In a sane world, you would be able to bring the guy who you brought up to speed to US on a H1-B may be and get him/her to spend the earning in the USA and pay the taxes in USA and contribute his/her kids to the local schools and thus enrich the US economy, US Government and US communities in multiple ways.
In a sane world, the US would protect its domestic industries and prevent hemorrhaging money all over the world by making offshoring outright illegal and not allowing foreign labour into the country. As is, it's rabidly de-industrializing and going bankrupt as a result.
But hey, the CEOs get bonuses for looting the economy, so it's alright.
Indians love America. If only we let them come in here, work here, spend here, pay taxes here and keep the business here we will be so much better off.
No, you won't be. An Indian accepts a smaller salary than an American because he won't be spending it in America, he'll be spending it in India. Meanwhile, that smaller salary depresses wages, which both decreases tax revenue and makes people poorer.
Again, the only winner is the aristocracy, and again it happens at the expense of the working class.
Experience and education don't mean jack when they can hire a guy from Bangalore for $15k a year.
You assume that the guy in Bangalore doesn't have experience & education... you racist cunt.
No, he assumes that the experience and education of the Bangalorian matters less to the offshorer than the fact that he'll work for $15k a year.
Oh well. Capitalism is supposed to maximize efficiency by minimizing marginal costs. I guess having a standard of living above barely staying alive counts a marginal cost.
I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a shadow economy where I do favours for my neighbours, they do favours for me, and rich parasites are excluded? Because the actual economy seems to be getting worse and worse for the common people, despite all the technological advances.
An integral requires that you know a formula that describes the curve. I think (can only see the abstract) this paper deals with measurement curves from lab tests.
Integral is the limit of area as the size of the rectangles (and thus error) approaches zero. It uses this method as a starting point.
I don't know if dr. Tai's technique was an important new development, but I do know that this slashdot item is bogus.
It isn't, and it isn't. It's typically taught in high school during introduction to calculus.
That said, reinventing calculus is no small feat, and certainly not worthy of mockery. Dr. Tai simply lacks education, which is something that should be addressed in med student curriculum.
Being part of the free press, or being anyone who enjoys the protection of the first amendment, doesn't give you cover to work with a person who is illegally stealing and transferring classified documents. Period.
Yes. Comma. It does. Semicolon. It is the very definition of. Double quote. Free press. Double quote. Period.
If we limited the function of government to simply a government which would protect against force (as in the lynching you described) and against fraud (so the economic system can work properly).
Who's "we"? You and a like-minded minority? Because the whole basis you gave for a limited government was that the majority wants it addressing their pet issues, they clearly cannot be trusted. And how are you going to do this without wielding dictatorial power?
Limited government is not powerless government, limited government is the government having a set list of things it can do and it can't break them.
Who's going to stop it?
Limited government is making sure the government can't legislate itself more powers.
Who's going to stop it?
It's all nice and good to say that the government should be limited so it can only do whatever you consider important and nothing more, but it simply doesn't work that way in reality. If the government is powerful enough to keep order (disperse lynch mobs), it is also powerful enough to escape any attempts to limit it - because, after all, who's going to stop it? And if it's not powerful enough to keep order, it will succumb to a revolution in a very short order and be replaced by one that is.
Or are you just pissed that they make decisions without asking you?
Are you suggesting that being pissed that someone else is making decisions that concern you without asking you is somehow irrational?
If so, you might wish to move to China, whose political ideology is a better match for yours than the Western democracies (where you presumably live in, since you can access this website).
I've seen a lot of students basically get brainwashed by professors who demand perfect conformance to their personal quirks, for some reason this seems especially common among those studying to become teachers, social workers and economists, but I've also seen plenty of examples of professors that would rather pass a student that did something wrong but used their own mind while failing those who just repeat what's in the course literature.
So basically the lesson here is that you need to study the background of whoever is your superior in order to figure out how best to brownnose them. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty useful lesson:).
I have a 6 year old son. Tell me why I would not be scared of losing the chance to see him grow up?
Well, the way things are going, he'll grow up in a world dominated by Chinese dictatorship, assuming no Third World dictator or a terrorist group doesn't get ahold of nukes and trigger a nuclear holocaust first. This, in turn, means that he either lives as a slave or dies slowly from radiation poisoning.
Also, oil is running out, Europe is slowly but surely being overrun by muslims and turned into an Islamic hellhole, and global warming will likely make it impossible to produce enough food for everyone, especially since ethanol-based fuels are also made from food.
