One of the greatest destroyers of capitalism speaks out on how to make a better capitalism? All this demonstrates is how so many people get starry eyed when a rich man speaks. If his company competed in the capitalistic world (not the monopolistic) and his company played above the board (do I really need to say anything here?), I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how better to crush other markets and chain people to product usage, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how to violate anti-monopoly laws and make a profit, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about producing problematic software and make a killing, I would listen. But, on this not a chance. He does not have the resume in my opinion.
Just a guess, but for some people, a cure to this miserable disease, and for others, one heck of a biological weapon. It is so limited in transmission that one might feel safe using it in certain situations to cripple an enemy. It is so incredibly debilitating while one has it that it would render combatants or other individuals incapacitated and too weak once they recovered, though they probably would not recover.
Yes, I owned my own businesses. I still own and operate one. So, I have over 20 years experience being self-employed and employed (I work a job to get insurance as I am diabetic and would pay thousands of dollars per month for crap insurance otherwise). I have had 7 businesses. One tanked horribly. Two lost some money on sale, two more made some money on sale, one made very good money on sale, and one I am still running. So, I have lived in fear of the tax man, the market. The one that tanked horribly I lost due to the republican party shutting down the government to prove to Clinton they were so big and bad. I had made commitments to expand our business to a much bigger location (ISP), and the shut down stopped the SBA loan the day it was to be payed out. After we had made the commitments. I lost over half a million on that one alone. But, within 4 years, I was making $98k again. I have made nothing per week and I have made $30,000 per week, then never in consecutive weeks;-).
I have have had great advice from accountants and idiot advice. I have had great customers and customers whose goal in life is to rip everyone off. I have had challenges with zoning (after the zoning was approved), partners not filing proper paperwork, bad advice from the IRS (that cost me over $36,000 on that one). So, yeah, I think I am qualified to talk about it.
In all that time, I made my income. I was able to work harder, put more effort in, fix the problem, take care of the customer, provide a faster workable solution. I had the option to go out and seek more work. I had the option to contract out or hire other people to do my workload. I had the option to invest in myself, or not. I had the option to accept a client or not. I had the option to use the best technology or not. I had the option to excel or not. I have never had most of those options working for anyone. And, in spite of the large losses I have had (millions in total), I have netted more in my life (though my wife has spent most of it;-) ).
Yeah, the risk is very real and immediate if you are not prepared for it. There are some things from left field, like phone companies, the political system that are based on anything but common sense. But, I have found that by planning, studying, knowing your market, your competition, your customers, those people not your customers, you can avoid most problems and be ready to deal with the ones you can not avoid. It is not easy. It is not 50 hours per week (it is much more). It is not a comfy I have a payday feeling. It does allow you to go as far as you want.
My wife works. It is our hedge against whatever might happen. So, her paycheck is there. I work part time to get benefits for myself. That is my hedge against other issues. It is amazing how often I have talked to people who grew comfortable in their position, who learned to spend their paycheck with the expectation that the next one was coming. I am amazed at the general ignorance that a job will get you ahead. A career might. A profession might. A job probably will not. But, the simple reality is that most people who work for someone else do not get ahead. Running your own business makes you focus on your life. On your spending, on your waste. It makes you face the stupidity in your daily life and either deal with it or loose. That is a choice that everyone has to make, but the payday illusion (comfort, safety, omni-present) causes so many people to choose wrong. Look at the foreclosures, bankruptcies and other financial disasters people go through because they thought they had a paycheck. Yeah, businesses go bankrupt, mostly from their own lack of caution, and sometimes from being hit by the completely unexpected (see Talbots this year for not paying attention to their fundamentals). But, most of them simply dust it off and start again. Loosing everything material is a great way to learn what you really have and what things really are worth. I know, I have done it.
I'd rather be a wage-slave and let my boss bear the risks.
I have always loved that illusion. What do you think happens to the people who work for a company that tanks (think Enron, Xerox, Auto-Manufacturers)? Their jobs and financial futures are not guaranteed. The truth is that we all shoulder some of the risk. The people at the top do not necessarily have more risk (and in fact most often, they have less).
I am serious. I can think of several things that would cause the impending disaster you are talking about, all scientifically researched or being researched, but none of them have anything to do with race. They all have to do with medicine, politics, limited resources and corporations. I put my chips on the side effects of better medical capabilities. From what I have seen, that is the number one reason for the scales tipping toward are more medically needy society, as well as one with a larger percentage of the population with medical/cognitive/social issues. We have started down a road where medicine no longer allows natural selection to eliminate those of us who are not viable in some way or another, and allows us to pass these genetic errors on by surviving long enough to produce offspring. I believe the future of the race is dependent on genetic research to become the next step of medicine to fix these issues we now only treat. Without the advances in genetics - mapping, understanding, decoding, emulating, re-programming, modifying, etc. - we are doomed as a race to fall back on ourselves when the medical issues we are dealing with outstrip our abilities to actually manage them. Any doubts, simply look at the increasing percentage of the population showing up with incurable (by current technology) conditions from diabetes to cancer to... Our ability to keep people alive when they would normally die or be unable to reproduce, and then allow them to pass the genes that cause the problems to the next generation only increases the odds that a child will have these genes, and thus the percentage of the population that will be affected by these bad genes.
