If the poster is really a social worker as he claims, then it is reasonable to presume that he is there doing, well, social work. It is also reasonable to presume that if that is the case, it is important to the Lebanese people to have social workers at orphanages, and that there is insufficient supply of skilled professionals to meet the demand for them (scarcely surprising in Lebanon right now). So unless you really believe that social work counts as unskilled manual labor, or that providing social services to war orphans is completely unnecessary, kindly help yourself to a nice cup of shut the fuck up. Thanks!

Maybe so. I probably should have been clearer, though, and specified that by "mathematicians" I meant people who were profoundly gifted with mathematical skill, much like Grigory Perelman. I have known several people like this, and the behavior I describe is universal among them. I spoke to woman who had dated one for a long time, and when we she mentioned he was just such a mathematical genius I immediately was able to describe his personality to her with near perfect accuracy. She said it was like I knew him personally, when I'd never met the man in my life.

So, is my sample size too small to draw general conclusions? Probably, but I was just speaking as to my experience. And in my experience, the similarities between the mathematical geniuses I have known (or known of) are as striking as how different they are from other types of people. I don't find Perelman's behavior--or his presumptive motivations for such behavior--surprising in the least.

Perelman has a mind that is capable of taking in more information than any mathematical mind that has come before. His brain is like a universal math compactor. He grasps complex problems and reduces them to their solvable essence. The problem is that he expects human beings to be similarly subject to reduction.

This is a universal affliction among mathematicians I've known. They tend to look at the world mathematically, and aren't really able to understand things they can't reduce to an equation. This leads to a very black and white view of the world, where things must be a certain way, and anything that doesn't fall into that worldview is just wrong. Everything that people do must have a rational reason, and if they can't find one they will construct a reason that seems rational to them--regardless of how simplistic it is, or how dim a view of their fellow human beings it leads them to.

Mathematicians, by and large, tend to be very unhappy people in my experience. Not all of them, of course. Some mathematicians have a certain "spark" that allows them to abandon mathematics temporarily and give themselves over to the pleasure of an interpersonal relationship; but even so it is still against their nature to do so, and they will always slip back into the comfort of a mathematical outlook sooner or later.

I suspect that extraordinary skill in mathematics is not the cause of such a personality, but rather they are both common effects of some psychological variation that simply causes such people to perceive the world in a particular way.

Freedom is slavery, eh?

And apparently in your case, ignorance is strength.

Oligopolies are perfectly capable of being formed in a free market economy. A free market refers to the lack of governmental intervention except in cases of force or fraud. An oligopoly is a market segment (whether in a free market, a socialist economy, or even anarchy) that is dominated by a small group of entities. The two concepts are not incompatible, or even comparable. Saying "it's not a free market, it's an oligopoly" is a non-sequitur. It's kind of like saying "it's not a car, it's blue".

I think you may not be clear on what "free market economy" actually means. A free market economy requires a certain level of structure. The unauthorized taking of property by means such as fraud, theft, or extortion must be illegal and punishable by the government. Contracts must be enforceable by some means, either through the courts or through private governing bodies. And such laws must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens of a society. Without this fundamental framework, you don't have a free marked economy--you have anarchy.

Democracy has nothing to do with a free market economy. People are free to vote for or not vote for laws that detract from the freedom of the market, just as kings or dictators can enact or not enact the same laws. Democracy is merely the process of a society deciding how it runs itself, not how it's actually run. A free market economy is just as compatible with democracy as a socialist command economy is.

If they didn't get you on the back end, they could just charge you more up front to buy the phone, then amortize the up front cost through lower monthly bills, until in the end you pay the same amount. That way, they could even offer "no termination fee!" But I'm sure somebody would still get pissed at call it deceptive business practices. It's a free market, and they can charge anything they like. This is a total non-story.

Please, Slashdot, can we have a way to filter out stories by submitter? I don't think I've ever seen a story from "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" that doesn't irritate me with its smug sanctimony and total irrelevance. Personally, I don't believe in imaginary news.

Luxury!

I used to get up at 10 o'clock at night--half an hour BEFORE I went to bed--work 29 hours a day down mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work. Then when I'd get home, my dad would kill me and dance about on my grave singing 'Allelujah!

If that's what passes for funny in Britain these days, then I won't worry about bringing any Benadryl on my next trip there.

Try actually searching for those terms. It's the title of an essay satirizing Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Biblical literalism. Not so weird, really, in context.

This is two monumentally stupid articles I've seen from CNET UK in as many days (the other one being the power plugs article from yesterday). If Slashdot continues to post them, I think we should insist on a tag just for that site so we can filter them out.

Oh, well that TOTALLY justifies the random assault on and murder of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of property, and terrorizing of an entire city.

Time to break out the Stone of Triumph!

That's not what I said. I said that in some cases, some people will not be able to afford to litigate cases they could probably win. Having these sort of investors helps to rectify that situation.

In most cases, it doesn't. In small claims court, you can't have a lawyer. And in lawsuits that involve great sums of money, you generally can't afford NOT to have the best legal representation that you can afford. As a litigant, you often have the option of proceeding pro se, or hiring much cheaper legal counsel to represent you. But this is generally accepted to be a false savings. And if you artificially limit the price of legal representation, you also artificially limit the quality. Simple economics.

They do. That's one reason why you're required to have a lawyer represent you in lawsuits in Federal court. And a natural result of having good legal representation cost as much as it does is that the frivolous cases that have no chance of winning tend not to be brought. Also, most lawyers do not want to have their reputations sullied by bringing numerous meritless cases, thereby potentially opening themselves up to such sanctions.

You could also reason that this will bring down the cost of legal representation, as large corporations with bottomless war chests are no longer able to simply pay for a team of lawyers to drag out the case until the plaintiff runs out of money. It will end up being much cheaper to simply settle the case quickly. That reduces the demand for legal services, thereby reducing the price of same.

That doesn't follow. Participating in the legal system has always had a price, and sometimes people cannot afford to get the justice they deserve. That is a fact of life, and has always been the case. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because it also prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits for trivial sums (there is, of course, a venue for low value lawsuits--small claims court--but there, since you cannot hire a lawyer to represent you, you must pay with your time). If anyone could proceed with a major lawsuit for free, the system would be choked with people hoping to squeeze a dime out of anybody with money.

Such people aren't affected by this. So they're really no worse off than they were before.

RIAA doesn't need this. They have deep pockets. And if they're really making less money through settlement than it would cost to fight the lawsuit, then they're not likely to get any investors now, are they? The only reason to invest in a lawsuit would be with the hope of making a profit through either a large settlement or judgment.

But the people who COULD use this are those who want to, say, countersue RIAA for harassment, or filing false claims. Normally, RIAA could just weather the storm and outlast their opponents, who have limited resources. But faced with the proposition of a lawsuit that could potentially drag on and cost them serious money, they're more likely to simply settle and be done with it, especially if the merits of the case weigh strongly against them.

And replacing them with cancerous elements in the new system that are in favor of change merely for its own sake, regardless of the effect it has.