Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Journal: Like I was saying: 'Foot off the brake' 8

The August jobs numbers are disappointing. The economy gained 169,000 non-farm payroll jobs, below the estimated figure of 175,000. Much worse, however, were the downward revisions for past months. July’s job numbers went down 58,000. The total revision for June and July is 74,000 less than previously expected. Then there is the labor participation rate: It dropped to 63

Comment Re:Oh, really? (Score 1) 1255

You car company analysis doesn't take into account my point.

If a company goes down, the market for that service is otherwise healthy, and its competitors thrive, then that company failed to compete.

You seem to think you can invalidate the last 400 years of economic history by being obtuse. It is not a viable rhetorical strategy.

Please don't pretend to be stupid. I know you're not stupid. So if you have a point, make it directly and stop dancing around trying to trip me up on rhetorical points that I will ignore for being irrelevant.

It merely wastes time. Make your point. I will make my point. We will move on.

Comment Trying to disagree gently here (Score 1) 35

I wouldn't say anyone is getting buried in legislation and regulation. Each business makes their own choices on how to respond to any given new law.
. . .
Businesses are taking employees who they were already treating poorly, and finding an excuse to treat them worse. If these employees were previously above 40 hours they would have already had health insurance available to them. Now the bar has been lowered to 30 hours and the employer responded in kind by cutting the employee hours. Nobody forced them to do that; they could have just as well bumped them up to 40 hours in preparation and treated them like real live full-time employees.

One is sorely tempted to sarcasm.
Just hiring a nanny to look after my little one was an orgy of pain.
I was all macho: "I can surely figure out the taxation/regulations to pay all the taxes and do this correctly."
Flog me gently with a live cattle prod, boss: It. Sucked. Pond. Water.
And that's just to hire a glorified babysitter!
Perhaps you've a photographic memory, no sleep requirements, and a natural gift for sorting out Byzantine utterances. But I submit that you may be under-appreciating our government's penchant for throwing entropy into a situation.
Also, managing a business isn't sadism: the PHB is a Dilbert character. Successful businesses are run by actual people who aren't deliberately punishing people. See: Chick-Fil-A.
Cheers,
Chris

Comment The real concern (Score 5, Insightful) 607

While you guys are cracking jokes on ROT13, a letter to NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=0 ) caught my attention

- - - B Missouri Reader
        Missouri

On the one hand, âoeIn the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,â but on the other hand the liberties of Americans are at risk by such programs.

In other words, we face a situation where the strongest, most secure nation can no longer be a nation that guarantees the rights of its citizens.

Privacy is not simply a convenience, but it is intimately linked to free speech and to the future prospects for democracy in America. Key elements of the Constitution provide a framework where incumbents can be challenged in free elections, ensuring that better ideas and better leaders will become available to guide the nation. But nobody can win an election against an incumbent with unlimited access to the communications of its rivals. We're not there yet, but the trend is in that direction.

It is high time that members of both parties in Congress get off of their high horses and address this growing threat to our democracy. Technical and legal hurdles must be cleared, and it may even be necessary to make significant changes in the way the internet works. But time passes very quickly in the technology world, and the clock has already been ticking for quite a long time."

Comment Re:So it has come to this (Score 1) 531

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

I am an American.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

But I am a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.

The only way forward for the United States of America - if it is to remain a country FREE OF TYRANNY - is for the Americans to stand up for OUR CONSTITUTION.

We should stop dividing ourselves into splinter groups (such as left vs right, pro-choice vs pro-life, republicrooks vs democrooks, ACLU vs NRA) and should instead VOICE OUT OUR DISPLEASURE AGAINST THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH ONE VOICE.

It is now or never.

If we do not stand up now for our country, our children, and theirs, will suffer.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

you decided to come try to sell lies to me again

Sigh. You're a liar.

[you] get mad

You're a liar.

when I point out that they are a huge bag of lies

You're a liar.

You really aren't very good at this discussion thing

You're a liar.

your pathological denial of reality

You're a liar.

prevents you from ever learning anything.

You're a liar.

I'm tired of dealing with your bullshit.

You're a liar.

You treat me like shit every time you reply to my messages

You're a liar.

I don't want to talk with you any more.

You're a liar.

There is no reason at all to presume that you ever wanted to talk with me, either.

This part is true. I never wanted to talk to you. I have no idea who you are, and I know nothing about you. I speak to what is spoken, and not to who is saying it.

You tell lies, so I treat you appropriately to that. It's terribly simple.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

The free market, if it were the only force, would allow for all kinds of crazy experimentation that comes about with no background research or understanding of the laws of nature and physical reality. Our current system in the US has created the greatest number of medical discoveries that mankind has ever seen. We had to get out of the dark ages of bloodletting and associated voodoo in order to get here, if we dropped all regulation we could well end up there again.