Basically, your son was born 50 years too late, missed the only relatively nice period of human history - and even that only in the First World - and will grow up while civilization crumbles and spark of light triggered by the Enlightenment gets snuffed out forever. Why would you want to see that?
The nature of illusion is that it needs somebody to fool. Think about this for a second.
Your premise is false. Several classes of illusion - mirages, for example - exist independently of any observer. The rest are artifacts of sensory processing, and don't need "somebody": for example, a face recognition algorithm running on a computer can easily be fooled by a suitable image.
There's a world of difference between "secrets and wrongdoing" and "privacy and discretion."
Yes, and it's pretty hard to argue that documents written by state employees on behalf of their employer would fall under privacy.
Accused rapist Assange* asked for and then published what amounts to the private correspondence of American ambassadors... something that on a long enough timetable is made public as a route matter ANYWAY.
It amounts to business correspondence. And you know perfectly well that the rape charges are almost certainly false, so stop with the mud-slinging already - it does nothing but makes the US look even more pathetic than it already does.
(*: If he's innocent, he can go back and defend himself. If he's innocent, he has little reason not to and a big scary reason to do so... namely, to clear his and wikileaks' names.)
If he's innocent, and goes back to Sweden, there's a pretty good chance they'll deport him to the USA. They've been their lapdogs of late.
if you find any 'mistakes' then perhaps you should try to fix them as any expert in any field should be doing..
Are the quotes around the word "mistakes" meant to suggest that the very thought of Wikipedia being wrong is somehow strange to you?
In any case, correcting Wikipedia is a pain, since chances are that your edit gets removed since it contradicts someone's bias. Also, deletionism is still going strong.
The Senate was supposed to be a voice for the State in Washington, not a voice for the people.
The State, being an abstract construct, has no voice. Any will it shows is actually some humans will. If it's not its residents will, then who's will is it?
The House represents the common folk like you and me while the Senate, if it worked as it was planned, gives representation to the State itself.
The State itself doesn't require representation, since it doesn't exist independently of its population, who already have representation.
Unless, of course, you meant that the rich elite and their paid politicians should have their own, separate representation in Washington. Is that what you meant by mentioning "common people"?
Incidentally, there's a fine Russian word for a hierarchical system of representation, in which smaller governmental bodies choose representatives to the national government: "Soviet." Yeah, that sure helped protect the liberties of the people and the long-term interests of the republic, didn't it?
To put it bluntly: yes, it did. You are comparing Soviet Russia to a western democracy, but you should be comparing it to what preceded it: Tsarist Russia, a dictatorship which finally collapsed utterly in World War One. That Russia rose from those ruins to be the second most powerful nation in the world is nothing short miraculous.
This rises an interesting question: if communism was tried in a country with long and firmly-rooted democratic traditions, rather than collapsed dictatorships, what would happen? What happens when you combine a planned economy with the First Amendment?
Seeing how most revolutions are triggered by economic collapse, I suspect that we shall soon see.
My best guess (as someone who believes in a 'soul', but also realizes this can lead to some potentially absurd conclusions) is that for each small electric replacement, your consciousness will proportionally fade away. At bit like when you're half asleep say if half your brain was replaced.
The problem with this is that if this "fading away" leads to any externally noticeable changes in behaviour - such as cries of "Stop! I'm fading!" - the electronic replacements clearly aren't functioning, and the experiment fades. On the other hand, it would take a sudden and complete removal of control for your behaviour to not change. And if your behaviour does not change, then clearly human soul isn't needed for humanlike behaviour - which means that you have no reason to expect anyone besides yourself to actually have this soul, no matter how they act.
Nobody has a "right" to make money. Like every investment, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Unless you're a banker, in which case you take any profits and public pays any losses. Which, IMHO, banks should be owned by the government. I'm sick and tired of paying the gambling losses of "businessmen" who hold the economy hostage.
The proper place for personification is in literature. Used elsewhere, it is a logical fallacy.
Your link states (emphasis mine): "the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a fallacy."
Reading comprehension is a slick, supple thing that dances away just as you thought you'd caught it, and sticks its tongue out on you. Case it as you will, but its firm yet supple metaphorical buttocks stay always out of your grasp and perky figurative breasts bounce delightfully yet frustratingly just out of reach. Never will you wake up in the morning and see the beautiful anthropomorphic personification of an abstract concept sleep besides you, still tired from an orgy of understanding, strong yet fragile and easily hurt in the hands of literary-minded jerks.
If you have spent so much time developing your social skills that your ability to engage in abstract thought suffers, then I think you have failed as a human being.
As I stated, reification is a tool that helps abstract thought by translating the problem into a form the human brain can solve more efficiently. Social skills have nothing to do with it.
