A well-designed test will not have the fallacy -- the purpose is not to determine whether you can select the "right" answer -- the purpose is to determine which right answer you'd select, and what insight that gives into how you would handle certain types of situations.
Any personality test with clear right/wrong answers is useless.
I ask them about out-of-office activities, since those projects are the ones where successful completion depends on self-control, not on direct and constant supervision. If they believably demonstrate that they successfully complete projects on their own, then it is likely that will carry into the office.
Yes, we can all sit back and let others do what's necessary to get these things to work out.
Seriously, these things only get worked out because individuals work at it. Badically, you're point is, "Someone else will take care of this, it doesn't matter enough to me for me to do something about it."
Not that your perspective is problematic (we can't all care about everything, nor should we), but your view really diminishes the efforts of everyone who labors to fix problems like the one in TFA.
Also, it's a view typical of the complacent majority that is at least partly responsible for the miserable state of affairs in the US today (pardon if you're not American -- but I think it holds true for most countries).
I didn't make any presumptions at all, sorry if YOU did when you read my post. I was making a point about the different types of people who use slashdot, and the fact that the 'geek' label that some people apply to themselves may or may not fit, depending on the person and the definition.
The fact of the matter is, many people who consider themselves to be a geek or nerd would not be considered a geek or a nerd by others. It's a badge of pride, but it just doesn't apply to everyone who thinks they are a geek.
"I ran a half-marathon in under an hour and a half and put up 235 pounds on the bench for anybody who doubts me."
I agree with your post, that there are plenty of techies who don't fit the geek stereotype, yourself included. But the people who doubt you probably won't be convinced by claims of athletic prowess:)
But those of us geeks who exercise regularly, maintain healthy relationships with our significant others and families, enjoy sports, eat well... maybe we're not true geeks. "Tech enthusiast" is a better label for us, and it's the one you used in your post.
Somehow, though, "News for Tech Enthusiasts/Stuff that Matters to Part of Your Lifestyle" just doesn't sound so great.
You're right of course -- but not only science and engineering degrees provide the technical skills necessary for a business.
For example, a contact of mine operates a (profitable) art gallery in NYC. Without her education in art history, there is no way she'd have the 'technical' knowledge necessary for her business. Would that education be possible outside of a formal university? Sure, but the university made it easier for her to acquire the knowledge, and the credentials don't hurt.
Very serious. It's a testament to your hard work and ability that you've met with success so often. But it's a far cry from normal.
Keep in mind, also, that success means doing better than the typical opportunity cost. Making a profit is not success. Making a profit in excess of typical investment returns = success.
Also, that figure is for 10-year survival rates -- according to Dun & Bradstreet, 9% of small businesses last 10 years. How many businesses have you run that lasted 10 years? Of the ones that didn't, why not?
The very fact that you've had 20 businesses tells me that for one reason or another (unless they were sold off and are still in operation) most of them were NOT successful. If you're operating fly-by-night companies for profit, you should instead count the enterprises as a single business, your proprietorship, with different brands.
If a business you ran WAS successful, why did you end the business? Was it becoming no longer profitable? If so, that's not a successful business at all. Again, though, if your business is to operate brands for a couple years, then discard them and start again, that's a single business, not 20.
Unpaid judgments are not cleared from credit reports AFAIK. Bankruptcy is a different matter, and seven years is a very long time. Not only that, but bankruptcy courts are not likely to allow the filing for a debt of $7500 -- almost anyone can pay that off (theoretically).
"In my experience, the number is closer to 6 in 10 if not more. "
Your experience is obviously out of line with what the rest of the country experiences.
" I've had 2 failures out of about 20 that I ran in my entire life, so I feel I'm ahead."
Good for you. But that doesn't mean anyone else can also expect a success rate like that.
"You can start a business for less than US$20,000 right now"
Depends on the business. Some require far more capital than that.