Capitalism is the accelerator, regulation is the brake.
No sane person is suggesting we drive without brakes.
What I'm suggesting is that pressing down on the brake pedal is not going to drive the economy any faster.
When Congress and the Administration bury private enterprise in legislation & regulation, such that companies have to lay on staff to (a) read, (b) comply, (c) litigate the ensuing rent-seeking, That. Is. Not. Legitimate. Economic. Growth. Furthermore, laws/regs distort the market such that companies screw staff to stay afloat, or not starting at all.
What can I say? Dumb voters are as readily fleeced by capitalists as politicians. Ignorance, where not fatal outright, can be expensive.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

Funny how you apply that label every single time you accuse anyone of lying. Why are you uniquely entitled to determine what claims are "unsubstantiated" and which are not?

You're lying. I never stated or implied that. When I call something unsubstantiated, it is only because either (this is the usual case) no substantiation was even offered at all, or what was offered was very very clearly shown to not amount to the slightest bit of substantiation. I don't have a ready example of the latter, but your posts are filled with the former.

So you admit there are no facts to back up your statement.

False. Please stop lying.

Easily half the sentences you have written in this thread support my statement, and pretty well none of them support yours.

You're a liar.

You already stated that just a couple quotes ago.

You're a liar.

Your own statements above refute that notion.

You're a liar.

you admit to not having facts to back up your assertions.

Only in one case: when my assertion is simply stating that an argument, without any evidence provided, is false. If you say "2+3=4", I do not have to provide any facts. I just say you're wrong. That is sufficient. It is up to you to provide the facts. There is nothing wrong with not providing facts, when there is no reason to do so.

Now granted, you don't know who is the person behind damn_registrars, but you certainly know that you are replying to damn_registrars.

No, at the time I wrote that, I did not.

You are lying on that matter.

You're a liar.

You write differently when you are spouting lies in front of me than you do when you are spouting lies in front of other people.

You're a liar. In fact, my responses are generally not to people, but to their words. Anyone using your terribly dishonest and ignorant words would get the same response. It's your words, not your nickname or anything else about you, that influence my reaction.

Comment Re:Oh, really? (Score 1) 1255

As to schools closing down due to low standards, actually its redundent in most cases.

Lets say a car company goes out of business. Why would a car company go out of business when other car companies do not? Because other companies provided a superior product or had a superior price which is really the same thing since the cost is a variable of the product or service.

A private school that closes due to poor attendance is a school that customers decided did not offer a competitive product/service.

The only situation where such a school would not be held as at fault would be schools in low population areas where there is a decline in the actual number of possible customers. So all rural NON-boarding schools can be removed from the search or urban schools in neighborhoods with significant population declines. Everything else is customers choosing a different provider which leads to the closure of those schools.

As to your assertion that supply and demand doesn't work in private education or that competition doesn't work in private education, you've offered no logic to justify that private education alone is immune a fairly basic and universal law of both economics and human psychology.

That a mistake that many people make in these matters. They think its an economic argument and they get their little ideologies tied up in things that they think opinions can touch. They can't. You're dealing with the way the human mind works. Its not a matter of opinion. Its a matter of basic human psychology which ultimately defines the behavior and sustains the principle.

Comment Re:If the shoe were on the other foot... (Score 1) 35

You accuse me of lying all the time and never provide evidence to back it up.

We've gone over this.

When you make an unsubstantiated claim, I need no evidence to say you're lying. The burden of proof is on you. That is the only time I do not back up my claims of lying, when it is in response to such a claim.

You haven't provided any links for your allegations

My main "allegation" is a statement of reason, not of links or facts. It is very clear that this sort of fraud is simple to execute, and hard to detect. It is therefore necessarily true that the number of specific allegations of fraud can be vastly outnumbered by the actual incidents of fraud, so the data you cite of allegations necessarily doesn't tell us the actual story.

Argue against my reasoning if you want to, but don't pretend I need to provide "links" for it.

you aren't here to have a discussion

You're a liar.

How would voter id prevent that?

*facepalm*

You could borrow his id (because, as you said, he doesn't care) and vote on his behalf.

We're talking about photo ID, remember? And maybe we look the same, but most people don't look the same as the people they might be voting for. You're being intentionally obtuse.

There you go, making things up again.

Uh. You really think most people in the bottom two quintiles don't have government photo IDs? Wow. Even the leftist Brennan Center says merely 11 pecent of people don't have it. Even if 100 percent of the top three quntiles have it (it's not that high), that means still well over half of the bottom two quintiles (almost three-fourths) have one. And even if you only want to talk about the bottom quintile, and we put all 11 percent of those people in that quntile, it'd still be just under half of them (45%). But we know that not all 11 percent are in that quintile. Even if as much as 95% of the other four quintiles have ID, that means 65% in the bottom quintile have one.

So at *worst* it is 45% of the bottom quintile that have the ID already, and it is really probably closer to 60% or more.

Sorry, who is making things up?

You said these laws make it much harder for poor people to vote. But the facts show most of them are unaffected, and most of the rest are given ample opportunity to engage in the free and easy process to get the ID.

