"It does not need force to move something around, but acceleration. Force is the product fo acceleration times the mass of the moved thing."
Not exactly. You *measure* force by observing how much a mass is accelerated.
It is acceleration the result of applying a force to a mass so, in some sense, it would be better to describe Newton's second law as F/m=a instead of F=m*a.
In other words, you can't change the moving status of a mass without applying a force to it (first Newton's law).
"A force like F = m * a bottom line only depends on 'a'. It does not matter if m is the mass of the universe or your body mass."
Uh? It's a product, therefor it depends on *both* factors. You can bet that if you apply a force f to a mass m you won't get it to accelerate at the same rate than if you apply the same force to a mass m' where m'=2*m.
"What you likely mean is energy: yes, to accelerate a small mass you need less energy than to accelerate a huge mass."
You are unable to understand the very formula you wrote down, aren't you? I'd suggest you to revisit the concepts of force, energy and work.
"The frikin' laser needs to be frikin' miniaturized before it can be out on the frikin' sharks frikin' heads."
C'mon! you can't be a real terror demigod aiming at world domination if you can't think big.
You feed your shark army in the radiactive seaside near Fukushima so they grow Godzilla-like ("frikin' Sharkzillas"?) then you won't have any problem to mount navy-size lasers on their frikin' heads.
"Factually, history completely disagrees with you."
Actually? Then you can easily point me to the war started "to the advancement of Science and Technology", can you?
"I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science."
Yes you did, since you pointed technology advancement as a direct outcome of war while the truth is that those advencements, except maybe for the case of weaponry development are just side effects that, by your own account could be achieved by other means without the killings.
"As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples"
So you really beleive that, say, Japan, became what it is *because* of the war? Did you see any photgraphs from Japan by 1945? Have you seen photographs from Hirosima and Nagasaki right after the A-bombs? *That* is what war achieves. What you see now is not because of war but because the way USA happened to drive its neocolonialism *afterwards*. If it were a direct outcome, North Korea or North Vietnam would be the same than their South counterparts since they were involved in the same wars. Same cause with different effects directly shows that your presumed cause is not the one that drove the effects.
""prevention of war" by going to war? And you said that with a straight face?"
Not that I share such an opinion, but you can bet khallow is not the first one to try that path: did you never heard about the Latin saying 'si vis pacem para bellum', or its "original" from Vegetius 'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum'.
That's more or less 1500 years ago, so not really hot news.
"Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history."
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed. Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
Adscribing technology and social advance to wars as if it were the only way to achieve those results just because that was how in fact they happened is naive at best, criminal at worst.
"tech brings us the tools of a modern age, and finance gives us new ways to swindle and corrupt"
So what? Capitalism works under the asumption that no one in particular "knows better", so we have to allow for markets to self-regulate (the invisible hand). That you don't percieve "swindle and corrupt" to be of the same value than "the tools of a modern age" is no excuse -under free market rules, for you to intervine the markets to make it easier for the latters to get an advantage over the formers.
So if you think the problem is that ours is not "a real free market" you should question if there's any chance for capitalism to be of real applicability to a real world scenario or if current situation is a natural outcome of market forces over real world, and if you think that there are some things that should be absolutly favored over others in the market, then you should question the value of capitalism even in theory.
But that's exactly what you'll find in economy books and what common sense dictates with regards of a free market economy. Maybe the problem is not financial agencies (on one hand, no, banks have not free reign to print bank notes; on the other, on a pure free market environment, they would be free to print as many bank notes as they want, and so would anyone else).
My point is that maybe it's time to question the real world applicability of capitalism instead of one of its symptompts.
"And you're absolutely sure this is all HP's fault for hiring cheap dumb employees instead of the smart expensive ones?"
With regards of free market it's not a matter of fault. It's my fault that I can't get a market for my farts? -I swear I try my best to produce high quality farts! The fact under free market rules is that if others can hire engineers for better wages than HP is because they can get a better revenue out of their job, therefor it's good that they hire the brightest ones because that way the overall system is able to produce more wealth. But that's what we should question: what if that's not the case? what if that's a capitalist false assumption, at least on real world scenarios?