But I guess the concept of optimization is too abstract for you, you failure.
Your last two paragraphs appear to be complete blather. "Hardware-accelerated social simulation circuits": zero meaning.
The meaning is obvious: Because you are a human, and humans are social animals, you have neural circuits related to solving the associated problems, namely predicting how other humans behave, just like you have neural circuits for parsing incoming sensory data. Contrast this to circuits relating to abstract thought, where the actual thought is separated from the underlaying hardware through several layers of abstraction.
"Personification is simply a way of getting the most out of your brains": do you write self-improvement books?
You know, it gets a bit old and stale, and quite a bit tiring, for this gratuitous political-based bashing, here in a blog intended for "news that matters" for "nerds".
I dunno if Bush has arsenic in his DNA, but he sure is arsenic for the rest of us.
That's bashing. "Bush/Obama/Michael Jackson/The Pope/Richard Dawkins is a reptilian overlord" is a (non-malicious) joke. See the difference?
Yep sounds like Canada. You step over a line the party puts in the sand, they do everything to make you not part of their "image".
That is how political parties work in most of the world: the party is found on some core ideas, recruits people who share those ideas, and rejects those who don't. The US-style two-headed single party system is an aberration, to put it kindly.
If you put a normal person in space, they would still be bound by gravity
They are still bound by gravity. Even the astronauts in Moon missions were still bound by Earth's gravity, and of course by the gravities of Sun, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Local Supercluster etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In a sane world, the US would protect its domestic industries and prevent hemorrhaging money all over the world by making offshoring outright illegal and not allowing foreign labour into the country. As is, it's rabidly de-industrializing and going bankrupt as a result.
But hey, the CEOs get bonuses for looting the economy, so it's alright.
No, you won't be. An Indian accepts a smaller salary than an American because he won't be spending it in America, he'll be spending it in India. Meanwhile, that smaller salary depresses wages, which both decreases tax revenue and makes people poorer.
Again, the only winner is the aristocracy, and again it happens at the expense of the working class.
No, he assumes that the experience and education of the Bangalorian matters less to the offshorer than the fact that he'll work for $15k a year.
Oh well. Capitalism is supposed to maximize efficiency by minimizing marginal costs. I guess having a standard of living above barely staying alive counts a marginal cost.
I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a shadow economy where I do favours for my neighbours, they do favours for me, and rich parasites are excluded? Because the actual economy seems to be getting worse and worse for the common people, despite all the technological advances.
Integral is the limit of area as the size of the rectangles (and thus error) approaches zero. It uses this method as a starting point.
It isn't, and it isn't. It's typically taught in high school during introduction to calculus.
That said, reinventing calculus is no small feat, and certainly not worthy of mockery. Dr. Tai simply lacks education, which is something that should be addressed in med student curriculum.
Yes. Comma. It does. Semicolon. It is the very definition of. Double quote. Free press. Double quote. Period.
Who's "we"? You and a like-minded minority? Because the whole basis you gave for a limited government was that the majority wants it addressing their pet issues, they clearly cannot be trusted. And how are you going to do this without wielding dictatorial power?
Who's going to stop it?
Who's going to stop it?
It's all nice and good to say that the government should be limited so it can only do whatever you consider important and nothing more, but it simply doesn't work that way in reality. If the government is powerful enough to keep order (disperse lynch mobs), it is also powerful enough to escape any attempts to limit it - because, after all, who's going to stop it? And if it's not powerful enough to keep order, it will succumb to a revolution in a very short order and be replaced by one that is.
Are you suggesting that being pissed that someone else is making decisions that concern you without asking you is somehow irrational?
If so, you might wish to move to China, whose political ideology is a better match for yours than the Western democracies (where you presumably live in, since you can access this website).
So basically the lesson here is that you need to study the background of whoever is your superior in order to figure out how best to brownnose them. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty useful lesson :).
Well, the way things are going, he'll grow up in a world dominated by Chinese dictatorship, assuming no Third World dictator or a terrorist group doesn't get ahold of nukes and trigger a nuclear holocaust first. This, in turn, means that he either lives as a slave or dies slowly from radiation poisoning.
Also, oil is running out, Europe is slowly but surely being overrun by muslims and turned into an Islamic hellhole, and global warming will likely make it impossible to produce enough food for everyone, especially since ethanol-based fuels are also made from food.
Basically, your son was born 50 years too late, missed the only relatively nice period of human history - and even that only in the First World - and will grow up while civilization crumbles and spark of light triggered by the Enlightenment gets snuffed out forever. Why would you want to see that?
