Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 12:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el11g6$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45732718.132742B6(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: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is >>> >> >> allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but >>> >> >> poor. >>> >> > >>> >> >Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! >>> >> >>> >> Of course it was. Only the viscious of the managers got the >>> >> power. >>> > >>> >We were talking about wealth, albeit rather limited wealth in that era. >>> >>> And look how their agriculture suffered. How people get food is a clue >>> to their economy, social structure, trade and power. >> >>This has absolutely nothing to do with degress of wealth under communism. > > If that is true then I've been wasting all of my studying time. Something we agree on. > However, I haven't wasted my time; you can tell a lot from > old grocery lists. Yes. However from them you seem to have "learned" the history of Europe. Oddly, you have been almost 100% incorrect everytime you have made assertions on something I have intimate knowledge of. I can only assume you maintain this batting average throughout.
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 12:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekrt27$8ss_004(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Really? It is strange how many of the "self made millionaires" in the US actually come from wealthy backgrounds. You don't find many second generate Puerto Ricans heading up Fortune 500 companies. I am sure you, or some of your pointless sycophants, can point to one or two self made men who truly came from poverty (in the last fifty years) and is now a billionaire or whatever - however, based on the percentages this represents, it _still_ proves Lloyd Parker's point. Your exact claim is the "poor kid will succeed more often than the rich kid" - given there are *more* poor kids than rich kids, the percentage of ex-Poor kids should be staggering in your society. Is it?
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 12:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekulj0$8ss_012(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4572475E.BA56AF16(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: >>> >> 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. >> >>I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. > All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they > got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They > worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's > side had some kind farm business before they were legal. > > None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. Ok. You have accounted for a small sample. Compare this to the number of rich kids who own their own houses before they are 21 (I know of four myself and the UK is a small country). If your claims were even slightly valid, there would be a transfer of wealth every generation. Is there?
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 12:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekump9$8qk_001(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > I stated thinking about the differences in attitudes we see in > this thread. I wonder if a difference is due ethnicity. > Dutchmen were punished if they didn't do the obvious work > first and then get permission. There are a lot of others > who would get punished for doing the work without permission > even if the work had to be done. For instance, Ducth had > to recognize problems and act quickly if there was any problem > with their infrastructure. Any delay would mean the whole > place would be ocean. In union shops, preventing and/or cleaning > up messes without express permission from both union and management > get one into a lot of trouble because each task is deemed > part of the production line's territorial imperative. > > This could explain why Dutchmen I know are extremely allergic > to anything that stinks of union. You need to up your meds.
From: |||newspam||| on 4 Dec 2006 12:12
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45731B0C.7DCA6173(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Not if you enjoy coding, debugging, and making the iron > >> run through your hoops. > > > >I'm used to doing that too. > > > >Assembler isn't the only way you know. > > Ah, but with assembler, you know exactly what you get to > tell the machine exactly what to do. Only if you have written the assembler and linker yourself. Otherwise you are just as reliant on someone else's code correctness to convert your assembly language mnemonic text into correct binary machine code. Paranoid control freaks tend to believe that assmbler is "the one and only true way". They never seem to have heard of the 80/20 rule and insist on hand optimising irrelevant code down to the last CPU cycle without ever bothering to look for the real algorithmic bottlenecks.. > With HLLs, somebody > else's code interprets yours and then they get to tell > the machine what you may have written. And with modern computer architectures a HLL with suitable optimising compiler guided by profilers can do a much better job of optimising an algorithm on a pipelined CPU than all but the very best hand coders (and with a much lower overall defect rate). Compilers are not completely error free, but they do massively improve productivity. Choosing the right HLL for a problem makes a huge difference. Try writing a Quine (program that outputs a copy of itself when run) in assembler or Cobol for example. Whereas in Lisp it is almost trivial: ((lambda (x) (list x (list 'quote x))) '(lambda (x) (list x (list 'quote x)))) If memory serves - subject to typos. Regards, Martin Brown |