The way to run a successful organization is to get many people to accomplish a single goal (yours). The skill to do so is highly valuable. It may be the only skill which matters for success as a CEO, manager, or other high-level position.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think what you're calling a skill is in reality called a net positive bank account and the ability to sign paychecks.
The carrot of salary and the stick of unemployment are what's getting many people to accomplish a single goal. True leadership is what gets people to line up in support of a cause at no immediate benefit (and indeed, even great personal risk) to themselves. One who can compel men to give their lives for a cause is a great leader; one who can get wage slaves to try to not get fired is mediocre at best. Talk to me about CEO's "skills" when you can point out a company that told their workers they wouldn't be getting paid anymore and still had workers the next day.
I have several patents under my belt, no I'm not making buttloads of money off of them but I created something that makes the world better.
You created a legal restriction for others wishing to create things, and you see this as making the world better?
I'd argue that openly publishing your designs for the world to use freely would make the world better. What you did makes your world better.
Otherwise, I completely agree with your post. All too often, ambition and intelligence are inversely correlated. I like to think of it the other way around, though. Perhaps some of us are smart enough to know better than to bust our asses for no good reason. Personally, I'd rather get some good sleep than chase after more shiny.
If I needed to duck but forgot, then nothing went over my head, right? Otherwise, why would I have needed to duck?
Anyway, if you're saying your original statement was meant to be ironic, then I'll just say you need to brush up on your delivery, as it really didn't strike me as funny (or even intended as such). It sounded more like commentary about the military not making data-driven decisions, which is neither funny nor insightful.
"WOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!" [sic] indeed. I don't get it.
P.S. It's spelled whoosh or WHOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!! Don't forget that extra 'H'.
So can you tell me, why is it we can get a man on the moon but we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled?
Let's do the math. Google tells me that "Everybody knows that the Apollo program costs $20 billion in 1970s dollars—the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s money". That's roughly 45 days worth of Social Security spending. That's why we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled. Because it costs a lot more to do that than to get a man on the moon.
Are we really that pathetic as a country that we can't just solve this problem?
I think you're just throwing numbers around without actually thinking about what they mean. Social Security costs about $2600 per American every year. The entirety of NASA costs about $56 per American every year. It's hard to wrap one's head around just how expensive social welfare is in this country.
So, let me get this straight. You're pointing out that increasing a tax on something will "reduce consumption" of that thing (whether this is the intent or not), but then you go on to say that you think we should spread the cost of road maintenance better, for example by instituting a mileage tax on electric vehicles, or a mandatory registration fee for bicycles.
According to your own reasoning, this would "reduce consumption" of electric vehicles and bicycles. According to my reasoning, that would necessarily increase demand for traditional modes of transportation, primarily the 4 stroke ICE automobile. Do you really think that's a good idea?
Income tax of 90% makes sense when it's on your income AFTER $1 million/year.
That is insane. It would push enormous amounts of wealth overseas, and give people little incentive to invest in this country. Ideas like yours usually come from people that have a delusional "zero-sum" view of economics. There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and if someone becomes richer, that does not usually mean that someone else has become poorer.
There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, but there is a finite amount. If someone is rich, that does necessarily mean that someone else is poor. Ideas like yours usually come from people that have a delusional "infinite wealth" view of economics. The idea that the wealthy are entitled to hoarde their money is the reason there are still poor people in a society that has $257,000 of wealth per citizen.
That high school filled with Navajo CAN use the term Redskin, just as it's quite acceptable for one black person to call another "nigga".
Question: Can the sentence "Obama is the finest nigga this country has seen in ages, and I pray that my children grow up to be just like him" be uttered by a non-black person without being (being, not seeming) racist? It's evident from the context that the statement expresses positive sentiments regarding Obama, and that the mention of race isn't really relevant to the sentiment being expressed. However, it's evident that there are those among us that claim outrage over any mention of race (positive, negative, or neutral), and I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about whether or not it is possible to be offended by that statement (as it's evident that people can get offended by anything), but whether or not the statement is itself inherently bigoted or offensive in any concrete way. Is the use of a racially-charged word, even in an entirely positive context, still "racist"? If so, why?
Disclaimer: Please don't turn this into a referendum on Obama. I don't vote for republicrats and can name countless black people that I think are better people than Obama.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
No, of course. That's why we did away with all those slur-based team names (ethnic or otherwise). We no longer have the Philadelphia Niggers, the New York Kykes, the Boston Cocksuckers, or the Baltimore Imbeciles.
Wait, what's that? Team names don't generally carry negative connotations? Nobody names their team after something undesirable? The term Redskin is intended to be virtuous, not a slur? How can this be?!
So you're a Mohawk and you think it would be a good gesture for the European aggressors to make up for the centuries of genocide by... not calling a football team the Redskins?