"That's funny because I've worked with medical research companies (two large ones in Lake County, Illinois) and I'm amazed at how many research doctors are foreigners with foreign educations"
You'd be surprised, I think, with how few of them completed their educations outside the US. Not only that, but regardless of where they got their education, they still got an education. I know your point here is that the US system is broken, but your original point was that college education is not worthwhile.
"On top of that, I travel the world at least 2-3 times a year, and I see more innovation outside of this country than I do here."
This anecdote is worthless to the discussion, there's no need to toot your own horn so often -- frankly, your business success and/or world travel has no bearing on the merits of your theoretical arguments. I doubt that your 'extensive world travel' is anywhere close to exhaustive enough to make base assumptions about the level of innovation occurring worldwide and in different countries.
"Go and invest that $150,000 in your own business and you'll be much happier (and successful)."
Sure, because all businesses succeed (hint: less than 1 in 10 do). Or because it's easy to get financing for a business plan when you're 18 -- don't forget that student loans and other financial aid are pretty much guaranteed. Or because people at the age of 18 all have the skills to run a business.
That "education" you speak of so disparagingly is what gives us a workforce that innovates, that has the knowledge necessary for complex jobs... like in the fields medicine (practice or research, you pick), or engineering, etc.
Because outstanding judgments can be listed on your credit reports. Since so many employers are now checking credit reports, probably not a good idea even if you don't care about your ability to get credit. Never mind whether you eventually want to get a mortgage or buy a car... even if you are issued credit, you'll pay for it many times over via an increased interest rate.
Decentralising cities? I can't see that helping. Centralization is what makes mass transit effective. Decentralizing would result in more driving, not less.
"Not to mention, I'm shocked that you think that taking away my ability to drive is a right that you have"
Since when would increasing funding for mass transit in preference to highways take away your ability to drive?
Since when was the ability to drive a right, anyway? It's not. The use of public space for transportation is a privilege, not a right.
Look at it this way -- what gives you, as a driver, the right to take away someone's ability to enjoy the property they own? Besides private proiperty being co-opted (with renumeration, of course) for highway building, how about the people who own property adjacent to a highway? What gives you the right to take away their ability to live peacefully?
Get a grip on reality -- drivers are granted all kinds of public considerations that make what is necessary for solid public transit pale in comparison.
15% of home power usage != 15% of power usage. Besides, power usage isn't what we're talking about here -- greenhouse gas emission is. The two are related, but not the same.
Not really, because the cost-savings also increase with inflation. If you buy an energy-efficient washing machine today, you will be saving on energy and water costs at the prices existant when you achieve the savings, not at today's prices. Assuming that energy and water prices appreciate at the same rate as the currency, this would even mean that you save MORE -- since any purchase savings you have now are devalued via inflation. And recently, energy costs have been increasing faster than the general rate of inflation, so that positive savings effect is amplified by the current and projected financial pictures.
Not that the Fed's attempt to dilute its debt by increasing the money supply (and allowing long-term monetary inflation while keeping price inflation in check) is a good thing, but it's not a problem with this case. Of note, it's telling that the Fed this year cancelled the M3, the best indicator we have of long-term inflation due to money supply issues.
"Imagine a system so large and sprawling and far reaching, that it can replace privately owned cars."
Not what I implied at all. I said increase to the level of highway funding, not replace it. Hub and spoke to town centers. Cars still useful, but not as necessary.
"And it won't be that good, so areas that could have grown and thrived under the old "Road and Car" system won't even exist until someone builds a bus or train station there."
See above. But, in addition, this is a positive IMO -- sprawl is a terrible affliction. Better mass transit would help revitalize our cities and towns, further decreasing our dependence on cars.
"Oh, and another issue. Denver is currently having a mass transit strike. Wanna take the bus or the light rail? Too bad.
Boo-hoo. A little inconvenience. What if your car breaks down?