You said the facts show there is not much fraud, but the facts actually show -- when applying reason -- that the facts are incapable of showing that, because so much of the fraud is undetectable.

Of course, you've shown before that you aren't afraid to make shit up out of thin air when you can't support your argument with facts.

You're a liar.

Did you somehow not notice I wrote it?

Actually, I still don't know who I am talking to. I cannot be bothered to scroll up to see. And I don't care.

Comment Re:Random (letter) selection (Score 1) 164

Fair enough.

It might be useful for me to clarify my stance on a few things in reference to your comments here, now that this has become an actual discussion beyond my 3-word quip we started with.

There are a lot of different viewpoints under the general term "ID" (which I take to mean as scoping to exactly what it says, no more, no less--design by an intelligence, how and "who" being independent questions that are largely philosophical rather than scientific, at least at this point).

I do not question that a great deal of explanatory power is offered by reference to standard mechanisms of natural selection. I do not dispute that the Earth is billions, not thousands, of years old.

And, indeed, my knowledge of genetics is limited--I am a software developer by profession. What troubles me here at Slashdot, though, is a kind of automatic dismissal of even inquiring into the possibility of design as a causal factor in our genetic makeup. I do believe that it is often the case, now that the topic has become very politically polarized, that the naturalistic evolution position overstates its case, on particular issues, as "fact" when in reality it remains a theory undergoing constant refinement (we can refer to the continual modification of "the" structure of the "tree of life" for a direct example). I have no expectation that the broad structure of evolutionary theory will be discarded at any point, my interest lies more on the "edge cases" where ambiguity, and therefore worthwhile analysis, exists. And I do think that often confirmation bias comes into play on the part of the "established" evolutionary models.

Which, to me, is counterproductive and really contrary to the nature of science. If in fact, there do exist any Irreducibly Complex biological structures, this does not preclude viability on either side of what generally ends up being a theism-atheism split on the issue. One could happily be an atheist even in the case of a clear IC structure being identified, with the conjecture that, say, an extraterrestrial race genetically engineered the modification--much as a theist can consider even in the absence of an IC structure that evolution is essentially a "biology factory" which was in itself designed by God.

So, from the standpoint of one's worldview, it isn't crucial either way. But from the standpoint of advancing science, it could be very interesting, and it would be a great loss to miss such a case due to the whole category of suggestions that a particular mutation might have been designed (intentionally caused for a particular advantageous outcome) being dismissed a priori for "political" reasons.

Now on your software analogy, I think there may be an element to the connection to the overall topic you may be missing. Let's note here that reusing those "features" and their implementation are squarely a case of design, by an intelligence, that intelligence being "us". If this kind of "code reuse" exists extensively in biology, that would weigh more strongly to the notion biology also had directly-designed elements, than the notion similar features came into place independently due to a random-mutation/natural-selection process, though, it is not impossible for that to have occurred. As you say, there is much we don't know about genetics. So long as it is indeterminate for a given case, though, I'd prefer to keep the question open and viewed with unbiased eyes.

Toward that question, it would probably be worth noting a pertinent difference between "current ID thinking" (e.g. Behe) and "mainstream" evolutionary theory. As I'm sure you are well aware, within the mainstream viewpoint, the majority of complex structures arise through successive series of mutations that are selected for due to some advantageous attribute--and indeed, no argument from me that many, many changes to biological structures do indeed happen this way. The particular distinction with this viewpoint that ID postulates (and ID tends to get "suppressed" so vociferously that most aren't even aware of this idea as a core part of its content) is that DNA originated with a great deal of the information necessary to codify various biological structures from very early on in history, such that some features aren't so much "built up by selection", but rather "activated from what was already coded in the DNA". Here is where it could be directly pertinent to the "incredible" findings relating to the number of genes involved in the convergent evolution--it would certainly, on the face of it, be more probable to have "flipped the enable physical structure X bits", than to form their structure whole-cloth and independently by random mutation and selection. This notion of the "information" for all biology existing in DNA from very early on, naturally, intuitively falls more in-line with a design paradigm, where such additional complexity could be intentionally constructed from the outset. Again, though, this would not preclude a naturalistic explanation entirely either--if one could conceive of a remarkably-complex structure forming as part of abiogenesis, one could also fairly naturally conceive of an extra-remarkably-complex structure, containing the necessary "data" for future unexpressed biological forms, also occurring "by chance".

At least on the face of it. We aren't at the point with genetics yet to be able to state with certainty, and my primary interest in "supporting the ID meme" here is that this possibility doesn't languish entirely unconsidered, due to an entrenched preconception about what genetics will ultimately tell us.

Comment Re:Lucky I wasn't there (Score 1) 35

...I was commenting on your standard response to people who refuse to stick to your narrative... which you just confirmed again in your last post. TNX

So you say that you were not commenting on this guy, but in general, but then you say this case confirmed it, which is only possible if you are commenting on this guy.

You suck at this.

Slashdot Top Deals

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

Working...