note that the seatbelt law is unnecessary and intrusive, regardless of anyone's rights. I don't expect you to understand this of course--you've shown a complete inability to even stay on topic, let alone understand the comments you are replying to--but it is still best to clarify for the record.
All this proves is that if you are denied media coverage, then sure, you have no chance. Denied media coverage or no, Ron Paul's poor showing in 2008 suggests his chances in 2012 are even worse.
So in other words, you're going to criticize Clinton for not preventing the genocide in Rwanda and for preventing the genocide in Kosovo? I have problems with the guy too but damn, you just never give a break.
Well thats the thing. To me Obama feels like a Manchurian candidate. He has no background... He was pretty much out of the blue. Its almost if he could just finish taking the oath for office and then pull off his mask and its Jeb Bush for all we know.
He isn't fresh off the boat from the planet Mars: he has a long record in the Illinois State Senate and was a public figure in the area since before that. Just because you haven't gotten off your butt to research it says nothing about Obama.
Meanwhile, "marketing boards" for milk, eggs, etc. in Eastern Canada prop up prices for farmers while raising costs to consumers. My wife makes regular trips from Toronto to Buffalo to shop, and usually comes back with 10-15 lbs. of butter, which she says is half the price there, 25-lb bags of flour, 6-9 dozen eggs, etc. (she bakes a lot!)
I have to ask: are the high food prices a contributing factor the enduring popularity of Kraft Dinner in Canada?
It is my understanding that Obama has been winning caucus states in the past, particularly in the states where you're supposed to stick around and defend your choice. My theory: No rational person wants to waste their time arguing with an 18 year-old in an Operation Ivy T-shirt over who did or did not co-sponsor an education bill.;)
And as we all know, democracy means "government by those who are unwilling to defend their choice to college students and black people". (Come on, if you're going to stereotype Obama supporters go all the way!)
As you point out, seatbelt laws are enacted by the state, and enforced by municipal and state police. So, are you going to try to say that nobody voted for the people who make the laws, and the people (mayors, etc) who boss the people who enforce the laws?
I'm saying that nobody ever got elected on a platform of "let's make everyone wear seatbelts".
Again, what are you doing about it if you're "against" it? And are you against it all the time, or would you support it for, say, serial rapists, serial killers, mass murderers, crimes against humanity, people like Hitler?
I vote. I try to convince other people to be against it. And I don't think it's necessary even for war criminals. (By the way, good job Godwinning the thread, that was a subtle tactic you used.)
Its easy to say "I'm against the death penalty." If you're so against it, move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby against it. Work for a candidate who's against it. Inaction just means that you don't have the courage of your convictions.
I have better things to do with my life than tilt at windmills in support of every opinion I happen to hold. Let's turn the tables here, Tom: what have you done to advance the cause of wearing seatbelts?
By the way, I never said anything about rights in this discussion. Check on it.
You're such a liar. Here's what you wrote here
-whether or not I wear a seatbelt principally affects my safety. Not yours. So fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands.
Quite clear that you think that you should have the "right" to decide whether to wear a seatbelt or not... that you consider the law to be an infringement on your "rights".
Wow, you found a passage where I didn't say anything about rights, and you're calling me a liar for saying I didn't say anything about rights. Good job. I never said the seatbelt laws infringe my rights, I just said fuck them because they're paternalistic. Poor reading comprehension or straw man, Tom?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the obvious solution. A certain 20-something business founder once decided to do the same thing back in the day, hiring a cola executive to be the new CEO. Said cola executive ran the founder out of the company and almost ran the company into the ground.
At this point, the person most experienced as and qualified to be CEO of Facebook is Zuckerburg.
No, you wait until you're both dead, and whoever managed to convince the most survivors by that point was probably right.
What we really want is not having to choose between looks and smarts.
Yeah, only when it's a C cup or above.
Ironically, Benito Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time, no matter how much he tried. Other failed projects included righting the Leaning Tower of Pisa and World War II.
From what I gather, they can send their mates round to burgle your home even when you're not away, because it's legally impossible to use any force at all to stop them.
It's not really a trick: in Jobs' case, he honestly thinks that compared to what he's developing, everything that already exists does suck, or that it always sucked until he came along to reinvent it.
I've shot hundreds of rounds from dozens of guns in my life, and I haven't killed a single person. Mind telling me where I went wrong and misused those guns?
I wonder if a "flip through a photo album at random while vibrating" app would be distributed.
Yeah, it's always been easier for you to deliver absurd insults than to actually refute my arguments. How can I tell? Easily: you've successfully delivered absurd insults.
It seems you consistently make the same typoo.
I simply pointed out that your analogy was not well taken.
The only person here who is acting in a paternalistic manner is you - you insist that YOU know better than voters, everyone who voted for them, etc.Well, someone here doesn't know what "paternalism" means, and it's not me.