"Frankly, I'm stunned that people think that placing your ability to go out and get food and work for a living solely in the hands of the government is a great idea."
Who said it has to be in the hands of the government? And even so, are you just as worried about the road system being in the hands of the government?
"Not to mention, I'm shocked that you think that taking away my ability to drive is a right that you have. "
Please stop making assumptions about what I think. Frankly, I'm shocked that you inferred something like that from what I wrote, since it said nothing of the sort. I sure as hell hope you're not old enough to vote.
Anyway, monopolies break the microeconomic theory that applies to markets in general. Plus, these goods are not commodities, they are not completely interchangeable. To suggest that a pure market economy would keep MS from leveraging its monopolies is disingenuous at best -- in pure market economies, monopolies can and do develop -- it's the natural progession of economies of scale.
I don't disagree with you at all -- but I wanted to point out that the H3 is remarkable more fuel-efficient than the H1 or H2. It's still a gas-hog, but not as bad as previous models.
"Between 80 percent and 90 percent are willing to take these energy-saving actions: wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars.
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."
BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.
I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.
And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.
You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.
Or even better, how about just understanding that the changes in the way the Web is used are incremental and calling it "Web 2.0" in 2006 is just as silly as calling it "Web.com" in 1999 would have been.
Regardless of what it's called, the intent is to make sure people are aware that the Web offers experiences different from what it offered to the mainstream even three years ago. Because we all need to feel good about the newfangled Web we're using, right? We shouldn't take all the goodiness for granted, right?
The Web is a utility, that's all. It's not new and improved version 2.0! It's the same constantly evolving data transfer utility it's ever been.
Slashdot Mirror
A well-designed test will not have the fallacy -- the purpose is not to determine whether you can select the "right" answer -- the purpose is to determine which right answer you'd select, and what insight that gives into how you would handle certain types of situations.
Any personality test with clear right/wrong answers is useless.
I ask them about out-of-office activities, since those projects are the ones where successful completion depends on self-control, not on direct and constant supervision. If they believably demonstrate that they successfully complete projects on their own, then it is likely that will carry into the office.
"These things tend to work out in the end."
Yes, we can all sit back and let others do what's necessary to get these things to work out.
Seriously, these things only get worked out because individuals work at it. Badically, you're point is, "Someone else will take care of this, it doesn't matter enough to me for me to do something about it."
Not that your perspective is problematic (we can't all care about everything, nor should we), but your view really diminishes the efforts of everyone who labors to fix problems like the one in TFA.
Also, it's a view typical of the complacent majority that is at least partly responsible for the miserable state of affairs in the US today (pardon if you're not American -- but I think it holds true for most countries).
I didn't make any presumptions at all, sorry if YOU did when you read my post. I was making a point about the different types of people who use slashdot, and the fact that the 'geek' label that some people apply to themselves may or may not fit, depending on the person and the definition.
The fact of the matter is, many people who consider themselves to be a geek or nerd would not be considered a geek or a nerd by others. It's a badge of pride, but it just doesn't apply to everyone who thinks they are a geek.
"I ran a half-marathon in under an hour and a half and put up 235 pounds on the bench for anybody who doubts me."
:)
I agree with your post, that there are plenty of techies who don't fit the geek stereotype, yourself included. But the people who doubt you probably won't be convinced by claims of athletic prowess
But those of us geeks who exercise regularly, maintain healthy relationships with our significant others and families, enjoy sports, eat well... maybe we're not true geeks. "Tech enthusiast" is a better label for us, and it's the one you used in your post.
Somehow, though, "News for Tech Enthusiasts/Stuff that Matters to Part of Your Lifestyle" just doesn't sound so great.
You're right of course -- but not only science and engineering degrees provide the technical skills necessary for a business.
For example, a contact of mine operates a (profitable) art gallery in NYC. Without her education in art history, there is no way she'd have the 'technical' knowledge necessary for her business. Would that education be possible outside of a formal university? Sure, but the university made it easier for her to acquire the knowledge, and the credentials don't hurt.
