That's a pile of horseshit (though yes, the movie Sideways does suck).
People get all geeked out over all kinds of subjects, and there is no reason for wine geekery to be a less valid form of geekery than, say, smartphone geekery or movie geekery.
I'm a wine geek. I like tasting different wines, identifying what flavors are present and the compounds responsible for those flavors. I like appreciating the difference between a young wine vs. a mature wine due to oxidation in the bottle. I enjoy discussing the characteristics of the wine I'm sharing with friends or family, I enjoy the hunt for a bargain good wine. I delight in understanding the relationships between terroir, grape varietal, cultivation methods, and the flavors of wine. Winemaking is science wrought as art.
To sum up -- you suck for being a bitter, xenophobic geek. Not understanding another form of geekery is not a valid reason to belittle it.
Developing the nose of the wine is one reason to swirl the wine, albeit a very small one.
The real reason to swirl is if the wine hasn't been aerated sufficiently. Red wines in particular (to varying degree depending on varietal, age, etc) have a high concentration of tannins, which are responsible for the astringency of the wine. Aeration of the wine will oxidize the tannins, reducing their astringency.
Aeration will also mellow the other flavors via oxidation. I have found that a lot of people who say "I only like white wine" are actually just not a fan of the tannins in red wine. Proper aeration after uncorking often results in them liking red wines, especially if I choose a fruitier varietal.
Good wine snobs will test the nose of the wine (e.g., sniff it), then taste it. If it's too astringent to properly enjoy, they'll either let the glass sit for a while, or swirl the glass to aerate the wine.
I haven't read all your links, though I'm familiar with all three acts, but I think you're aiming at the wrong target. The root of the conflict is not the economic crisis (that's only been a trigger for conflict-related movements like the Tea Party and OWS). The root of the conflict is economic inequality and the unholy alliance between economic titans and the federal government.
The income disparity was growing, and becoming problematic, prior to any of those three laws being passed. It really started to become a big problem in the 80s.
One last reminder... all this chaos and conflict, for better or worse, misguided or spot on, was created by the canadian magazine leftists.
Not so. It was first organized by an international leftist magazine based in Canada (of note: 60% of Adbusters subscribers are in the US.)
The "chaos" was caused by the "conflict". The "conflict" is between different strata of the economic spectrum, due to the inability of those on most of the spectrum to share in the gains of the entire spectrum. This conflict was caused by the policies and culture that have led to the economic disparity. Please note this is only one cause, IMO the primary one.
Don't attribute to a single entity what is caused by a host of socioeconomic factors.
To add, the only way civil disobedience "works" is if people can get enough like minded people together so that when the arrests happen, there is not enough space to hold everyone in the jails and the cost of prosecuting all of the arrested people outweighs the benefits of prosecution.
No, that totally misses the point of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not exactly what the protestors did; the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to unjust laws by violating then en flagrante, willfully submitting to punishment, in order to publicize the injust nature of those laws.
Disobeying one law to protest another law isn't really civil disobedience in its true form.
I believe both Gandhi and Rev. King counted on just that full-force response. It's rather the 'point' of a protest to get the powers that be to acknowledge you...and that acknowledgement, going back millennia, is usually full force/too far and results in the protesters getting some semblance of what they want, eventually anyway.
Gandhi (paraphrased from memory): First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
So I'm with you on Gandhi.
But King? I don't think wanted the full-force response. I think he truly believed that violence was abhorrent, even if it helped his cause. He continually preached messages of love, of non-violence: "Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
they're living in tents, you insensitive clod. they don't *have* carpets.
Last time I was in a yurt, there were carpets *everywhere*. The ground was overlaid with carpets (probably two layers thick), and carpets were draped all over the damn thing. Of course, that was in Nepal, not NYC... it's possible that tent-dwellers in NYC aren't as wealthy as the 1% over in Nepal.
Here's a related one from 2003 where we discussed the Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal of the 5th Circuit's ruling that proposed laws can be copyrighted, but laws adopted by the federal government must be 'open-sourced'.
Of course, you're looking for citations, not Slashdot navel-gazing discussions, but I'm sure there's some valuable info on there if you care to peruse it.
I think the current status is that some states still try to claim copyright over the presentation of their laws... but it hasn't been tested in court... like you, I was unable to find anything definitive.
No, in capitalism, the right man for the job is the most profitable. This may be the cheapest man, this may be the most expensive man.