Sarcasm may be something you are used to, but I almost always try to give a person the benefit of the doubt, which is why I read the articles and links given. However, I take anyones claims with a grain of salt. I have met geniuses who were dead wrong and idiots who had more truth. You have to pay attention and look beyond your initial reaction (emotions) to actually learn.
Ok, I'll bite. Which catastrophe? I have worked with people of many races. I have learned a few things that hold true no matter the race. Some are basically good hard working people some are not. Children have a lot in common with their parents, but are not restricted or guaranteed to be like their parents (though all are always influenced by their parents in subtle ways). Intelligent children tend to have intelligent parents, and over a few generations of good, solid educational and family values, any group I have been around has been able to catch up with the other groups around it.
Living in California, I dealt with Hispanics from Mexico, Venezuela, Spain and other Spanish countries. I met some who were very successful, some who were very smart, some who were very talented, some who were gifted leaders... I also met many Caucasians who were complete failures, total idiots, could blow soda out their nose, dealt drugs... Same with the blacks, asians etc. Race had very little to do with it. But, most of them were raised in this country in our public school systems. I did note that the asians and the Spaniards I knew tended to be very strict about doing well in school, and being diligent in life. I did notice that most of the white and black families I knew were much more into sports than academics or business pursuits. I did notice that the gangs were a rainbow of races and they all seemed to have the same relative intelligence, much less than others of their same races whose families were more educated at first, spent more time with their children and pushed more at an education, work and legal business. There were exceptions. Another problem is that IQ tests rarely takes into account street smarts, though that also is a form of intelligence that is very important in this world
So, color me clueless, but not only do I not see what you are describing from my own personal experiences with people from these other countries, but I saw absolutely nothing in the references you gave to give one ounce of weight to what you are claiming. And those are some very big claims.
I do agree that poverty and lower intelligence tend to go hand in hand (but the cycle can be broken and has been broken by individuals). I know of no evidence anywhere in the real scientific community that even hints at this much disparity in racial genetic characteristics. This is a hobby of mine. I spend more time reading up on the research in the genetics and neurology areas than everything else put together. I am aware of no credible research. Please point me in the right direction. This is something I have obviously missed, and I need to study it to get a better grasp of what is really happening. Seriously, please point me at these studies. I do want to read them.
No, but it is awesome for that high squeaky voice when you just realized you confused two very basic elements (H and He).
But, don't worry, all of us confuse little things like that from time to time. Like H20 and HO or CO and CO2. Or better yet, $1000.00 in the banking account or $100.00.
After reading your reference, and looking around for information on the source, I have to conclude that this is a joke that will fly over most peoples heads (you have to RTFA the referenced URL to see just how bad this data is). I do not disagree with the conclusions of the authors about the feedback loop between IQ(education) and poverty, but the way they have arrived at their conclusions undermines their own arguments.
I would love to be able to call your post +1 funny, but unfortunately, I believe your humor is as dry as mine, and therefore likely to be missed (it is humor, right?).
I seriously hope you are playing the role of the propaganda machine in a tongue and cheek game of words. IQ is also based on many things that have nothing to do with biology. Biology is a part, but even more important is environment (for comparisons within a species). If the parents do not have the knowledge or the mental acuity to provide the examples and challenges to help their children grow intellectually, it will probably not happen. Without some external source to the surroundings a child grows up in, the brain will develop to meet the level of its surroundings. Once in a while, a child may get lucky and something may trigger a more keen interest in developing, but not often. That is one of the best reasons for a functional public education system. These OLPC units will be a nice means of giving children a better chance at that.
Nature vs Nurture has been an argument for far too long with lines drawn in the sand that are too far in one direction or the other. Nature and Nurture work together. Read the Selfish Gene for more information.
National Debt, not national balance sheet. The national budget deficit is how much we are sliding back on the overall national debt every year. When you look at a business or government to see if it is healthy financially, you do not give full wait tot the debts it is owed, you keep those as a separate sum and consider them with a liberal dose of salt.