Very serious. It's a testament to your hard work and ability that you've met with success so often. But it's a far cry from normal.
Keep in mind, also, that success means doing better than the typical opportunity cost. Making a profit is not success. Making a profit in excess of typical investment returns = success.
Also, that figure is for 10-year survival rates -- according to Dun & Bradstreet, 9% of small businesses last 10 years. How many businesses have you run that lasted 10 years? Of the ones that didn't, why not?
The very fact that you've had 20 businesses tells me that for one reason or another (unless they were sold off and are still in operation) most of them were NOT successful. If you're operating fly-by-night companies for profit, you should instead count the enterprises as a single business, your proprietorship, with different brands.
If a business you ran WAS successful, why did you end the business? Was it becoming no longer profitable? If so, that's not a successful business at all. Again, though, if your business is to operate brands for a couple years, then discard them and start again, that's a single business, not 20.
"Most people will eagerly devour... page three girls..."
With some fava beans and a nice glass of chianti, hopefully.
Unpaid judgments are not cleared from credit reports AFAIK. Bankruptcy is a different matter, and seven years is a very long time. Not only that, but bankruptcy courts are not likely to allow the filing for a debt of $7500 -- almost anyone can pay that off (theoretically).
"In my experience, the number is closer to 6 in 10 if not more. "
Your experience is obviously out of line with what the rest of the country experiences.
" I've had 2 failures out of about 20 that I ran in my entire life, so I feel I'm ahead."
Good for you. But that doesn't mean anyone else can also expect a success rate like that.
"You can start a business for less than US$20,000 right now"
Depends on the business. Some require far more capital than that.
"That's funny because I've worked with medical research companies (two large ones in Lake County, Illinois) and I'm amazed at how many research doctors are foreigners with foreign educations"
You'd be surprised, I think, with how few of them completed their educations outside the US. Not only that, but regardless of where they got their education, they still got an education. I know your point here is that the US system is broken, but your original point was that college education is not worthwhile.
"On top of that, I travel the world at least 2-3 times a year, and I see more innovation outside of this country than I do here."
This anecdote is worthless to the discussion, there's no need to toot your own horn so often -- frankly, your business success and/or world travel has no bearing on the merits of your theoretical arguments. I doubt that your 'extensive world travel' is anywhere close to exhaustive enough to make base assumptions about the level of innovation occurring worldwide and in different countries.
"Go and invest that $150,000 in your own business and you'll be much happier (and successful)."
Sure, because all businesses succeed (hint: less than 1 in 10 do). Or because it's easy to get financing for a business plan when you're 18 -- don't forget that student loans and other financial aid are pretty much guaranteed. Or because people at the age of 18 all have the skills to run a business.
That "education" you speak of so disparagingly is what gives us a workforce that innovates, that has the knowledge necessary for complex jobs... like in the fields medicine (practice or research, you pick), or engineering, etc.
Because outstanding judgments can be listed on your credit reports. Since so many employers are now checking credit reports, probably not a good idea even if you don't care about your ability to get credit. Never mind whether you eventually want to get a mortgage or buy a car... even if you are issued credit, you'll pay for it many times over via an increased interest rate.
Decentralising cities? I can't see that helping. Centralization is what makes mass transit effective. Decentralizing would result in more driving, not less.
I was hoping there was more to it, some inside scoop or something. Meh.
"Ask about the waterfall over the Christie Digital booth at NSCA 2005..."
I'll bite.
What about the waterfall over the Christie Digital booth at NSCA 2005?
Need to address this more in depth.
"Not to mention, I'm shocked that you think that taking away my ability to drive is a right that you have"
Since when would increasing funding for mass transit in preference to highways take away your ability to drive?
Since when was the ability to drive a right, anyway? It's not. The use of public space for transportation is a privilege, not a right.