"at some point the anti-financial-waste-of-life banter might break through their shell of ignorance, and then how are they going to feel when they realize the misery they've caused with their lives?"
First world status is direct responsible of two thirds of the world about starving *now*. Do you feel specially bad about that?
Don't hold your breath for them feeling bad because of "the misery they've caused" anytime soon.
"Even if tech firms wanted to pay more than the banks, could they actually afford to do so?"
Is that the problem of the employees? If banks can pay more than techs maybe it's because banking is a more productive enterprise than tech, therefore it's a good thing that talent goes that way, isn't it?
"Except that the free market economy is supposed to allocate resources efficiently, and it clearly isn't."
But it is! Financial companies believe that paying the highest salaries to their engineers is an efficient manner to allocate their resources and their anual ballances certainly seem to support their believings.
"That's just bad for everyone in the long run."
Capitalism never was about "everyone" but about "oneself". The "everyone" stuff is the realm of socialism, not capitalism.
"Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.
If you believe in the first paragraph you no doubt see the irony in the second."
No, I don't. But it might be the case the I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
I indeed believe that Moody's CEO diserves his pay rise within current system.
The problem is the system that works in a way that makes Moody's CEO to diserve a pay rise by doing what he did and is still doing. But then, since I do believe in democracy, it's each and every of us, the citizens, the ones that should work to change the system.
"We could do with a lot less of the money in circulation being invented in the form of debt."
Well, it's not so much about "invented money" but about the way risks were spread.
The financial bubble was based on accepting very high risks on financial operations, because those accepting the risks managed to spread them assimetrically: no risk for CxOs (that managed to get their bonuses even at the face of the debacle they created) and minimal risk for shareholders (which risked at most the money they voluntary entered into the system, and that only if they didn't went out at proper time), all the risk for the saver whose capital was backing the operation (and that had no say on that). No wonder the decision makers opted to go into such deals.
And you try to demonstrate your point by telling that the gullible one is that who works for 1.000.000 a year instead of the one doing basically the same for less than 100.000?
"I now work at a university for 1/3 the income, and feel much better about what I do for a living."
Of course that's your choice and exactly for that reason it's not and can't be considered slavery.
On the other hand, others that might feel exactly like you, opted to be on the banking business and they feel now as good as you out of their early retirement with the money they earned while at their soul-sucking jobs.
In fact it is. Do we want our "best engineering graduates" out of financial banks? Easy: pay them more than the banks. Oh, but we don't want to do that! We should remember then it's a free market economy: you don't want "them" to tell you how do you have to live your life, then you can't tell "them" how should they have to live theirs.
"If the investment banks get some of the top engineering talent then they can build better systems"
That's a different issue: you need to define "better". Up to now, "better" seems to mean "better to get cash out of your pocket and in theirs" or "better to make them richer at the price of making overall society poorer". But again, that's not a problem our "best engineering graduates" should resolve by themselves but a problem overall society must look for.
Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is still far more reliable than solar generation, which fails every night, for many hours."
I don't think reliable means what you think it means.
"It does not need force to move something around, but acceleration. Force is the product fo acceleration times the mass of the moved thing."
Not exactly. You *measure* force by observing how much a mass is accelerated.
It is acceleration the result of applying a force to a mass so, in some sense, it would be better to describe Newton's second law as F/m=a instead of F=m*a.
In other words, you can't change the moving status of a mass without applying a force to it (first Newton's law).
"A force like F = m * a bottom line only depends on 'a'. It does not matter if m is the mass of the universe or your body mass."
Uh? It's a product, therefor it depends on *both* factors. You can bet that if you apply a force f to a mass m you won't get it to accelerate at the same rate than if you apply the same force to a mass m' where m'=2*m.
"What you likely mean is energy: yes, to accelerate a small mass you need less energy than to accelerate a huge mass."