Yeah, tax revenues went up
But, it is like credit cards for the family. As the debt goes up, so does you obligation just to pay the interest and that translates back into higher taxes. So, yeah, revenues are up, but so is the amount of money that is owed by the federal government. ow, an interesting thing happens as all of this debt is created. The money supply is increased. (In college, you might have heard of this part as M3, but I went to college decades ago, so who knows what they refer to is as now). M1 is hard currency. M2 is checks and credit cards.. short term debts that very temporarily increase the overall money supply. M3 is long term debt. Debt is not actual money in most cases, but money is actual debt. It sounds really screwy, and to me it is, but it has some very real and interesting effects. One is it increases the money supply (much like what the Fed is trying to do by adjusting the Fed's rate). By increasing money supply, it has its second effect, more overall income, and thus more income tax revenue, as well as a higher likelihood for inflation. This sounds good, right, more overall income? Well, that depends on where the income rally happens, in the hands of many or just a few. Because in the hands of a few, the income is normally not translated to much into taxes or a societal benefit, though it is a societal obligation (repaying the debt). As another effect, having a larger pool of money pushes down interest rates on debt, as their is a larger abundance of that resource, and therefore less of a ratio (demand/supply ~= price). In theory this makes all debts less expensive and allows people to borrow more to do what they want/need, and allows more money to be created. This is what led up the great stock market crash before WW2. New rules have been put into place to help prevent that kind of disastrous result again, but if we did experience a reduction in loans, and thus a lack of continuous increase in money supply, then the whole system would be very likely to collapse again.
So, while you are correct that in hard numbers, there is more revenue, you need to realize that a major part of that is the huge federal (over 9 trillion) and national (approx 45 to 50 trillion last time I checked) debts. A significant portion of these debts represent actual money in the current money system. So, the increased debt actually artificially increased numbers like NGP, NDP and such. What really impressed me during the Clinton years was the congress, and the presidency working together to reduce the deficit, attack the debt and not have to increase debt. The reasons the housing fallout has so many people at the top worried is the debt/money supply ratio. If the debt falls apart, the amount of *digital* money is reduced correspondingly, and that has a negative feedback effect on the whole system. It all works if no major part of it falls apart, but if a major part (say 2%) falls apart, then the whole system could unravel into another great depression. And, this explains why the PRC (China) has been so welcomed in the world business community as a nation. Think about how much there expansion will do for creating new debt and money. The effects of cheaper labor are tiny compared to this. Though, the cheap labor aspect is nice, it only effects production of items, and that can be done anywhere. The production of debt on a massive scale could be carried for decades if not centuries by the Chinese mainland. That is why London is the center of world banking. They figured it out early in the game, and have tried to control it ever since.
Err, my bad. I meant not to infer that he is a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, but I can see from my post that it reads that way. I meant that the individuals of the neo-con party setting the agendas and making the noise as compared to the entire group, as fundamentalists in Christianity and Muslim do the same.
Hillary Clinton is not someone I would vote for (and no, I am not saying she is a neo-con). And, I encourage all my friends not to as well. I know she means well, and she has many positive things to contribute, but she seems impatient, unyielding, power hungry and to be living from an agenda of faith (not religion, but that she is right). Protecting children is good, as is universal healthcare and other hot topics for her, but I am not comfortable with the way she has worked in the past, nor am I at all assured that she would be anything of a politician like her husband was. Some might see that as good, some might not, but even his opponents respected his diplomatic ability. If he had never had a relationship with Monica, his presidency would have ended very differently, but he screwed up.
Most neo-cons I know have a vague understanding of individual liberty, so long as it is in agreement with their position. If not, then people need to change or be changed. Kind of reminds me of the quote from Anikin Skywalker talking to Padme while hiding on whatever that planet was in Star Wars II (I have children, and they love those movies). Almost a preview of things to come, not just in the movie, but in real life.
I agree we are all being turned against each other. I think it makes great sense when you look at how power is being sucked up into a few places. As long as the average person hates the other opponents so much and as long as negative campaigning reigns supreme, the meaning and utility of elections will continue to decline. As long as this continues, then more and more of the power will be left in fewer and fewer hands.
WikiHas several references and a simple, but very light introduction. There are many aspects that I agree with, but when you get to the no-negotiate, we are right by Godly decree attitude, I start to take a major shift in attitude away from that. In the end, all anyone I have ever known to be a neocon wanted was a better world for everyone, but a world that was better by their own definition(s), not anyone elses. That tends to make them much like most other parties, but not as accepting of other peoples' views perhaps.
As far as what people I know have said, I can not quote directly, as I did not write it down. Maybe I will take the time to get them to write about it someday. One of the problems for now is the lack of a National NecCon Party (like Republicans and Democrats), but since they operate from within the republican party, and seem to have started with a group of *liberal intellectuals* that migrated from the Democrats, they might not have their own party. They tend to see the access to the religious right as a benefit they do not want to give up.