Look at it this way -- what gives you, as a driver, the right to take away someone's ability to enjoy the property they own? Besides private proiperty being co-opted (with renumeration, of course) for highway building, how about the people who own property adjacent to a highway? What gives you the right to take away their ability to live peacefully?
Get a grip on reality -- drivers are granted all kinds of public considerations that make what is necessary for solid public transit pale in comparison.
15% of home power usage != 15% of power usage. Besides, power usage isn't what we're talking about here -- greenhouse gas emission is. The two are related, but not the same.
Not really, because the cost-savings also increase with inflation. If you buy an energy-efficient washing machine today, you will be saving on energy and water costs at the prices existant when you achieve the savings, not at today's prices. Assuming that energy and water prices appreciate at the same rate as the currency, this would even mean that you save MORE -- since any purchase savings you have now are devalued via inflation. And recently, energy costs have been increasing faster than the general rate of inflation, so that positive savings effect is amplified by the current and projected financial pictures.
Not that the Fed's attempt to dilute its debt by increasing the money supply (and allowing long-term monetary inflation while keeping price inflation in check) is a good thing, but it's not a problem with this case. Of note, it's telling that the Fed this year cancelled the M3, the best indicator we have of long-term inflation due to money supply issues.
"Imagine a system so large and sprawling and far reaching, that it can replace privately owned cars."
Not what I implied at all. I said increase to the level of highway funding, not replace it. Hub and spoke to town centers. Cars still useful, but not as necessary.
"And it won't be that good, so areas that could have grown and thrived under the old "Road and Car" system won't even exist until someone builds a bus or train station there."
See above. But, in addition, this is a positive IMO -- sprawl is a terrible affliction. Better mass transit would help revitalize our cities and towns, further decreasing our dependence on cars.
"Oh, and another issue. Denver is currently having a mass transit strike. Wanna take the bus or the light rail? Too bad.
Boo-hoo. A little inconvenience. What if your car breaks down?
"Frankly, I'm stunned that people think that placing your ability to go out and get food and work for a living solely in the hands of the government is a great idea."
Who said it has to be in the hands of the government? And even so, are you just as worried about the road system being in the hands of the government?
"Not to mention, I'm shocked that you think that taking away my ability to drive is a right that you have. "
Please stop making assumptions about what I think. Frankly, I'm shocked that you inferred something like that from what I wrote, since it said nothing of the sort. I sure as hell hope you're not old enough to vote.
"In a pure market economy this could not work.
In the US market economy, supply consumes you!
Anyway, monopolies break the microeconomic theory that applies to markets in general. Plus, these goods are not commodities, they are not completely interchangeable. To suggest that a pure market economy would keep MS from leveraging its monopolies is disingenuous at best -- in pure market economies, monopolies can and do develop -- it's the natural progession of economies of scale.
I don't disagree with you at all -- but I wanted to point out that the H3 is remarkable more fuel-efficient than the H1 or H2. It's still a gas-hog, but not as bad as previous models.
"Between 80 percent and 90 percent are willing to take these energy-saving actions: wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars.
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."
BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.
I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.
And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.
You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.
Cool. But still tangentially helping to blow stuff up.
After 20 years (1961-1981) in the USAF, maybe Bob painted happy little trees because all his animosity had been used up in helping blow stuff up?
Web 2.0? Hardly.
How about Web 1.21 beta?
Or even better, how about just understanding that the changes in the way the Web is used are incremental and calling it "Web 2.0" in 2006 is just as silly as calling it "Web.com" in 1999 would have been.
Regardless of what it's called, the intent is to make sure people are aware that the Web offers experiences different from what it offered to the mainstream even three years ago. Because we all need to feel good about the newfangled Web we're using, right? We shouldn't take all the goodiness for granted, right?
The Web is a utility, that's all. It's not new and improved version 2.0! It's the same constantly evolving data transfer utility it's ever been.