Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 130

by circletimessquare (#49799657) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

where a leader takes society has no meaning

whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does

you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not

what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?

get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic

stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand

 

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 130

by circletimessquare (#49799325) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

There's plenty of socially intelligent people with shitty jobs. There's plenty of people with crap social skills who are very successful at their jobs.

if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent

likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent

for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 130

by circletimessquare (#49799189) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

Of course bad decisions that degrade the performance of the group are failures of the leader.

absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership

if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader

Just like a chemist who accomplishes nothing but retaining his job is not a successful chemist.

no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails

again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 2) 130

by circletimessquare (#49799009) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

yes, while the guy who does good on his SAT is usually also socially intelligent as well, as you say, my point is that the guy who does poorly on his SAT but is socially intelligent, will be more successful in life, and is more intelligent according to the most important measure, than the guy who has stellar SAT scores but can't persuade or impress for shit

there are people who think, for example, an amazing ability to manipulate complex topological shapes in your head means you're somehow a more intelligent person or will be a more successful person than a guy who can't do much math at all, but is charismatic

that's my point here

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 130

by circletimessquare (#49798743) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

having social intelligence is not a magic cloak of perfection, it is merely the most important kind of intelligence in terms of all the types of intelligence in regards to your success or not

and then you go off on a tangent about leadership. off topic, but i'll follow regardless:

you've given me examples of leaders making stupid decisions according to your judgment outside of the domain of leadership. so what. they're still the leader. that's the point. the skill of obtaining and retaining leadership has nothing to do with listening to engineers or academics. it's about being the person making the decision

The more successful leader types know their own limitations and use expert advisors - and listens to them.

nope. you're imposing an outside judgment of quality that has no meaning to the domain of what leadership is and how it works

whatever decision they make on other aspects of society because they have power: correct, mediocre, or absolutely destructive, doesn't even matter. if they can sway enough idiots with enough passion to retain power, that's all that matters. mao's great leap forward was beyond stupid, it was a tragedy of the death of millions. so what? he was still the dude in charge. making a decision that would cost him his leadership would be the real failure of leadership

that's the definition of success according to the parameters of being a leader: obtaining it, retaining it. that's it. that's the only yardstick to measure quality

actually advancing society, humanity, technology, science: who fucking cares? you are imposing an outside judgment of success that actually has no value in terms of success in that actual domain

whatever the academics in the ivory tower see or think or perceive, their opinion: who gives a fuck. does it mean i get more power? no? whatever

if you're a chemist, and you discover an amazing new catalyst, you're successful according to that domain: chemistry. but according to the guy who cleans your equipment, you're a dismal failure because you keep a messy lab. is his judgment of your success or lack thereof somehow magically more important than what you've achieved in the domain of chemistry?

likewise your judgment of what success is in leadership: an outside measure according to parameters that have no impact on obtaining and retaining leadership, is without merit

address the fundamentals of the domain to make a judgment call on success or failure in that domain

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 130

by circletimessquare (#49798127) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

SAT and IQ tests certain domains that are predictive of intelligence and achievement but don't gauge the most important intelligence for life: social intelligence

much as you can have as autistic savant/ asperger's individual who can play 12 games of chess in his head but doesn't know the difference between the price of a candy bar and a car, the rest of us also have small mental domains where we are geniuses, but in other domains we are idiots. all of us. for those who attach much value to topological manipulation or word memorization, tested intelligences, real life will come as a shock when someone else who isn't "smart," according to traditional testing methods, achieves highly and surpasses the "smart" individuals, because they are able to perceive, communicate, and manipulate in the social sphere of life at a more advanced level

social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?

btw, i scored near perfect on my SAT and very highly on my IQ tests. i attach no self-worth to either. they are cute little games, sandboxed kiddie stuff, not my sense of meaning in life. anyone who attaches meaning to their SAT scores or IQ tests is, in all serious, an idiot

I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.

- Response upon being questioned as to his IQ, in interview with Deborah Solomon "The Science of Second-Guessing", The New York Times (12 December 2004).

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S...

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 213

yes, agreed. the idea of keeping anything larger than an atom entangled for anything longer than a second over any distance over an inch seems like a colossal almost impossible task with today's technology

i was only doing a thought experiment

in the realm of way out there then: i wonder if you could entangle a number of "copies" of yourself: dozens, hundreds, millions

you just sort of disperse throughout the universe (not interacting with anything, i know, basically impossible by today's standards)

but in an instant, if you, or someone outside, decides one "copy" of you should be the one that coheres at a given place: boom, you're there

just an interesting thought with interesting ramifications- you (or someone else) doesn't have to decide out of dozens or maybe thousands of destinations... until the very last moment. that's a pretty exotic form of "travel"

Comment: Re:A niche product in a niche market (Score 1) 525

it's called desalination and it's a common mundane technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

"boiling the oceans" makes me think you have no fucking clue about the kind of scale we're talking about here

if every nation exerted every single drop of it's GDP building desalination plants, we wouldn't make the tiniest of dents in the oceans genius

Comment: Re:A niche product in a niche market (Score 1) 525

if they desalinate ocean water for drinking purposes, the question is what to do with all that salt

answer: process it and take out all of the economically important trace elements, not just lithium

The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes, where the element exists at a relatively constant concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm),[40][41] or 25 micromolar;[42] higher concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

sure, this would put lithium at a high price point, but not that high if the desalination and concentration process is mostly solar powered and on a massive scale for drinking water purposes

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 213

i get it: they are guaranteed the same white noise, which is fine for encryption purposes (and know if someone snooped, because that would render their white noise dissimilar)

but there is no preserving the integrity of a particle/ wave for transportation purposes

thank you, i learned something

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning

Working...