Really? You don't feel that this is a bit of an empty gesture? Too little, too late? You don't feel that an effort this tiny actually trivializes the debt owed to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas? Would you say paying out reparations to the tune of $24 (total) would be a "good gesture" as well? At what point do increasingly meaningless "good gestures" become insults?
Are you kidding? I note that you didn't suggest israel doesn't have a bomb... did they carry out some nuke tests? No, they didn't.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center much lateral proliferation happened between pre-nuclear Israel and France stating "the French nuclear test in 1960 made two nuclear powers not one—such was the depth of collaboration" and "the Israelis had unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data." minimizing the need for early Israeli testing though this cooperation cooled following the success of the French tests.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Germany.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Japan.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by the USA. (Strangely missing from Wikipedia...)
Japan's actions during WW2 were abhorent. Unfortunately, they weren't alone in that respect.
Regarding the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, well, that has nothing to do with how militaristic Japan actually was. There is significant evidence that it was a goal of many of those in power in the USA to lure Japan into war. To what extent the actions undertaken by these people actually helped bring about war is also irrelevant. The intent is well-documented. The US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor in order to manufacture a pretext for ending isolationism and justifing US intervention. The conspiracy theory focuses on the extent to which various individuals acted to enable that, which is the only issue that's still in question. Perhaps you're right, and maybe nobody in the US actually acted to make sure the attack on Pearl Harbor would lead to our involvement in the war. However, this would still not have any bearing on the fact that the US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor nonetheless.
today's EE's dont' even know how to solder. its pathetic. they run a sim and type on keyboards. some don't even use test gear, like scopes.
I got my BSEE in 2007, seven years ago. I know how to solder, and made extensive use of scopes (both digital/storage and analog) through the course of my education. I can say the same of all my classmates. I went to a mediocre public university. I think you're out of touch with reality.
All that despite the fact that I focused predominantly on digital electronics and even computer science. Several semesters of analog circuits (with lab, obviously) were required.
Indeed, there have been several truly massive flods over the years. The Zanclean flood that is theorized to have flooded the Mediterranean sea 5.33 million years age (long before homo sapiens roamed) may have exhibited water rising at 10 meters per day. However, the Black Sea deluge, while much smaller, could have happened circa 5600 BC. It's entirely possible that this was the basis for many of the flood myths that are common in the region.
it's several hundred KILOMETERS (that's a unit of measure, common in the rest of the world - think of it as something like half a mile) down.
It's also located directly below the continental United States. You should be fine with saying it's 400 miles down if you expect Americans to speak in terms of kilometers when they find themselves in your SI or metric neighborhood.
'm self-employed, 40-something, etc. I can tell you from hanging around with a lot of other folks like myself - they tend to vote Republican and give to the Republicans.
Wouldn't that confirm what BP is saying? Assuming that you harbor rational self-interest, isn't it true that you don't want additional competition in your industry? If that's the case, then why wouldn't you be scared of any legislation that makes it easier for millions of smart people to enter your industry as additional competition?
And these mass shootings, what percentage of firearm violence do they account for? Also, in these mass shootings, how often are handguns used to kill people?
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If you're really such a fan of apples-to-oranges comparison, answer me this: how many mass shootings has Switzerland experienced since they mandated ownership of rifles?
Sure, I could take a stretch limo to a bar that serves Louis XIII de Rémy Martin. Then, as long as I drank at least a single shot, the cost of the limo would be a mere fraction of what I spent on alcohol.
The point was that we're not all fantastically rich, and that while spending more on alcohol will make the taxi account for proportionally less of the night's cost, it will still increase the total cost overall.
The problem isn't with taxi operators either. I used to drive cab. I brought home, on average, about $5 a day. I worked 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, and I made nowhere near enough money to support myself. Driving cab is not a glamorous job, and it doesn't really lead to great riches. Fares can't really be cut any lower.
The problem is that society won't recognize the broken economics of the "get a cab instead of driving drunk" argument. We moralize about drunk driving while opening bars in areas only accessible by car, then we act surprised when poor people drive their own cars there instead of tripling the cost of their drinking night by taking taxis. This is the inevitable outcome of our actions, so if we're serious about wanting to eliminate drunk driving, we're going to need a different approach. I don't know what that approach will be, but all I can say is that the current one obviously isn't working.
Or, we could, you know, just keep on pointing at the awful drunk drivers, talking about how awful they are. Surely that'll get them to change their ways.</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
The way to run a successful organization is to get many people to accomplish a single goal (yours). The skill to do so is highly valuable. It may be the only skill which matters for success as a CEO, manager, or other high-level position.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think what you're calling a skill is in reality called a net positive bank account and the ability to sign paychecks.