No, in capitalism, the right man for the job is the most profitable to the individuals making the hiring decision. This may be the most profitable to the capital investors (in the ideal situation) or it may not be. Lots of time the decision-maker has an incentive to hire someone other than the best man.
This is the key fallacy to the concept of self-regulating capitalism. Read Greenspan's comments on this... he admitted it was his key error. The people making the economic decisions had huge incentive to make decisions that benefited them personally, while taking on too much risk for their companies. This is why a failure to regulate the banking industry led directly to the near-collapses in 2007-8.
Linear/exponential growth is not possible forever.
That's not the claim your citation makes. Murphy writes that he does not believe unending growth is going to happen, because human nature will not allow us to completely separate from preference for physical wealth. He does not claim it's impossible, and his math does not demonstrate that it's impossible.
If you're a long-only investor, why would you care about the liquidity that HFT provides?
The fact that stock price went either way doesn't matter to the company itself and it's business.
That's only if no executives/managers/employees are being compensated with stock or hold stock. You can be damned sure that a huge fluctuation in the share price (particularly downward) is going to effect the operations of the company... usually the company will shift to shoring up it's short-term position, which may be detrimental to the long-term growth of the company.
As a long-only personal investor, you should be very aware of this trend.
Electronic trading is here to stay, and programs have bugs- whether they react in 10 microseconds, or 50 milliseconds, if some firm wants to bankrupt themselves by distorting the price momentarily of a particular stock, humans aren't going to be able to prevent them.
Sure they will. We'll stop trading on the exchange in question, and then rescind the trades back to some point in time.
Hell, it's what we did last time there was a "flash crash".
Note: this only applies to the big boys. The little guys will be allowed to go bankrupt.
IIRC, that happened after he'd already donated dump-trucks full of money to museums, theaters, schools and various other stuff through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Just thought I'd point out that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is focused more on health care and disease eradication in the third world than any of the things you mentioned (though they all have value IMO).
No, it won't; at least, not for me. Not sure if you're referring to Arthur C. Brooks's "Who Really Cares" (Basic Books, 2006)... if so, please do yourself a favor and read some of the critiques out there. Brooks used varying confidence intervals to manipulate his data... namely, to show that liberal and conservative religious people give at the same rate. Most of his statistical analyses in the book use a 0.5 confidence interval, but curiously he chose to use 0.1 for that comparison. I wonder why?
The true correlation is that religious people give more than secular people. The least-giving cohort when you examine charitable giving by religious|secular and conservative|liberal is secular conservatives.
Seems to me that you're barking up the wrong tree.
I think your idea has some merit, but I think Slashdot should just eliminate the [over|under]rated mod options.
These moderation options are just metamoderation applied at a different level. Either make all metamoderation apply at this level (directly impacting the scores of comments in the live discussion), or leave all metamoderation to post-moderation analysis (where it doesn't affect the live discussion).
I'd like to see [over|under]rated eliminated, and metamoderation applied this way:
1. People eligible to conduct metamoderations (henceforth known as metamods) receive "metamod points", just as mods do with regular moderation. 2. A metamod can select agree or disagree for any moderation on any comment in any story. 3. In order to receive more metamod points, each metamod must also metamod a random selection of moderations. 4. All users would be able to see the metamod scores of each moderation by clicking on the score for a comment. 5. Any moderations that hit a threshold of negative metamods (by % of total metamods with a minimum # of metamods) get discounted from the total score of the comment.
So for example, there is a post with a current moderation of +1, Informative. If I'm a metamod, I can click on the score to see that this score is made up of two informative mods and one flamebait mod. I can then select 'agree' or 'disagree' for any or all of the three moderations. After metamodding a moderation, the view of that moderation returns to the default. If I'm not a metamod, what I'll see is the moderation breakdown with a number from 0 to 1 representing the proportion of metamoderaters that agree with the moderation.
The key to this is ensuring that metamoderation is easy, fast, and available to a great many users who meet the requirements of karma and of duration of account.
Name an online community with a more successful moderation system.
I think judging the site by the alternatives out there is a great way to stagnate at a less-than-ideal situation. Also, even if the problem is with the world, there are tweaks that could be done to the moderation system that could help make slashdot more immune to those problems.
Specifically, without rebuilding the mod system entirely, I think there is one thing I didn't see so far in the comments that could be done to improve moderation:
Disallow multiple moderations of posts by a single user within a single mod-point-availability session. I.e., once User A has moderated a post by User B, they are no longer allowed to moderate posts by user B until they get a new batch of mod points. This will help prevent modbombing of users. Obviously this doesn't apply to people posting as AC.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a pile of horseshit (though yes, the movie Sideways does suck).
