 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>
>
> I'm still no wiser.
>
Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
the middle class (hell, I made less than 13k last year on my own job),
while lining the pockets of people that, if they keep it up, will have
to sell shit they make in China to people in Mexico, because the people
in the US won't be able to afford to buy it. And, half the idiots in
congress right now think jobs, pay rates, deficits, budget short falls,
costs in general, and the inability of anyone to buy anything, is all
going to be fixed by good old Reagan Voodoo Economics (i.e., trickle
down economics), so the solution is more outsourcing, removing minimum
wage laws, stripping away safety nets, repealing anything the government
does for people, oh.. and giving more tax breaks to "US companies". The
same companies shipping more than 49.9% of their jobs to some other country.
This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point. Even the damned
experts responsible for determining what the effect of government
policies has all say its madness. Many of the people in the party
driving this have said "parts" of it are mad, even if they won't say all
of it is. Its, to use a literary analogy, like watching the Wizards from
the Unseen University, of Discworld fame, try to balance the budget,
while Star Trek Ferengi give them advice on the rules of acquisition.
The "experts" they use are in it purely for the money, and by 'the
money', I mean *their money*, not to help anyone, unless it makes them
more money doing it, and the people they are advising are back stabbing
idiots, who say things like, "Sputnik caused Russia to go bankrupt!"
Thereby simultaneously missing *why* the satellite was even mentioned
*and* proving they probably couldn't correctly tell someone what they
had for lunch five minutes ago, and get it right, never mind quote
plausible facts from world history.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:56 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
>
> Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
> "you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
> some cash". That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
>
> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
> lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>
Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was
wrong, or are never heard from again.
>> Otherwise, not so much.
>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>> example of "success".
>
> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after all,
> optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
>
> Jim
There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination
of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember
a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the
con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back,
called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by,
harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.
Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most
people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things
they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those
makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately
wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
>> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
>> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
>
> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
> discussion.
>
Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
valid description of *anything* at all...
Mind, show me a religion that has *as much* consistency as string theory
does to itself, and we can talk about the plausibility of it. It should
also be noted that, imho, you just excluded pretty much every western
religion in existence, since the only way to make most of them self
consistent is by throwing out most, if not all, of the stuff the purport
to base themselves on, and/or ignore the evidence (or total lack of it)
supporting any of what they keep.
Sort of becomes an argument in line of, "Well, Tolkien's world is self
consistent, as long as you ignore a) reality, b) all the stuff the ideas
in it where stolen from, and c) the scattered notes he used to construct
it, which show he changes bits in various places. But, you know, as long
as you ignore it being fiction, and the old stuff it came from, and the
stuff he edited, its all completely reasonable... lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:16:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning
>> the lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
>> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>>
> Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was
> wrong, or are never heard from again.
Sure, people tend to focus on what works when it works, not when it
doesn't.
>>> Otherwise, not so much.
>>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>>> example of "success".
>>
>> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after
>> all, optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of
>> success.
>>
> There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination
> of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember
> a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the
> con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back,
> called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by,
> harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.
Everyone has personal biases. Even you. :-)
> Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most
> people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things
> they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those
> makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately
> wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".
I can't even begin to tell you the number of times something has happened
to me that has looked bad (and in fact probably been bad when it
happened), but in the end, things have worked out for the best. Even
when I lost my job and spent 4 months unemployed without unemployment
benefits - but with a mortgage.
I think that even though I was depressed, I was optimistic that things
would work out. And they did. Does that make me a moron for being
optimistic? I don't think so.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:33:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>
>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
Alternate theory, then: Those who had committed violent crimes were
either dead or in jail, and thus unable to commit more crimes.
Or they got past that "phase" of their lives and have gone on to become
productive members of society.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:48:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
> Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
> ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc.,
Don't you *dare* put words in my mouth, Patrick. I didn't say that, nor
did I imply that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:23:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
>> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
>> discussion.
>>
> Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
> theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
> valid description of *anything* at all...
I don't believe I was involved in that discussion. I certainly don't
know a lot about string theory, and not nearly enough to compare a
religion to it.
That is just a ludicrous statement/challenge.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > But you're quite liberal.
> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>
Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the pond.
>> > It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
>> > reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
> True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if
> that carried over to UK culture.:-)
>
It is not a word in common usage here. But I suppose most of us could
guess its meaning.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2011 2:39, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
> Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
> Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
> maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
> laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
> was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
> both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).
Sorry for the typo. The spell-checker didn't get it because I changed on
a chance that was an existing word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 2:09 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>>
>>
>> I'm still no wiser.
>>
> Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
>
> Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
> the middle class
[Snip]
Now I understand and sympathise.
We have had similar situations since the Blessed Mrs T </irony> came to
power.
> This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point.
[Snip]
They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