The carrot of salary and the stick of unemployment are what's getting many people to accomplish a single goal. True leadership is what gets people to line up in support of a cause at no immediate benefit (and indeed, even great personal risk) to themselves. One who can compel men to give their lives for a cause is a great leader; one who can get wage slaves to try to not get fired is mediocre at best. Talk to me about CEO's "skills" when you can point out a company that told their workers they wouldn't be getting paid anymore and still had workers the next day.
I have several patents under my belt, no I'm not making buttloads of money off of them but I created something that makes the world better.
You created a legal restriction for others wishing to create things, and you see this as making the world better?
I'd argue that openly publishing your designs for the world to use freely would make the world better. What you did makes your world better.
Otherwise, I completely agree with your post. All too often, ambition and intelligence are inversely correlated. I like to think of it the other way around, though. Perhaps some of us are smart enough to know better than to bust our asses for no good reason. Personally, I'd rather get some good sleep than chase after more shiny.
That's more like it! Well played! :)
If I needed to duck but forgot, then nothing went over my head, right? Otherwise, why would I have needed to duck?
Anyway, if you're saying your original statement was meant to be ironic, then I'll just say you need to brush up on your delivery, as it really didn't strike me as funny (or even intended as such). It sounded more like commentary about the military not making data-driven decisions, which is neither funny nor insightful.
"WOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!" [sic] indeed. I don't get it.
P.S. It's spelled whoosh or WHOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!! Don't forget that extra 'H'.
I am pretty sure that's the most idiotic comment I've read on slashdot this month.
And it's the 24th already.
So can you tell me, why is it we can get a man on the moon but we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled?
Let's do the math. Google tells me that "Everybody knows that the Apollo program costs $20 billion in 1970s dollars—the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s money". That's roughly 45 days worth of Social Security spending. That's why we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled. Because it costs a lot more to do that than to get a man on the moon.
Are we really that pathetic as a country that we can't just solve this problem?
I think you're just throwing numbers around without actually thinking about what they mean. Social Security costs about $2600 per American every year. The entirety of NASA costs about $56 per American every year. It's hard to wrap one's head around just how expensive social welfare is in this country.
So, let me get this straight. You're pointing out that increasing a tax on something will "reduce consumption" of that thing (whether this is the intent or not), but then you go on to say that you think we should spread the cost of road maintenance better, for example by instituting a mileage tax on electric vehicles, or a mandatory registration fee for bicycles.
According to your own reasoning, this would "reduce consumption" of electric vehicles and bicycles. According to my reasoning, that would necessarily increase demand for traditional modes of transportation, primarily the 4 stroke ICE automobile. Do you really think that's a good idea?
The Washington DC Metro is also pretty nice. I find that it's better than Philly's SEPTA.
Income tax of 90% makes sense when it's on your income AFTER $1 million/year.
That is insane. It would push enormous amounts of wealth overseas, and give people little incentive to invest in this country. Ideas like yours usually come from people that have a delusional "zero-sum" view of economics. There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and if someone becomes richer, that does not usually mean that someone else has become poorer.
There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, but there is a finite amount. If someone is rich, that does necessarily mean that someone else is poor. Ideas like yours usually come from people that have a delusional "infinite wealth" view of economics. The idea that the wealthy are entitled to hoarde their money is the reason there are still poor people in a society that has $257,000 of wealth per citizen.
Keep right, pass left. It's the law.
That high school filled with Navajo CAN use the term Redskin, just as it's quite acceptable for one black person to call another "nigga".
Question: Can the sentence "Obama is the finest nigga this country has seen in ages, and I pray that my children grow up to be just like him" be uttered by a non-black person without being (being, not seeming) racist? It's evident from the context that the statement expresses positive sentiments regarding Obama, and that the mention of race isn't really relevant to the sentiment being expressed. However, it's evident that there are those among us that claim outrage over any mention of race (positive, negative, or neutral), and I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about whether or not it is possible to be offended by that statement (as it's evident that people can get offended by anything), but whether or not the statement is itself inherently bigoted or offensive in any concrete way. Is the use of a racially-charged word, even in an entirely positive context, still "racist"? If so, why?
Disclaimer: Please don't turn this into a referendum on Obama. I don't vote for republicrats and can name countless black people that I think are better people than Obama.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
No, of course. That's why we did away with all those slur-based team names (ethnic or otherwise). We no longer have the Philadelphia Niggers, the New York Kykes, the Boston Cocksuckers, or the Baltimore Imbeciles.
Wait, what's that? Team names don't generally carry negative connotations? Nobody names their team after something undesirable? The term Redskin is intended to be virtuous, not a slur? How can this be?!
So you're a Mohawk and you think it would be a good gesture for the European aggressors to make up for the centuries of genocide by... not calling a football team the Redskins?
