Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 09:19 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > unsettled wrote: > > > Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > > > > > > 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.' 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. > > > > > > snip > > > > > > Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. > > > > Sounds impressive but ultimately falls short. > > Only in societies where the nerve has been cut. Amongst other things, it's simply an over-simplification of how things happen. For my part opportunity has often simply been related to knowing the right people / having the right contacts. Graham
From: krw on 2 Dec 2006 09:28 In article <7e815$4570f6c8$4fe7357$10296(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > krw wrote: > > > In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > > > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article <ekpc5r$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. > >> > >>Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? > > > > > > Gates? > > Father was a lawyer. > > http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.aspx > > No wanting for anything and had money but not what I'd > call a "rich kid." Not exactly a poverty case either. Ok, you don't like Gates, how about Teddy Kennedy? ;-) -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 09:42 unsettled 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. > > Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? Are there *NO* rich kid entrepreneurs ? > > 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. > > It was a popular theme in the early movies to have a rich kid > have a row with the parents, then strike out to make it on > his own without their interference, eventually to return > when he'd achieved major success. A sort of a prodigal son > is successful story. And movies are faithful to real life ? Graham
From: krw on 2 Dec 2006 10:20 In article <ekrvkr$8qk_002(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <b59c2$4570f18a$4fe7357$10170(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > >> For me hex and hex were the same thing. I worked for year in > >> an octal environment. I'd never be able to convert to hex. > > > >In a different world it was said of one bit god, > >the patron saint of cpm, that "For him, assembler > >is a high level language." > > If you want to dabble in machine lanugage and not have to struggle > with binary arithmetic, play with IBM's 1620. Ah, the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even Try). Addressing was still binary, no? (long before my time) -- Keith
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 10:23
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Probably your idea of a "really good idea" and mine are different then. |