You are unable to understand the very formula you wrote down, aren't you? I'd suggest you to revisit the concepts of force, energy and work.
"The time one lives on this planet is relative to measurements made by other people and by other devices."
Not at all. It's the same for everybody and it's as absolute as C: exactly one life.
(unless you belong to one of the religions that allow you to reincarnate, of course).
"Maybe we should teach people to do things the way we actually do things in real life"
Maybe you should understand that learn and do are different things.
"Lets say they signed a non-aggression treaty"
We don't need to "say" that, since that's exactly what happened. Never heard about the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact?
"The frikin' laser needs to be frikin' miniaturized before it can be out on the frikin' sharks frikin' heads."
C'mon! you can't be a real terror demigod aiming at world domination if you can't think big.
You feed your shark army in the radiactive seaside near Fukushima so they grow Godzilla-like ("frikin' Sharkzillas"?) then you won't have any problem to mount navy-size lasers on their frikin' heads.
"I would hope that everyone would find something even more important to do during their last weeks than fix gnome bugs."
So you have a kind of objective standard about what's important and what it isn't that you want to share with us?
"unless picked up by a passing spaceship, and the odds against that are astronomical"
All you need is an infinite impossibility engine, then.
"Factually, history completely disagrees with you."
Actually? Then you can easily point me to the war started "to the advancement of Science and Technology", can you?
"I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science."
Yes you did, since you pointed technology advancement as a direct outcome of war while the truth is that those advencements, except maybe for the case of weaponry development are just side effects that, by your own account could be achieved by other means without the killings.
"As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples"
So you really beleive that, say, Japan, became what it is *because* of the war? Did you see any photgraphs from Japan by 1945? Have you seen photographs from Hirosima and Nagasaki right after the A-bombs? *That* is what war achieves. What you see now is not because of war but because the way USA happened to drive its neocolonialism *afterwards*. If it were a direct outcome, North Korea or North Vietnam would be the same than their South counterparts since they were involved in the same wars. Same cause with different effects directly shows that your presumed cause is not the one that drove the effects.
"why do we even need to exist?"
I know this one: 42
""prevention of war" by going to war? And you said that with a straight face?"
Not that I share such an opinion, but you can bet khallow is not the first one to try that path: did you never heard about the Latin saying 'si vis pacem para bellum', or its "original" from Vegetius 'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum'.
That's more or less 1500 years ago, so not really hot news.
"Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history."
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed. Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
Adscribing technology and social advance to wars as if it were the only way to achieve those results just because that was how in fact they happened is naive at best, criminal at worst.
"Bill, is that you?"
No need to. Just Larry on his presumed roadmap.
"Yes, I feel terrible that people are starving. I haven't bought anything frivolous in the last decade+ as a result."
Oh, c'mon! You say that from a computer you use to expend your time posting on Slashdot?
"Clearly that isn't the case"
Are you sure?
"tech brings us the tools of a modern age, and finance gives us new ways to swindle and corrupt"
So what? Capitalism works under the asumption that no one in particular "knows better", so we have to allow for markets to self-regulate (the invisible hand). That you don't percieve "swindle and corrupt" to be of the same value than "the tools of a modern age" is no excuse -under free market rules, for you to intervine the markets to make it easier for the latters to get an advantage over the formers.
So if you think the problem is that ours is not "a real free market" you should question if there's any chance for capitalism to be of real applicability to a real world scenario or if current situation is a natural outcome of market forces over real world, and if you think that there are some things that should be absolutly favored over others in the market, then you should question the value of capitalism even in theory.
"Are you really that dumb?"
No, I don't think I am.
But that's exactly what you'll find in economy books and what common sense dictates with regards of a free market economy. Maybe the problem is not financial agencies (on one hand, no, banks have not free reign to print bank notes; on the other, on a pure free market environment, they would be free to print as many bank notes as they want, and so would anyone else).