Really? You don't feel that this is a bit of an empty gesture? Too little, too late? You don't feel that an effort this tiny actually trivializes the debt owed to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas? Would you say paying out reparations to the tune of $24 (total) would be a "good gesture" as well? At what point do increasingly meaningless "good gestures" become insults?
Are you kidding? I note that you didn't suggest israel doesn't have a bomb... did they carry out some nuke tests? No, they didn't.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center much lateral proliferation happened between pre-nuclear Israel and France stating "the French nuclear test in 1960 made two nuclear powers not one—such was the depth of collaboration" and "the Israelis had unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data." minimizing the need for early Israeli testing though this cooperation cooled following the success of the French tests.
Citation.
Additionally, there's the suspected tests in 1963, 1966, and 1979.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Germany.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Japan.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by the USA. (Strangely missing from Wikipedia...)
Japan's actions during WW2 were abhorent. Unfortunately, they weren't alone in that respect.
Regarding the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, well, that has nothing to do with how militaristic Japan actually was. There is significant evidence that it was a goal of many of those in power in the USA to lure Japan into war. To what extent the actions undertaken by these people actually helped bring about war is also irrelevant. The intent is well-documented. The US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor in order to manufacture a pretext for ending isolationism and justifing US intervention. The conspiracy theory focuses on the extent to which various individuals acted to enable that, which is the only issue that's still in question. Perhaps you're right, and maybe nobody in the US actually acted to make sure the attack on Pearl Harbor would lead to our involvement in the war. However, this would still not have any bearing on the fact that the US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor nonetheless.
Touché.
today's EE's dont' even know how to solder. its pathetic. they run a sim and type on keyboards. some don't even use test gear, like scopes.
I got my BSEE in 2007, seven years ago. I know how to solder, and made extensive use of scopes (both digital/storage and analog) through the course of my education. I can say the same of all my classmates. I went to a mediocre public university. I think you're out of touch with reality.
All that despite the fact that I focused predominantly on digital electronics and even computer science. Several semesters of analog circuits (with lab, obviously) were required.
This thread is sur-real.
Flods. Truly massive flods.
Indeed, there have been several truly massive flods over the years. The Zanclean flood that is theorized to have flooded the Mediterranean sea 5.33 million years age (long before homo sapiens roamed) may have exhibited water rising at 10 meters per day. However, the Black Sea deluge, while much smaller, could have happened circa 5600 BC. It's entirely possible that this was the basis for many of the flood myths that are common in the region.
it's several hundred KILOMETERS (that's a unit of measure, common in the rest of the world - think of it as something like half a mile) down.
It's also located directly below the continental United States. You should be fine with saying it's 400 miles down if you expect Americans to speak in terms of kilometers when they find themselves in your SI or metric neighborhood.
When in Rome...
'm self-employed, 40-something, etc. I can tell you from hanging around with a lot of other folks like myself - they tend to vote Republican and give to the Republicans.
Wouldn't that confirm what BP is saying? Assuming that you harbor rational self-interest, isn't it true that you don't want additional competition in your industry? If that's the case, then why wouldn't you be scared of any legislation that makes it easier for millions of smart people to enter your industry as additional competition?
And these mass shootings, what percentage of firearm violence do they account for? Also, in these mass shootings, how often are handguns used to kill people?
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If you're really such a fan of apples-to-oranges comparison, answer me this: how many mass shootings has Switzerland experienced since they mandated ownership of rifles?
Interesting, the green fireballs. I wonder what that was all about.
I think you might be missing the point.
Sure, I could take a stretch limo to a bar that serves Louis XIII de Rémy Martin. Then, as long as I drank at least a single shot, the cost of the limo would be a mere fraction of what I spent on alcohol.
The point was that we're not all fantastically rich, and that while spending more on alcohol will make the taxi account for proportionally less of the night's cost, it will still increase the total cost overall.
The problem isn't with taxi operators either. I used to drive cab. I brought home, on average, about $5 a day. I worked 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, and I made nowhere near enough money to support myself. Driving cab is not a glamorous job, and it doesn't really lead to great riches. Fares can't really be cut any lower.
The problem is that society won't recognize the broken economics of the "get a cab instead of driving drunk" argument. We moralize about drunk driving while opening bars in areas only accessible by car, then we act surprised when poor people drive their own cars there instead of tripling the cost of their drinking night by taking taxis. This is the inevitable outcome of our actions, so if we're serious about wanting to eliminate drunk driving, we're going to need a different approach. I don't know what that approach will be, but all I can say is that the current one obviously isn't working.
Or, we could, you know, just keep on pointing at the awful drunk drivers, talking about how awful they are. Surely that'll get them to change their ways.</sarcasm>