One of the major ways I differ is in economics. I do not believe a government should have large debts, more than it can pay off under a normal tax base and normal expenditures in a few years. I also am not comfortable with debt as a large portion of our money supply (M3 I think it is called). Both of these concepts are largely supported by neo-cons, and are a direct reason why the national debt is so high. As the amount of debt increases, so does the amount of money in the system. It has a lot to do with banking laws and how debt is issued by banks, but it does allow for another means of economic growth that I consider very destabilizing.
On the social front, I believe in universal health care availability, not provided by the employer, with private health care firms mixed in. I think the health care issue in this country (the US) is serious. It ruins people's lives and the current set of rules causes serious fina
Hmm... I hear what you are saying, but I am looking at the neo-con movement's self-proclaimed agendas and actions. I would think that that would pretty much define a group, though individuals in it might differ. I am not talking about Christians and Muslims vs Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. I am only talking about fundamentalists.
There were a lot of things I confused neo-conservatism with before I delved into its deeper darker secrets. I have/had friends who were/are neo-cons, and I was *educated* about what the think the movement really means. From what I have seen in the public, and all the little things they pull, I believe them. It is so similar to the party that started WWII, but is not as far along on the path to absolute rule. Sometimes, I felt as though what I was hearing was a means of controlling people to see things a certain way by keeping everything off balance in such a way as to blame certain groups around them. The term conservative is a wonderful term for fiscal management in the goals of no/very low debt and solid money management. The term of compassion is a wonderful societal term in how to deal with people.
It is a shame that the Clinton administration was able to achieve more fiscal propriety than any of the republican governments in many decades. I would love to see the national debt slashed to allow taxes to be slashed. I would love to see a tax cut for all of about one fourth and the rest of the third that would have been used to pay the debt to benefit medicine and children.
But, that would take a consensus amongst a majority of Americans as to what we can reduce spending on, or a bill limiting pork, but I have no idea how to do that. There are many things that I would love to see different in our government for our society that I think would make us a much stronger and healthier society without taking away freedoms or rights.
I would not compare them to the group referenced by Godwin. Godwin's referenced group were far worse than either of the two groups I have mentioned. The suicide bombers are heading in that direction, but have a long way to go. Hopefully, they will figure out what they are doing is immoral by Muslim standards long before they get there. It is kind of like Christians used to burn people, stone people, and do other similarly heinous acts, but they have kind of matured throughout the centuries.
I am pretty sure that was meant to be funny, but the truth of what is really being said is startling.
He is anti-american, like so many other neo-cons. The reason they want to change so many things of such consequence is they do not like the US. They want a new country with their rules in place. Something much more akin to the fundamentalist Muslim countries or Mussolini's government. A place where their ideals and beliefs reign supreme without that bothersome interruption from people who would think or believe differently.
I guess the scary part for me is that at one time, when I started learning about the neo-cons, I agreed with much of what I had learned. It was not until much later when I started seeing through the lies that I really got a grasp on what they stand for. It almost lends plausibility to those who believe they are trying to create a new world order. Because it sure seems like they are.
You are in a Microsoft Office. To the North, is a door, you hear what sounds like chairs being thrown. To the South, you see an open door, but a very dark room.
I think this will happen for some things and not for others.
Seriously, there are things at which agents are the much better solution, just not that many from what I have seen. There will be more opportunity for this in the workplace, in a controlled (or more controlled) environment. There will be use for this in VPNs between companies and from client to provider. I think the B2B world will see a much greater use for this incremental improvement on what are basically SOAP or simliar technologies calls. It is already done to an extent in RPC, SOAP, JRCs and other technologies. Now, we are just putting some logic on it to decide do we send it away this time or keep it.
This is just another "Much ado about nothing" campaign. It has been done for a while now (since the advent of networking really) and now we have people looking for funding and employment using a slightly improved version of the same old thing.
Now, this is not to say that nothing better will come of it, every new improvement does, and this is probably an improvement over the same old way, but how much of an improvement is what needs to be determined. I know this will work in certain places, as I have been part of teams that have written code to do this on company networks. We did not call them agents, but there is no difference from our ACME Bots and these Agents things. In case you wonder, ACME meant Accelerated Method Evaluation. The name was another proof of the danger of not getting enough sleep. Basically, the jist of it was to have many machines that had the same functions available on all of them. The machines started jobs up on themselves (or jobs were handed to them) and then as processing went along, the ACME Bots determined if the work needed to be handed off due to workload, resource access or some other reason. Not much different from an Expert System determining who needed to do the actual work.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the greatest destroyers of capitalism speaks out on how to make a better capitalism? All this demonstrates is how so many people get starry eyed when a rich man speaks. If his company competed in the capitalistic world (not the monopolistic) and his company played above the board (do I really need to say anything here?), I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how better to crush other markets and chain people to product usage, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how to violate anti-monopoly laws and make a profit, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about producing problematic software and make a killing, I would listen. But, on this not a chance. He does not have the resume in my opinion.