If you had infinite power, what would be the point?
Your premise is false. Several classes of illusion - mirages, for example - exist independently of any observer. The rest are artifacts of sensory processing, and don't need "somebody": for example, a face recognition algorithm running on a computer can easily be fooled by a suitable image.
Yes, and it's pretty hard to argue that documents written by state employees on behalf of their employer would fall under privacy.
It amounts to business correspondence. And you know perfectly well that the rape charges are almost certainly false, so stop with the mud-slinging already - it does nothing but makes the US look even more pathetic than it already does.
If he's innocent, and goes back to Sweden, there's a pretty good chance they'll deport him to the USA. They've been their lapdogs of late.
Are the quotes around the word "mistakes" meant to suggest that the very thought of Wikipedia being wrong is somehow strange to you?
In any case, correcting Wikipedia is a pain, since chances are that your edit gets removed since it contradicts someone's bias. Also, deletionism is still going strong.
The State, being an abstract construct, has no voice. Any will it shows is actually some humans will. If it's not its residents will, then who's will is it?
The State itself doesn't require representation, since it doesn't exist independently of its population, who already have representation.
Unless, of course, you meant that the rich elite and their paid politicians should have their own, separate representation in Washington. Is that what you meant by mentioning "common people"?
To put it bluntly: yes, it did. You are comparing Soviet Russia to a western democracy, but you should be comparing it to what preceded it: Tsarist Russia, a dictatorship which finally collapsed utterly in World War One. That Russia rose from those ruins to be the second most powerful nation in the world is nothing short miraculous.
This rises an interesting question: if communism was tried in a country with long and firmly-rooted democratic traditions, rather than collapsed dictatorships, what would happen? What happens when you combine a planned economy with the First Amendment?
Seeing how most revolutions are triggered by economic collapse, I suspect that we shall soon see.
The problem with this is that if this "fading away" leads to any externally noticeable changes in behaviour - such as cries of "Stop! I'm fading!" - the electronic replacements clearly aren't functioning, and the experiment fades. On the other hand, it would take a sudden and complete removal of control for your behaviour to not change. And if your behaviour does not change, then clearly human soul isn't needed for humanlike behaviour - which means that you have no reason to expect anyone besides yourself to actually have this soul, no matter how they act.
Because your brain is already replacing worn-out parts in the course of normal metabolism, and that doesn't seem to affect you much.
Unless you're a banker, in which case you take any profits and public pays any losses. Which, IMHO, banks should be owned by the government. I'm sick and tired of paying the gambling losses of "businessmen" who hold the economy hostage.
Talk the RIAA into funding a full-scale invasion of Somalia? They're all pirates, you know :).
5 gigabytes per month is about 1.9 kilobytes per second. If that's what counts as "awesome" in your country, I pity you.
Youtube is a web site.
Latency of connection is not really relevant for browsing the web.
Your link states (emphasis mine): "the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a fallacy."
Reading comprehension is a slick, supple thing that dances away just as you thought you'd caught it, and sticks its tongue out on you. Case it as you will, but its firm yet supple metaphorical buttocks stay always out of your grasp and perky figurative breasts bounce delightfully yet frustratingly just out of reach. Never will you wake up in the morning and see the beautiful anthropomorphic personification of an abstract concept sleep besides you, still tired from an orgy of understanding, strong yet fragile and easily hurt in the hands of literary-minded jerks.
As I stated, reification is a tool that helps abstract thought by translating the problem into a form the human brain can solve more efficiently. Social skills have nothing to do with it.
But I guess the concept of optimization is too abstract for you, you failure.
The meaning is obvious: Because you are a human, and humans are social animals, you have neural circuits related to solving the associated problems, namely predicting how other humans behave, just like you have neural circuits for parsing incoming sensory data. Contrast this to circuits relating to abstract thought, where the actual thought is separated from the underlaying hardware through several layers of abstraction.
"Personification is simply a way of getting the most out of your brains": do you write self-improvement books?
No. Should I?
I dunno if Bush has arsenic in his DNA, but he sure is arsenic for the rest of us.
That's bashing. "Bush/Obama/Michael Jackson/The Pope/Richard Dawkins is a reptilian overlord" is a (non-malicious) joke. See the difference?
That is how political parties work in most of the world: the party is found on some core ideas, recruits people who share those ideas, and rejects those who don't. The US-style two-headed single party system is an aberration, to put it kindly.
They are still bound by gravity. Even the astronauts in Moon missions were still bound by Earth's gravity, and of course by the gravities of Sun, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Local Supercluster etc.
Why do you think they call it freefall?