People get all geeked out over all kinds of subjects, and there is no reason for wine geekery to be a less valid form of geekery than, say, smartphone geekery or movie geekery.
I'm a wine geek. I like tasting different wines, identifying what flavors are present and the compounds responsible for those flavors. I like appreciating the difference between a young wine vs. a mature wine due to oxidation in the bottle. I enjoy discussing the characteristics of the wine I'm sharing with friends or family, I enjoy the hunt for a bargain good wine. I delight in understanding the relationships between terroir, grape varietal, cultivation methods, and the flavors of wine. Winemaking is science wrought as art.
To sum up -- you suck for being a bitter, xenophobic geek. Not understanding another form of geekery is not a valid reason to belittle it.
Developing the nose of the wine is one reason to swirl the wine, albeit a very small one.
The real reason to swirl is if the wine hasn't been aerated sufficiently. Red wines in particular (to varying degree depending on varietal, age, etc) have a high concentration of tannins, which are responsible for the astringency of the wine. Aeration of the wine will oxidize the tannins, reducing their astringency.
Aeration will also mellow the other flavors via oxidation. I have found that a lot of people who say "I only like white wine" are actually just not a fan of the tannins in red wine. Proper aeration after uncorking often results in them liking red wines, especially if I choose a fruitier varietal.
Good wine snobs will test the nose of the wine (e.g., sniff it), then taste it. If it's too astringent to properly enjoy, they'll either let the glass sit for a while, or swirl the glass to aerate the wine.
Horsepoop. By asserting their trademark, they are *in fact* asserting that they are the only Koha distribution. That's what a trademark does.
It's not a worldview, and it's not an opinion. It is how civil disobedience is defined.
Because the original title was flamebait and would likely cause a degeneration of the discussion into traditional two-party bickering.
I haven't read all your links, though I'm familiar with all three acts, but I think you're aiming at the wrong target. The root of the conflict is not the economic crisis (that's only been a trigger for conflict-related movements like the Tea Party and OWS). The root of the conflict is economic inequality and the unholy alliance between economic titans and the federal government.
The income disparity was growing, and becoming problematic, prior to any of those three laws being passed. It really started to become a big problem in the 80s.
Not so. It was first organized by an international leftist magazine based in Canada (of note: 60% of Adbusters subscribers are in the US.)
The "chaos" was caused by the "conflict". The "conflict" is between different strata of the economic spectrum, due to the inability of those on most of the spectrum to share in the gains of the entire spectrum. This conflict was caused by the policies and culture that have led to the economic disparity. Please note this is only one cause, IMO the primary one.
Don't attribute to a single entity what is caused by a host of socioeconomic factors.
No, that totally misses the point of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not exactly what the protestors did; the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to unjust laws by violating then en flagrante, willfully submitting to punishment, in order to publicize the injust nature of those laws.
Disobeying one law to protest another law isn't really civil disobedience in its true form.
Where the hell do you live?! My cheapest local university is more than three times that. For part-time students, the tuition is $325/credit hour.
Gandhi (paraphrased from memory): First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
So I'm with you on Gandhi.
But King? I don't think wanted the full-force response. I think he truly believed that violence was abhorrent, even if it helped his cause. He continually preached messages of love, of non-violence: "Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
Last time I was in a yurt, there were carpets *everywhere*. The ground was overlaid with carpets (probably two layers thick), and carpets were draped all over the damn thing. Of course, that was in Nepal, not NYC... it's possible that tent-dwellers in NYC aren't as wealthy as the 1% over in Nepal.
We've had a couple discussion on this topic at slashdot... some googling has refreshed my memory:
Here's one from 2001 that is more regarding bills before they become law.
Here's a related one from 2003 where we discussed the Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal of the 5th Circuit's ruling that proposed laws can be copyrighted, but laws adopted by the federal government must be 'open-sourced'.
Here's one from 2008 that discussed the copyright of state laws (specifically California for that article). Of note, Carl Malamud was successful in getting Oregon to drop it's claim of copyright over the presentation of its laws in April of 2008.
Of course, you're looking for citations, not Slashdot navel-gazing discussions, but I'm sure there's some valuable info on there if you care to peruse it.
I think the current status is that some states still try to claim copyright over the presentation of their laws... but it hasn't been tested in court... like you, I was unable to find anything definitive.
If by "continues", you mean "is (albeit slowly) discontinuing".