InnerWeb
Just a guess, but for some people, a cure to this miserable disease, and for others, one heck of a biological weapon. It is so limited in transmission that one might feel safe using it in certain situations to cripple an enemy. It is so incredibly debilitating while one has it that it would render combatants or other individuals incapacitated and too weak once they recovered, though they probably would not recover.
Ebola is just another tool in this case.
InnerWeb
Yes, I owned my own businesses. I still own and operate one. So, I have over 20 years experience being self-employed and employed (I work a job to get insurance as I am diabetic and would pay thousands of dollars per month for crap insurance otherwise). I have had 7 businesses. One tanked horribly. Two lost some money on sale, two more made some money on sale, one made very good money on sale, and one I am still running. So, I have lived in fear of the tax man, the market. The one that tanked horribly I lost due to the republican party shutting down the government to prove to Clinton they were so big and bad. I had made commitments to expand our business to a much bigger location (ISP), and the shut down stopped the SBA loan the day it was to be payed out. After we had made the commitments. I lost over half a million on that one alone. But, within 4 years, I was making $98k again. I have made nothing per week and I have made $30,000 per week, then never in consecutive weeks ;-).
I have have had great advice from accountants and idiot advice. I have had great customers and customers whose goal in life is to rip everyone off. I have had challenges with zoning (after the zoning was approved), partners not filing proper paperwork, bad advice from the IRS (that cost me over $36,000 on that one). So, yeah, I think I am qualified to talk about it.
In all that time, I made my income. I was able to work harder, put more effort in, fix the problem, take care of the customer, provide a faster workable solution. I had the option to go out and seek more work. I had the option to contract out or hire other people to do my workload. I had the option to invest in myself, or not. I had the option to accept a client or not. I had the option to use the best technology or not. I had the option to excel or not. I have never had most of those options working for anyone. And, in spite of the large losses I have had (millions in total), I have netted more in my life (though my wife has spent most of it ;-) ).
Yeah, the risk is very real and immediate if you are not prepared for it. There are some things from left field, like phone companies, the political system that are based on anything but common sense. But, I have found that by planning, studying, knowing your market, your competition, your customers, those people not your customers, you can avoid most problems and be ready to deal with the ones you can not avoid. It is not easy. It is not 50 hours per week (it is much more). It is not a comfy I have a payday feeling. It does allow you to go as far as you want.
My wife works. It is our hedge against whatever might happen. So, her paycheck is there. I work part time to get benefits for myself. That is my hedge against other issues. It is amazing how often I have talked to people who grew comfortable in their position, who learned to spend their paycheck with the expectation that the next one was coming. I am amazed at the general ignorance that a job will get you ahead. A career might. A profession might. A job probably will not. But, the simple reality is that most people who work for someone else do not get ahead. Running your own business makes you focus on your life. On your spending, on your waste. It makes you face the stupidity in your daily life and either deal with it or loose. That is a choice that everyone has to make, but the payday illusion (comfort, safety, omni-present) causes so many people to choose wrong. Look at the foreclosures, bankruptcies and other financial disasters people go through because they thought they had a paycheck. Yeah, businesses go bankrupt, mostly from their own lack of caution, and sometimes from being hit by the completely unexpected (see Talbots this year for not paying attention to their fundamentals). But, most of them simply dust it off and start again. Loosing everything material is a great way to learn what you really have and what things really are worth. I know, I have done it.
That is actually quite funny!
InnerWeb
I'd rather be a wage-slave and let my boss bear the risks.
I have always loved that illusion. What do you think happens to the people who work for a company that tanks (think Enron, Xerox, Auto-Manufacturers)? Their jobs and financial futures are not guaranteed. The truth is that we all shoulder some of the risk. The people at the top do not necessarily have more risk (and in fact most often, they have less).
InnerWeb
I think President Scroob (sp?) might have something for you.
InnerWeb
Now you sound like a large corporation.
InnerWeb
Congratulations! That has to be worth a medal from the Taco.
Maybe for your next trick, you can make yourself your own freak.
InnerWeb
I am serious. I can think of several things that would cause the impending disaster you are talking about, all scientifically researched or being researched, but none of them have anything to do with race. They all have to do with medicine, politics, limited resources and corporations. I put my chips on the side effects of better medical capabilities. From what I have seen, that is the number one reason for the scales tipping toward are more medically needy society, as well as one with a larger percentage of the population with medical/cognitive/social issues. We have started down a road where medicine no longer allows natural selection to eliminate those of us who are not viable in some way or another, and allows us to pass these genetic errors on by surviving long enough to produce offspring. I believe the future of the race is dependent on genetic research to become the next step of medicine to fix these issues we now only treat. Without the advances in genetics - mapping, understanding, decoding, emulating, re-programming, modifying, etc. - we are doomed as a race to fall back on ourselves when the medical issues we are dealing with outstrip our abilities to actually manage them. Any doubts, simply look at the increasing percentage of the population showing up with incurable (by current technology) conditions from diabetes to cancer to ... Our ability to keep people alive when they would normally die or be unable to reproduce, and then allow them to pass the genes that cause the problems to the next generation only increases the odds that a child will have these genes, and thus the percentage of the population that will be affected by these bad genes.
