Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 2 Dec 2006 07:39 On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:09:46 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:13:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>><snip> >>>Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. >>><snip> >> >> >> Nope. That only tells me you've never been there. Spoken like a >> person born with a silver spoon in their mouth. > >Believe as you wish. Because I'm not suffering you won't believe >anything I tell you. I'm not either. I've been lucky in my life. But I've been at both ends. Very poor, very young. Of independent means, today. Started businesses, ... But I also know where my debts of gratitude are at. >> I hadn't said that being poor means there are no opportunities. A >> smart person will recognize more of them. So being smart helps. A >> hard working person will be better able to make more of them. So >> being hard working helps. > >Good so far. > >> But wealth is a far bigger advantage for >> success than is being poor. > >That way of thinking excuses failure. I'm guessing you are one of those who feels that those who are poor are entirely to blame for their circumstances. Kids, too, I suppose. >> Control over capital and people creates opportunities and defends >> against feeling the fuller brunt of mistakes made in learning from >> them. > >> It would seem that you'd argue being poor is an advantage, too. If it >> weren't so patently laughable, I'd even imagine you actually believed >> it. > >You're wallowing in it. > >Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. That's not the only case, though that is some of it. Anyway, you are repeating yourself and focusing on only a part of the picture. Oh, well. Jon
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Dec 2006 07:47 In article <6cf96$4570eff6$4fe7357$10111(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> DEC was unique in that these kinds of people thrived. I remember >> one guy whose sole job was to walk the halls of the old Mill >> and just think. Other people implemented his ideas. > >A *really* good idea is such a major hurdle that most people >are fortunate if they have one in their lifetime. > >Multiples, WOW! [puzzled emoticon here] Lots of people had lots of ideas at my place of work. What was even better, our customers had even more. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Dec 2006 07:50 In article <ekplk1$qqg$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ekpd88$8ss_020(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>>regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>>separation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay >doesn't >>>>>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>>> >>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>>> >>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>>the >>>>>best advance. >>>> >>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>>estraordinary things. >>>> >>>>> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>>under capitalism. >>>> >>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>>> >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>capitalistic society? >> >>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>more often than the rich kid. >> >>A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production >>line and not spending all of their money on junk. That can only >>happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people >>become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only >>people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. >> >>/BAH > >You've obviously led a very sheltered -- I'd even say cloistered -- life if >you think that comes close to being reality. You think it is not reality because your environment is based on socialism. When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but poor. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Dec 2006 07:54 In article <45703E5A.EF353FB2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >> >> >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >> >> >capitalistic society? >> >> >> >> Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >> >> motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >> >> more often than the rich kid. >> > >> >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >> >> But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >> and not socialistic. > >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect it's just >another of your fanciful folksy notions. Nope. It's fact. > > >> >Th rich kid is likely to have a better education, >> >better connections and better >> >opportunities ( including relatively easy access to money for investment ). >> >> The rich kid is also likely to be quite lazy and never taught, nor >> learn, how to get work done. > >Based on what evidence exactly ? There is no need for the child to learn how to shoot dinner. There is no need for the kid to learn how to make things from old junk. There is no need to work the brain cells to figure out how to solve a problem insteading of spending money to solve the problem. > > >> As for education, the only way to learn stuff is by doing it or >> watching other people do it and then trying to emulate them. > >What does that have to do with being rich or poor ? People with no money tend to start working at an early age. Those with money don't because they don't have to. > > >> This does not include the GIGO which is now often found in >> universities these days. > >A lot of complete rubbish is certainly taught at unis. I think that has to do with schools' attitudes towards kids not being allowed to learn from making mistakes. It's an aspect of middle class. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Dec 2006 08:37
In article <r891n2tgs51rh297mtf76alagep3p1k02m(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Dec 06 14:12:24 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>>regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>>separation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>>> >>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>>> >>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>>the >>>>>best advance. >>>> >>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>>estraordinary things. >>>> >>>>> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>>under capitalism. >>>> >>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>>> >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>capitalistic society? >> >>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>more often than the rich kid. > >I can't believe this comment. By your theory, those with capital >would be smarter to just give it away because their children would be >more likely "to succeed," then. Quite a few rich men in the US past history have done this. One of the richest now is going to do this. > I don't see this happening in droves, >so there must be something to having money around that makes it worth >the troubles. Of course not. People tend to want to not have their kids have to go through similar experiences and try to make it easier for the kids. I think that's a mistake. > You think? Some do require their kids to work for their money. Some do give their kids enough time and no resources during their playing times so that the kids can explore and figure out what works and what doesn't work. Most middle class don't from what I've seen. > >I grew up poor, living in homes without walls, having to beg at stores >for food, working the vegetable and berry fields here to eat and live. >Yes, I was motivated. But then, there is another factor, too. I was >lucky. Everybody has to be lucky. Even the rich. If one Dad is rich from oil fields and they go dry, all of sudden they're poor. > >What unmitigated bullshit to have to read. Wealth presents far more >opportunity and it allows one to fail a few times to learn, as well. >It provides access to better education and more of it, more access to >important educational resources, better and more