Actually, I don't find it difficult to believe that some people have developed sensitivity to certain wavelengths of EMR. Hell... that's essentially what eyeballs are.
Even if it's true tho... so what? If one person in a million is sensitized to 802.11, then they'll either need to learn to tolerate it (which could lead to some interesting sci-fi plots), or shuffle themselves on out of the gene pool.
holy crap... you're clueless.
you start with your assumption that A is bad.
THAT'S A FLAWED ASSUMPTION!!! that's what you're trying to prove! you're the one guilty of circular logic. the only way someone could have responded was with a circular counter-example, which the above poster did.
besides being logically flawed, everything you've posted has been blind or, at the very least, very un-self critical.
here is how social-networking goes :
1. Someone (Person A) wants to accomplish something... let's say Goal B
2. Person A needs resources to accomplish Goal B.
3. Person C also wants to accomplish Goal B.
4. Person C has greater direct or indirect access to resources than Person A does.
5. Person C aquires greater resources through contacts than Person A does.
6. Person C accomplishes Goal B faster or more efficiently that Person A does.
NOTHING in this cycle is inherently bad.
i'm a former engineer... and i remember watching people who didn't work as hard and weren't as clever as me get promoted ahead and become more financially successful than me. i could always tell them what needed to be done, and how to do it, but they were the ones who got the credit. How? simple. they knew who to contact to get the resources to get a project done. and it's not just liquid resources i'm talking about... any kind. engineering problem? they'd call me up. financial problem? they called the banker. the flyer didn't look good enough? they'd call the graphic artist. problem solved. then they'd sit back, sip thier coffee, tell their bosses that everything was shipshape, and meanwhile i and everyone else would be working my ass off to make it true.
i remember when i finally figured out what was going on. i sat back, realized that working wasn't the answer... getting others to produce was. designing a project wasn't going to be the best use of my time... i could train someone to design it, and just watch over him, and then five more like him, then ten... and so on. pretty soon, i was accomplishing twenty times what i had previously done, and doing it in half the time. all i had to learn was how to identify who knew what, and who i could throw at any problem that came up. it took time, but nothing compared to the time i put in previously.
and to be perfectly honest, it was harder work, but the returns were disproportionatly worth it.
networking is VITALLY important in business. they say bill gates didn't do the coding... no... but he knew Paterson could. and no, he didn't negotiate this particular deal... but he knew he could trust Paul Allen to take care of it. He needed a few hundred thou for investment? well... that was probably a bit harder. but he knew where to start for some advice, and he got it done. that's the bottom line.
it's the same as this all the way up the line. it's how things get done on time. it's how things progress instead of degrade. it creates vast gaps of wealth? yeah? so what? the rich get richer, but unlike the saying goes, when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too, just not as fast. the disparity increases, but the bottom line increases too. most people tend to ignore that and concentrate on what they don't have instead.
but... given your tirades in favor of welfare... you'd probably conclude (or actually, you'd assume) that business IS the problem... in spite of the world of evidence to the contrary. so you can blissfully forget everything you don't like and go to sleep wondering why welfare has never worked the way you always say it should....
muttering
*free health care now!!!..." as you drift off into fantasyland...
here, i was going to post a few comments defending billy boy... only to find that the endless stream here has already flooded that one over.
the first thing i thought of were all those ridiculous ADTI comments about linus not inventing linux. (insert goose and gander quote here)
it ridiculous to look at the #2 guy and say he could have been #1 except for *this* or *that*... like that guy who discovered relativity right after einstein... whatshisname?
whatever else he might be, gates is definitely a one-of-a-kind... a geek and businessman. microsoft is worth admiring for their business acumen, if not thier software, and that's entirely due to bill. i doubt if there's more than one or two others in the world who could have done what he did with the hand he was dealt.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't find it difficult to believe that some people have developed sensitivity to certain wavelengths of EMR. Hell... that's essentially what eyeballs are. Even if it's true tho... so what? If one person in a million is sensitized to 802.11, then they'll either need to learn to tolerate it (which could lead to some interesting sci-fi plots), or shuffle themselves on out of the gene pool.
That was pretty much it. Rand more or less described Maxwell's demon with a lightning rod stuck up it's ass.
holy crap... you're clueless. you start with your assumption that A is bad. THAT'S A FLAWED ASSUMPTION!!! that's what you're trying to prove! you're the one guilty of circular logic. the only way someone could have responded was with a circular counter-example, which the above poster did. besides being logically flawed, everything you've posted has been blind or, at the very least, very un-self critical. here is how social-networking goes : 1. Someone (Person A) wants to accomplish something... let's say Goal B 2. Person A needs resources to accomplish Goal B. 3. Person C also wants to accomplish Goal B. 4. Person C has greater direct or indirect access to resources than Person A does. 5. Person C aquires greater resources through contacts than Person A does. 6. Person C accomplishes Goal B faster or more efficiently that Person A does. NOTHING in this cycle is inherently bad. i'm a former engineer... and i remember watching people who didn't work as hard and weren't as clever as me get promoted ahead and become more financially successful than me. i could always tell them what needed to be done, and how to do it, but they were the ones who got the credit. How? simple. they knew who to contact to get the resources to get a project done. and it's not just liquid resources i'm talking about... any kind. engineering problem? they'd call me up. financial problem? they called the banker. the flyer didn't look good enough? they'd call the graphic artist. problem solved. then they'd sit back, sip thier coffee, tell their bosses that everything was shipshape, and meanwhile i and everyone else would be working my ass off to make it true. i remember when i finally figured out what was going on. i sat back, realized that working wasn't the answer... getting others to produce was. designing a project wasn't going to be the best use of my time... i could train someone to design it, and just watch over him, and then five more like him, then ten... and so on. pretty soon, i was accomplishing twenty times what i had previously done, and doing it in half the time. all i had to learn was how to identify who knew what, and who i could throw at any problem that came up. it took time, but nothing compared to the time i put in previously. and to be perfectly honest, it was harder work, but the returns were disproportionatly worth it. networking is VITALLY important in business. they say bill gates didn't do the coding... no... but he knew Paterson could. and no, he didn't negotiate this particular deal... but he knew he could trust Paul Allen to take care of it. He needed a few hundred thou for investment? well... that was probably a bit harder. but he knew where to start for some advice, and he got it done. that's the bottom line. it's the same as this all the way up the line. it's how things get done on time. it's how things progress instead of degrade. it creates vast gaps of wealth? yeah? so what? the rich get richer, but unlike the saying goes, when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too, just not as fast. the disparity increases, but the bottom line increases too. most people tend to ignore that and concentrate on what they don't have instead. but... given your tirades in favor of welfare... you'd probably conclude (or actually, you'd assume) that business IS the problem... in spite of the world of evidence to the contrary. so you can blissfully forget everything you don't like and go to sleep wondering why welfare has never worked the way you always say it should.... muttering *free health care now!!!..." as you drift off into fantasyland...
here, i was going to post a few comments defending billy boy... only to find that the endless stream here has already flooded that one over.
the first thing i thought of were all those ridiculous ADTI comments about linus not inventing linux. (insert goose and gander quote here)
it ridiculous to look at the #2 guy and say he could have been #1 except for *this* or *that*... like that guy who discovered relativity right after einstein... whatshisname?
whatever else he might be, gates is definitely a one-of-a-kind... a geek and businessman. microsoft is worth admiring for their business acumen, if not thier software, and that's entirely due to bill. i doubt if there's more than one or two others in the world who could have done what he did with the hand he was dealt.