Sarcasm may be something you are used to, but I almost always try to give a person the benefit of the doubt, which is why I read the articles and links given. However, I take anyones claims with a grain of salt. I have met geniuses who were dead wrong and idiots who had more truth. You have to pay attention and look beyond your initial reaction (emotions) to actually learn.
InnerWeb
Ok, I'll bite. Which catastrophe? I have worked with people of many races. I have learned a few things that hold true no matter the race. Some are basically good hard working people some are not. Children have a lot in common with their parents, but are not restricted or guaranteed to be like their parents (though all are always influenced by their parents in subtle ways). Intelligent children tend to have intelligent parents, and over a few generations of good, solid educational and family values, any group I have been around has been able to catch up with the other groups around it.
Living in California, I dealt with Hispanics from Mexico, Venezuela, Spain and other Spanish countries. I met some who were very successful, some who were very smart, some who were very talented, some who were gifted leaders... I also met many Caucasians who were complete failures, total idiots, could blow soda out their nose, dealt drugs... Same with the blacks, asians etc. Race had very little to do with it. But, most of them were raised in this country in our public school systems. I did note that the asians and the Spaniards I knew tended to be very strict about doing well in school, and being diligent in life. I did notice that most of the white and black families I knew were much more into sports than academics or business pursuits. I did notice that the gangs were a rainbow of races and they all seemed to have the same relative intelligence, much less than others of their same races whose families were more educated at first, spent more time with their children and pushed more at an education, work and legal business. There were exceptions. Another problem is that IQ tests rarely takes into account street smarts, though that also is a form of intelligence that is very important in this world
So, color me clueless, but not only do I not see what you are describing from my own personal experiences with people from these other countries, but I saw absolutely nothing in the references you gave to give one ounce of weight to what you are claiming. And those are some very big claims.
I do agree that poverty and lower intelligence tend to go hand in hand (but the cycle can be broken and has been broken by individuals). I know of no evidence anywhere in the real scientific community that even hints at this much disparity in racial genetic characteristics. This is a hobby of mine. I spend more time reading up on the research in the genetics and neurology areas than everything else put together. I am aware of no credible research. Please point me in the right direction. This is something I have obviously missed, and I need to study it to get a better grasp of what is really happening. Seriously, please point me at these studies. I do want to read them.
InnerWeb
No, but it is awesome for that high squeaky voice when you just realized you confused two very basic elements (H and He).
But, don't worry, all of us confuse little things like that from time to time. Like H20 and HO or CO and CO2. Or better yet, $1000.00 in the banking account or $100.00.
InnerWeb
After reading your reference, and looking around for information on the source, I have to conclude that this is a joke that will fly over most peoples heads (you have to RTFA the referenced URL to see just how bad this data is). I do not disagree with the conclusions of the authors about the feedback loop between IQ(education) and poverty, but the way they have arrived at their conclusions undermines their own arguments.
I would love to be able to call your post +1 funny, but unfortunately, I believe your humor is as dry as mine, and therefore likely to be missed (it is humor, right?).
InnerWeb
I seriously hope you are playing the role of the propaganda machine in a tongue and cheek game of words. IQ is also based on many things that have nothing to do with biology. Biology is a part, but even more important is environment (for comparisons within a species). If the parents do not have the knowledge or the mental acuity to provide the examples and challenges to help their children grow intellectually, it will probably not happen. Without some external source to the surroundings a child grows up in, the brain will develop to meet the level of its surroundings. Once in a while, a child may get lucky and something may trigger a more keen interest in developing, but not often. That is one of the best reasons for a functional public education system. These OLPC units will be a nice means of giving children a better chance at that.
Nature vs Nurture has been an argument for far too long with lines drawn in the sand that are too far in one direction or the other. Nature and Nurture work together. Read the Selfish Gene for more information.
InnerWeb
National Debt, not national balance sheet. The national budget deficit is how much we are sliding back on the overall national debt every year. When you look at a business or government to see if it is healthy financially, you do not give full wait tot the debts it is owed, you keep those as a separate sum and consider them with a liberal dose of salt.