No, in capitalism, the right man for the job is the most profitable to the individuals making the hiring decision. This may be the most profitable to the capital investors (in the ideal situation) or it may not be. Lots of time the decision-maker has an incentive to hire someone other than the best man.
This is the key fallacy to the concept of self-regulating capitalism. Read Greenspan's comments on this... he admitted it was his key error. The people making the economic decisions had huge incentive to make decisions that benefited them personally, while taking on too much risk for their companies. This is why a failure to regulate the banking industry led directly to the near-collapses in 2007-8.
That's not the claim your citation makes. Murphy writes that he does not believe unending growth is going to happen, because human nature will not allow us to completely separate from preference for physical wealth. He does not claim it's impossible, and his math does not demonstrate that it's impossible.
That's only if no executives/managers/employees are being compensated with stock or hold stock. You can be damned sure that a huge fluctuation in the share price (particularly downward) is going to effect the operations of the company... usually the company will shift to shoring up it's short-term position, which may be detrimental to the long-term growth of the company.
As a long-only personal investor, you should be very aware of this trend.
Sure they will. We'll stop trading on the exchange in question, and then rescind the trades back to some point in time.
Hell, it's what we did last time there was a "flash crash".
Note: this only applies to the big boys. The little guys will be allowed to go bankrupt.
Just thought I'd point out that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is focused more on health care and disease eradication in the third world than any of the things you mentioned (though they all have value IMO).
Obviously, no... he did not use bold in any of his html.
:)
Also, your mother is APK.
No, it won't; at least, not for me. Not sure if you're referring to Arthur C. Brooks's "Who Really Cares" (Basic Books, 2006)... if so, please do yourself a favor and read some of the critiques out there. Brooks used varying confidence intervals to manipulate his data... namely, to show that liberal and conservative religious people give at the same rate. Most of his statistical analyses in the book use a 0.5 confidence interval, but curiously he chose to use 0.1 for that comparison. I wonder why?
The true correlation is that religious people give more than secular people. The least-giving cohort when you examine charitable giving by religious|secular and conservative|liberal is secular conservatives.
Seems to me that you're barking up the wrong tree.
And awesomely, since the killies still take up the PCBs, those who eat them in quantity will be poisoned.
Narftrek confirms it! I AM kind of a big deal on the internet!
:)
Woohoo, I can't wait to tell my wife that my time spent ignoring her isn't wasted
I think your idea has some merit, but I think Slashdot should just eliminate the [over|under]rated mod options.
These moderation options are just metamoderation applied at a different level. Either make all metamoderation apply at this level (directly impacting the scores of comments in the live discussion), or leave all metamoderation to post-moderation analysis (where it doesn't affect the live discussion).
I'd like to see [over|under]rated eliminated, and metamoderation applied this way:
1. People eligible to conduct metamoderations (henceforth known as metamods) receive "metamod points", just as mods do with regular moderation.
2. A metamod can select agree or disagree for any moderation on any comment in any story.
3. In order to receive more metamod points, each metamod must also metamod a random selection of moderations.
4. All users would be able to see the metamod scores of each moderation by clicking on the score for a comment.
5. Any moderations that hit a threshold of negative metamods (by % of total metamods with a minimum # of metamods) get discounted from the total score of the comment.
So for example, there is a post with a current moderation of +1, Informative. If I'm a metamod, I can click on the score to see that this score is made up of two informative mods and one flamebait mod. I can then select 'agree' or 'disagree' for any or all of the three moderations. After metamodding a moderation, the view of that moderation returns to the default. If I'm not a metamod, what I'll see is the moderation breakdown with a number from 0 to 1 representing the proportion of metamoderaters that agree with the moderation.
The key to this is ensuring that metamoderation is easy, fast, and available to a great many users who meet the requirements of karma and of duration of account.
I think judging the site by the alternatives out there is a great way to stagnate at a less-than-ideal situation. Also, even if the problem is with the world, there are tweaks that could be done to the moderation system that could help make slashdot more immune to those problems.
Specifically, without rebuilding the mod system entirely, I think there is one thing I didn't see so far in the comments that could be done to improve moderation:
Disallow multiple moderations of posts by a single user within a single mod-point-availability session. I.e., once User A has moderated a post by User B, they are no longer allowed to moderate posts by user B until they get a new batch of mod points. This will help prevent modbombing of users. Obviously this doesn't apply to people posting as AC.
You do realize you're arguing on slashdot with Dunbal, right?
What else would you expect?