My point is that maybe it's time to question the real world applicability of capitalism instead of one of its symptompts.
"And you're absolutely sure this is all HP's fault for hiring cheap dumb employees instead of the smart expensive ones?"
With regards of free market it's not a matter of fault. It's my fault that I can't get a market for my farts? -I swear I try my best to produce high quality farts! The fact under free market rules is that if others can hire engineers for better wages than HP is because they can get a better revenue out of their job, therefor it's good that they hire the brightest ones because that way the overall system is able to produce more wealth. But that's what we should question: what if that's not the case? what if that's a capitalist false assumption, at least on real world scenarios?
"Dont DISS .Net people, PHP or even anything can be as bad. Its just that linux stuff is so obscure only smart geeks use it at home at the age of 12."
So by your own declaration, focusing on people that used linux at home by the age of 12 is an easy fast way to take clever people apart.
Hey, I'd think that's quite a good rule-of-thumb to be used by any CEO over there!
"at some point the anti-financial-waste-of-life banter might break through their shell of ignorance, and then how are they going to feel when they realize the misery they've caused with their lives?"
First world status is direct responsible of two thirds of the world about starving *now*. Do you feel specially bad about that?
Don't hold your breath for them feeling bad because of "the misery they've caused" anytime soon.
"Even if tech firms wanted to pay more than the banks, could they actually afford to do so?"
Is that the problem of the employees? If banks can pay more than techs maybe it's because banking is a more productive enterprise than tech, therefore it's a good thing that talent goes that way, isn't it?
"Except that the free market economy is supposed to allocate resources efficiently, and it clearly isn't."
But it is! Financial companies believe that paying the highest salaries to their engineers is an efficient manner to allocate their resources and their anual ballances certainly seem to support their believings.
"That's just bad for everyone in the long run."
Capitalism never was about "everyone" but about "oneself". The "everyone" stuff is the realm of socialism, not capitalism.
"Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.
If you believe in the first paragraph you no doubt see the irony in the second."
No, I don't. But it might be the case the I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
I indeed believe that Moody's CEO diserves his pay rise within current system.
The problem is the system that works in a way that makes Moody's CEO to diserve a pay rise by doing what he did and is still doing. But then, since I do believe in democracy, it's each and every of us, the citizens, the ones that should work to change the system.
"We could do with a lot less of the money in circulation being invented in the form of debt."
Well, it's not so much about "invented money" but about the way risks were spread.
The financial bubble was based on accepting very high risks on financial operations, because those accepting the risks managed to spread them assimetrically: no risk for CxOs (that managed to get their bonuses even at the face of the debacle they created) and minimal risk for shareholders (which risked at most the money they voluntary entered into the system, and that only if they didn't went out at proper time), all the risk for the saver whose capital was backing the operation (and that had no say on that). No wonder the decision makers opted to go into such deals.
"the point is engineers are gullible."
And you try to demonstrate your point by telling that the gullible one is that who works for 1.000.000 a year instead of the one doing basically the same for less than 100.000?
"I now work at a university for 1/3 the income, and feel much better about what I do for a living."
Of course that's your choice and exactly for that reason it's not and can't be considered slavery.
On the other hand, others that might feel exactly like you, opted to be on the banking business and they feel now as good as you out of their early retirement with the money they earned while at their soul-sucking jobs.
Do you remember what freedom is about, don't you?
"This is a completely ridiculous notion"
In fact it is. Do we want our "best engineering graduates" out of financial banks? Easy: pay them more than the banks.
Oh, but we don't want to do that! We should remember then it's a free market economy: you don't want "them" to tell you how do you have to live your life, then you can't tell "them" how should they have to live theirs.
"If the investment banks get some of the top engineering talent then they can build better systems"
That's a different issue: you need to define "better". Up to now, "better" seems to mean "better to get cash out of your pocket and in theirs" or "better to make them richer at the price of making overall society poorer". But again, that's not a problem our "best engineering graduates" should resolve by themselves but a problem overall society must look for.
Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.