Yeah, tax revenues went up
But, it is like credit cards for the family. As the debt goes up, so does you obligation just to pay the interest and that translates back into higher taxes. So, yeah, revenues are up, but so is the amount of money that is owed by the federal government. ow, an interesting thing happens as all of this debt is created. The money supply is increased. (In college, you might have heard of this part as M3, but I went to college decades ago, so who knows what they refer to is as now). M1 is hard currency. M2 is checks and credit cards.. short term debts that very temporarily increase the overall money supply. M3 is long term debt. Debt is not actual money in most cases, but money is actual debt. It sounds really screwy, and to me it is, but it has some very real and interesting effects. One is it increases the money supply (much like what the Fed is trying to do by adjusting the Fed's rate). By increasing money supply, it has its second effect, more overall income, and thus more income tax revenue, as well as a higher likelihood for inflation. This sounds good, right, more overall income? Well, that depends on where the income rally happens, in the hands of many or just a few. Because in the hands of a few, the income is normally not translated to much into taxes or a societal benefit, though it is a societal obligation (repaying the debt). As another effect, having a larger pool of money pushes down interest rates on debt, as their is a larger abundance of that resource, and therefore less of a ratio (demand/supply ~= price). In theory this makes all debts less expensive and allows people to borrow more to do what they want/need, and allows more money to be created. This is what led up the great stock market crash before WW2. New rules have been put into place to help prevent that kind of disastrous result again, but if we did experience a reduction in loans, and thus a lack of continuous increase in money supply, then the whole system would be very likely to collapse again.
So, while you are correct that in hard numbers, there is more revenue, you need to realize that a major part of that is the huge federal (over 9 trillion) and national (approx 45 to 50 trillion last time I checked) debts. A significant portion of these debts represent actual money in the current money system. So, the increased debt actually artificially increased numbers like NGP, NDP and such. What really impressed me during the Clinton years was the congress, and the presidency working together to reduce the deficit, attack the debt and not have to increase debt. The reasons the housing fallout has so many people at the top worried is the debt/money supply ratio. If the debt falls apart, the amount of *digital* money is reduced correspondingly, and that has a negative feedback effect on the whole system. It all works if no major part of it falls apart, but if a major part (say 2%) falls apart, then the whole system could unravel into another great depression. And, this explains why the PRC (China) has been so welcomed in the world business community as a nation. Think about how much there expansion will do for creating new debt and money. The effects of cheaper labor are tiny compared to this. Though, the cheap labor aspect is nice, it only effects production of items, and that can be done anywhere. The production of debt on a massive scale could be carried for decades if not centuries by the Chinese mainland. That is why London is the center of world banking. They figured it out early in the game, and have tried to control it ever since.
If ther
Hillary Clinton is not someone I would vote for (and no, I am not saying she is a neo-con). And, I encourage all my friends not to as well. I know she means well, and she has many positive things to contribute, but she seems impatient, unyielding, power hungry and to be living from an agenda of faith (not religion, but that she is right). Protecting children is good, as is universal healthcare and other hot topics for her, but I am not comfortable with the way she has worked in the past, nor am I at all assured that she would be anything of a politician like her husband was. Some might see that as good, some might not, but even his opponents respected his diplomatic ability. If he had never had a relationship with Monica, his presidency would have ended very differently, but he screwed up.
Most neo-cons I know have a vague understanding of individual liberty, so long as it is in agreement with their position. If not, then people need to change or be changed. Kind of reminds me of the quote from Anikin Skywalker talking to Padme while hiding on whatever that planet was in Star Wars II (I have children, and they love those movies). Almost a preview of things to come, not just in the movie, but in real life.
I agree we are all being turned against each other. I think it makes great sense when you look at how power is being sucked up into a few places. As long as the average person hates the other opponents so much and as long as negative campaigning reigns supreme, the meaning and utility of elections will continue to decline. As long as this continues, then more and more of the power will be left in fewer and fewer hands.
WikiHas several references and a simple, but very light introduction. There are many aspects that I agree with, but when you get to the no-negotiate, we are right by Godly decree attitude, I start to take a major shift in attitude away from that. In the end, all anyone I have ever known to be a neocon wanted was a better world for everyone, but a world that was better by their own definition(s), not anyone elses. That tends to make them much like most other parties, but not as accepting of other peoples' views perhaps.
As far as what people I know have said, I can not quote directly, as I did not write it down. Maybe I will take the time to get them to write about it someday. One of the problems for now is the lack of a National NecCon Party (like Republicans and Democrats), but since they operate from within the republican party, and seem to have started with a group of *liberal intellectuals* that migrated from the Democrats, they might not have their own party. They tend to see the access to the religious right as a benefit they do not want to give up.
One of the major ways I differ is in economics. I do not believe a government should have large debts, more than it can pay off under a normal tax base and normal expenditures in a few years. I also am not comfortable with debt as a large portion of our money supply (M3 I think it is called). Both of these concepts are largely supported by neo-cons, and are a direct reason why the national debt is so high. As the amount of debt increases, so does the amount of money in the system. It has a lot to do with banking laws and how debt is issued by banks, but it does allow for another means of economic growth that I consider very destabilizing.