consistent medical >care (health is, in fact, important to success by any measure), the >time to cogitate about larger issues, and the time for personal care >and upkeep (exercise, etc.) It also gives you your own time back. > >The key ingredient missed by those who imagine that hard work and >intelligence are all that are needed to succeed, pasted together with >motivation, is the very important element of 'opportunity.' For the >poor, this amounts largely to 'luck.' One made one's luck in my time. I grew up in a farming and manufacturing part of the US. Anybody could get a production job and it paid very well. Any kid could get a job and earn money to go to college. Nowadays, the PC idiots have made it almost impossible for anybody to hire kids. For instance, there was a taxpayer mandate question on our ballot last month. It was to allow any grocery chain to have more than 3 liquor licenses. If it had passed, that would have been another sector of jobs that would be unavailable to kids; they're not allowed to sell booze. When I was a kid, kids were still allowed to work picking fruit and vegetables and throwing bales. Kids aren't allowed to do that work. Furthermore, if they do manage to get a job, they're only allowed to work 10 hours/week. You cannot save enough college money on that rate for four years. > For the rich, this includes all >of the luck element but adds a lot more in terms of much wider access >and the ability to create one's own opportunities with far less >personal risk in quality of life. Like plants, which require many >different ingredients to grow properly, success for the poor isn't >just a matter of motivation or a matter of hard work or a matter of >intelligence. Those certainly help, when opportunity does arrive, but >it is also a matter of just being lucky enough to have an opportunity >by which to apply those things well. > >Also, if you are poor, you are in little position to negotiate your >value. Anybody willing to work has a lot to negotiate with. There are all kinds of jobs that your so-called rich will not do. > Your needs are greater and you cannot risk satisfying them by >taking a lot of chances in negotiating adequate pay. Eventually, this >may change. But you have lost a lot of your life's time by then. And >that is very important, too. > >There are a lot of people who work very hard their entire lives and >are very intelligent folks, as well. They work just as hard and just >as smartly and with just as much motivation to improve their situation >as any who 'succeed' in life. And they live poor and die poor. The >difference is the opportunity of beneficial relationships. > >In any case, other facts also fly in the face of this comment. There >is no rapid disaffection of people and their wealth to give evidence >to your comment. And everyone knows you are wrong about this kind of >comment, anyway. It's downright nutty to see it in print. You did not corner the poor market. Other people have been poor and those people have figured out how to cope and accumulate wealth. The difference is that these types did not wait expecting other people to give them a handout and they did not spend their time exclusively bitching about having no money. They did whine but their hands were kept busy while they bitched. > >>A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production >>line and not spending all of their money on junk. > >Yes. When they have opportunity. In my day, if you wanted a job all you had to do is apply for it. Granted you probably wouldn't get a job at the highest paying factory, but there was always slots open at a lower rate. I worked in the fields with a family who supported themselves picking blueberries for the summer. And this was a family of 20, IIRC. > >Perhaps you are talking about the US, by the way. Yes. And I'm talking about my experience, my family's experience, and the experience of people who lived in the area where I grew up. > I can't say. But >I'm also speaking from my experiences as part of a 'train' moving >people from El Salvador to Canada in the 1980's. I got to see first >hand the effects on opportunity that happens when eight families >control almost all of the arable land in a country. > >It's not all about motivation. That's only one ingredient in a mix of >many others. And having sufficient money is far more benefit than >otherwise. (Up to a point, perhaps. I'm not sure about being >fabulously wealthy as I haven't yet experienced that -- except from a >distance when my mother was dating someone who owned a 300 foot yacht >[darn her for not marrying the guy, he was really nice, too.]) > >But I can tell you that being poor certainly isn't what seem to >incorrectly imagine it as. I know what having no money means. I also know how to solve that problem. It's called exchanging one's labor for money. If I were foolish and bought a GTO with that money instead of buying college tuition and a dorm room, I would have had a car but no skills or knowledge to do anything else but shove pickles into a jar. It all depends on how you spend the money you earn. However, today's PC attitude is that all kids have a right to obtain both the car and the tuition, and have somebody else (a.k.a govnerment) pay for it. This does not teach the kid how to work nor how to deal with money. The PC thinkers have the hidden agenda of turning everybody into slaves who will never learn how to deal with property, money and making wealth. You seem to have swallowed their class war rhethoric hook, line, and stinker. > >>That can only >>happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people >>become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only >>people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. > >Capitalism has its benefits. For a new society such as the early US >with vast, untapped resources to the west of it, it makes eminent >sense if you want to expand as fast as possible. But it is like a >wildfire that burns the easy resources first, and quickly. When the >easy resources are 'burned out,' and the perimeters are reached, then >a new sustainable burning process needs to become the operating mode. >Also, capitalism is often tethered to a partially separable concept, >which is 'private property ownership,' and this relationship may need >to change somewhat over time. I'm still mulling over those things and >others. It is the private property ownership that is key to capitalism. If you take that opportunity away, everybody will simply be punching the clock. They will not care if they produce quality products nor will they do anything about improving those products. One of the reason Russia failed is because people didn't own their patch nor did they own what their work produced. So they had absolutely no incentive to make a lot or do it well. If you have collective farm, the people who live and work on it will pull their eight hours each day. If you have a farm owned by one person or family, they will work 12-15 hours each day because they know they will own the product and be able to exchange it for anything they want and make a profit. They are motivated to work more hours and figure out how to be more efficient. > >If you want to see a system where private property ownership wasn't >present (and wasn't even imagined at the time and was learned only a >great personal peril and expense by a clash of hidden social norms), >take a look at earlier New Zealand Maori history. That works for small "families" in a small area where one's failure can wipe out the whole population. The social mores that evolved had to keep great and violent conflict out of the system. Your mention of a "few" families owning all the land is exactly what a socialist economy would create. EVerybody has to be kept equally poor. Since humans are involved there will be a few who are more equal because they make the decisions. Eventually, after a few generations, these become the owners of everything. Take a good look at Russia which is a better example than the Maoris. Russia had a large population distributed over a large area. /BAH |