Really? You've already indicated that you see no problem with a form of darwinism "taking care of the problem" of people too stupid to use seatbelts - and you have the nerve to accuse me of being callous.I never accused you of being callous. Look, you've been a pretty decent troll but just plain making shit up isn't getting the job done anymore, you've got to throw in some more red herrings and irrelevant passages of research to really do it right.
The seatbelt law isn't intrusive - you are NOT required to drive on public roads. It's a shared resource, like bandwidth. Play by the rules, or fuck offNon-sequitur...
The seatbelt law is necessary - before the law was enacted, fewer people wore seat belts. Now, more do....completely missing the point...
They also belt their kids since they have no choice now (its not like the kids are able to exercise judgment)See, a law that only required that I'd be alright with.
Besides, when you really get down to it, you have no "rights" except those accorded by law. There is no such thing as a "natural right" - the universe doesn't give 2 shits about humans one way or the other.More irrelevant bullshit about rights (a subject I never brought up in the first place.)
I actually noticed that typo...
How could you miss a typo like that. Are you blindd?
I didn't miss the typo; I'm not blind but even if I were I'm sure I could have caught it with a screenreader; nice touch making a typo of your own to cap it off.
I'm assuming a standard distribution, in which case the mean is the median.
The mean may be 10 years, but consider that he could die 25 years from now. On the other hand, it's impossible for him to have already died five years ago.That's probably the main reason a standard distribution wouldn't work well.
Indeed: and to calculate how real a possibility we would need the expected value of the date of his death along with the variance.
Just an observation.
You lied. You put words in my mouth, said I said things I didn't (the whole "strawman" thing).Every time I point out another inconsistency, you change the topic. Kitchen getting to hot?You still haven't told me what you've done to make more and stricter seatbelt laws a reality, by the way. Nor have your observations about the legal profession, your personal judgment of what I choose to major in in college, or your extensive discussions of how air bags are designed to work proven the slightest bit relevant to the arguments of mine you were replying to. And you accuse me of changing the subject?
So, what would you call "fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands"? You don't believe that's saying you should have the "right" to control your own activities wrt safety / seatbelts / etc?I'm certainly not claiming those laws infringe my rights. What I am saying is something completely different. In particular, "fuck your paternalistic laws" is an expression of contempt for the seatbelt law, suggesting the reason for that contempt (paternalism). "My safety should be in my hands" is simply a restatement of "my personal safety isn't a good subject for public legislation", which summarizes and clarifies the problem with paternalism.
The concept of rights is neither invoked in, nor necessary to my sentiments. It sufficient to simply note that the seatbelt law is unnecessary and intrusive, regardless of anyone's rights. I don't expect you to understand this of course--you've shown a complete inability to even stay on topic, let alone understand the comments you are replying to--but it is still best to clarify for the record.
I don't really disagree with you, although none of this exonerates (or is even relevant to) Hamas.
So in other words, you're going to criticize Clinton for not preventing the genocide in Rwanda and for preventing the genocide in Kosovo? I have problems with the guy too but damn, you just never give a break.
He isn't fresh off the boat from the planet Mars: he has a long record in the Illinois State Senate and was a public figure in the area since before that. Just because you haven't gotten off your butt to research it says nothing about Obama.
I actually noticed that typo, but decided to leave it because it was funnier that way. Good catch.
The Supreme Court later gave the Clinton campaign the caress of steel, ruling that Canadian rock trios cannot be elected Vice-President.
I have to ask: are the high food prices a contributing factor the enduring popularity of Kraft Dinner in Canada?
And as we all know, democracy means "government by those who are unwilling to defend their choice to college students and black people". (Come on, if you're going to stereotype Obama supporters go all the way!)
I'm saying that nobody ever got elected on a platform of "let's make everyone wear seatbelts".
Again, what are you doing about it if you're "against" it? And are you against it all the time, or would you support it for, say, serial rapists, serial killers, mass murderers, crimes against humanity, people like Hitler?I vote. I try to convince other people to be against it. And I don't think it's necessary even for war criminals. (By the way, good job Godwinning the thread, that was a subtle tactic you used.)
Its easy to say "I'm against the death penalty." If you're so against it, move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby against it. Work for a candidate who's against it. Inaction just means that you don't have the courage of your convictions.I have better things to do with my life than tilt at windmills in support of every opinion I happen to hold. Let's turn the tables here, Tom: what have you done to advance the cause of wearing seatbelts?
By the way, I never said anything about rights in this discussion. Check on it.
You're such a liar. Here's what you wrote here
-whether or not I wear a seatbelt principally affects my safety. Not yours. So fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands.
Quite clear that you think that you should have the "right" to decide whether to wear a seatbelt or not ... that you consider the law to be an infringement on your "rights".
Wow, you found a passage where I didn't say anything about rights, and you're calling me a liar for saying I didn't say anything about rights. Good job. I never said the seatbelt laws infringe my rights, I just said fuck them because they're paternalistic. Poor reading comprehension or straw man, Tom?