On the social front, I believe in universal health care availability, not provided by the employer, with private health care firms mixed in. I think the health care issue in this country (the US) is serious. It ruins people's lives and the current set of rules causes serious fina
Well, this is SlashDot.
BTW, I have heard that joke before, and I thought it was funny.
InnerWeb
Hmm... I hear what you are saying, but I am looking at the neo-con movement's self-proclaimed agendas and actions. I would think that that would pretty much define a group, though individuals in it might differ. I am not talking about Christians and Muslims vs Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. I am only talking about fundamentalists.
InnerWeb
There were a lot of things I confused neo-conservatism with before I delved into its deeper darker secrets. I have/had friends who were/are neo-cons, and I was *educated* about what the think the movement really means. From what I have seen in the public, and all the little things they pull, I believe them. It is so similar to the party that started WWII, but is not as far along on the path to absolute rule. Sometimes, I felt as though what I was hearing was a means of controlling people to see things a certain way by keeping everything off balance in such a way as to blame certain groups around them. The term conservative is a wonderful term for fiscal management in the goals of no/very low debt and solid money management. The term of compassion is a wonderful societal term in how to deal with people.
It is a shame that the Clinton administration was able to achieve more fiscal propriety than any of the republican governments in many decades. I would love to see the national debt slashed to allow taxes to be slashed. I would love to see a tax cut for all of about one fourth and the rest of the third that would have been used to pay the debt to benefit medicine and children.
But, that would take a consensus amongst a majority of Americans as to what we can reduce spending on, or a bill limiting pork, but I have no idea how to do that. There are many things that I would love to see different in our government for our society that I think would make us a much stronger and healthier society without taking away freedoms or rights.
InnerWeb
That had me laughing very hard. Thanks!
I would not compare them to the group referenced by Godwin. Godwin's referenced group were far worse than either of the two groups I have mentioned. The suicide bombers are heading in that direction, but have a long way to go. Hopefully, they will figure out what they are doing is immoral by Muslim standards long before they get there. It is kind of like Christians used to burn people, stone people, and do other similarly heinous acts, but they have kind of matured throughout the centuries.
InnerWeb
That was funny. You made my Dr. Pepper come out through my nose.
InnerWeb
I am pretty sure that was meant to be funny, but the truth of what is really being said is startling.
He is anti-american, like so many other neo-cons. The reason they want to change so many things of such consequence is they do not like the US. They want a new country with their rules in place. Something much more akin to the fundamentalist Muslim countries or Mussolini's government. A place where their ideals and beliefs reign supreme without that bothersome interruption from people who would think or believe differently.
I guess the scary part for me is that at one time, when I started learning about the neo-cons, I agreed with much of what I had learned. It was not until much later when I started seeing through the lies that I really got a grasp on what they stand for. It almost lends plausibility to those who believe they are trying to create a new world order. Because it sure seems like they are.
InnerWeb
No, not OOXML, but there are plenty of examples around the world of governments requiring you to use a document format to do business with them.
InnerWen
You are in a Microsoft Office. To the North, is a door, you hear what sounds like chairs being thrown. To the South, you see an open door, but a very dark room.
What do you do?
InnerWeb
I think this will happen for some things and not for others.
Seriously, there are things at which agents are the much better solution, just not that many from what I have seen. There will be more opportunity for this in the workplace, in a controlled (or more controlled) environment. There will be use for this in VPNs between companies and from client to provider. I think the B2B world will see a much greater use for this incremental improvement on what are basically SOAP or simliar technologies calls. It is already done to an extent in RPC, SOAP, JRCs and other technologies. Now, we are just putting some logic on it to decide do we send it away this time or keep it.
This is just another "Much ado about nothing" campaign. It has been done for a while now (since the advent of networking really) and now we have people looking for funding and employment using a slightly improved version of the same old thing.
Now, this is not to say that nothing better will come of it, every new improvement does, and this is probably an improvement over the same old way, but how much of an improvement is what needs to be determined. I know this will work in certain places, as I have been part of teams that have written code to do this on company networks. We did not call them agents, but there is no difference from our ACME Bots and these Agents things. In case you wonder, ACME meant Accelerated Method Evaluation. The name was another proof of the danger of not getting enough sleep. Basically, the jist of it was to have many machines that had the same functions available on all of them. The machines started jobs up on themselves (or jobs were handed to them) and then as processing went along, the ACME Bots determined if the work needed to be handed off due to workload, resource access or some other reason. Not much different from an Expert System determining who needed to do the actual work.
InnerWeb
I predict the first worm from this will be named Smith
InnerWeb