Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 11:42 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-27 23:22 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 11:42 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2015-10-02 20:43 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 15:23 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2015-10-05 17:38 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 17:17 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:36 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-04 21:27 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:01 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:57 -0400
Re: halting Adobe Flash videos with Mozilla Firefox, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-26 04:35 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:40 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 15:51 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:08 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-03 14:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:32 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 03:29 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:44 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 12:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:55 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:39 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:45 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:20 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:03 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 17:43 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-23 13:17 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:42 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:14 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 09:56 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-14 09:11 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:58 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-15 05:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 15:57 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-16 05:33 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 06:16 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 06:25 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 00:21 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:45 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-28 20:40 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:49 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-02 21:50 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:09 +0000
OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-05 12:40 +0000
Re: OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:35 +0000
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-17 21:02 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 20:09 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:56 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-17 04:21 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 02:12 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 02:53 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-28 20:15 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 20:37 -0700
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-28 18:23 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 21:10 -0700
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:34 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:10 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:39 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-03 12:48 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 17:00 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-04 23:32 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:05 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:17 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 10:35 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 16:28 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 19:14 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 20:02 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 10:46 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-07 01:16 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:50 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-12-27 23:22 +0100
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 08:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naubu5$jd0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9221 |
On 28/02/2016 08:21, Alexei A. Frounze wrote: > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 10:25:31 PM UTC-8, James Harris wrote: All OT >> Yet the Democrats have Mrs Clinton. I have seen people say she too would >> be a bad choice though I am less clear as to why. > > I don't know for sure. But she looks to me like a sly fox of sorts. > And there's some interesting stuff about here (I guess, this can be > easily fact-checked?): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL8T18zwRpg That's a bit weird. For one it seems to be a weak case against Mrs Clinton - basically that she changed her view on a bankruptcy bill, possibly for reasons of self-interest. For another, the accuser admits it is one person's word against another's. The video title says it is the most damaging evidence to date yet there was no evidence, only heresay. But the main surprise I have is that there was no right of reply. It was purely one-sided, effectively propaganda. The UK TV media are obliged to present two sides to a story so we are used to seeing two people opposing each other in interviews. I have seen single-sided arguments on Russian TV wherein they will have someone on who hates America or its allies. That person gets to denounce the West for a few minutes entirely unchallenged. I have to say the TV interview about Mrs Clinton seemed alarmingly similar to the Russian TV approach. I should say that in the UK it is only the TV channels who have to show two sides. Newspapers here are allowed to be partisan if they want to be. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 20:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160228204031.33993d60@_> |
| In reply to | #9220 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:25:27 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/02/2016 23:03, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > As mentioned before, I doubt that it'll end any time soon here. > > The lack of basic jobs here means that economic parity for > > minorities and social equality is unlikely to arrive any time > > soon. I would say not fixing the economy was the largest failing > > of President Obama. I would've helped minorities immensely, but > > his mental model doesn't think Republican. Well, I didn't help anybody ... Correction: s/I/It/ "It" being fixing the economy. > ISTM that America desperately needs a stronger, > more right-wing president next time. Unfortunately, the country seems to be shifting out of our middle and towards both left and right. By middle, I obviously mean our middle, and not yours or U.K.'s (or Russia). Our entire scale is further to the right than U.K.'s. > Yet from the albeit little I have seen the GOP > candidates are not of sufficient intellectual quality. I don't recall anyone like Einstein ever running for President on either side. I remember many a strange or goofy candidate. > It seems that Trump will get the nomination That's still not certain, but likely given his poll numbers. The main Republican party still doesn't like Trump that much. They would've preferred that someone more supportive of the party line had some support. The same is true of Sanders for the Democrats. > but I can imagine him turning America into a nastier, > more divided place, The same could be said of Clinton or Sanders. Sanders is radical far left here, a socialist. He might be in the middle in the U.K. ... It's truly surprising he has had any support. I'm assuming that's a divide in the Democratic party over supporting Clinton ... Clinton is very divisive too. A woman. Supports many issues half the country sees as irrelevant. Dodges issues half the country sees as important. > and he seems self-obsessed and overconfident. He usually backs up his bravado with success. "He who attacks Trump loses" should be his motto. He seems to only take on fights he believes he can win. He can come off as being full of bluster and incompetent, but he plans things out years and years ahead of time. He waits for the right moment for success and then he's the only one in a position to win. I wouldn't doubt it if he had been considering being a Presidential candidate decades ago and planning for it. There is no way he could have pulled off some of his business moves without some very long-term planning. He was holding undeveloped real estate in New York city for decades just to have land to build on when he wanted to. He is not a short term thinker and buffoon that the Democrats make him out to be. > Yet the Democrats have Mrs Clinton. I have seen people > say she too would be a bad choice though I am less > clear as to why. These are not my opinions, although I do agree with some of them. I'm not letting you know which are mine. People believe she lied about the leaked information pointing to her in the Benghazi attacks and covered this up. People believe she lied about not having classified information on her personal email server and covered this up. People believe she is wrong when she says it wasn't illegal to use a personal email server and attempted to cover this up. People don't believe her when she says her unprotected, personal email server wasn't hacked by China or Russia. People suspect she caused men to be killed in Benghazi due to her perceived to be leaky email server. People see her as not being obedient and following the laws and rules required for our safety and protection, i.e., above-the-law. Women know her husband was a womanizer and see her as setting back women's rights by many decades by not leaving her husband after the very public affair and Presidential scandal with her husband. People view her as power hungry but not well suited to lead. People know she opposes the military, even harassing and berating her own personal protection detail, and likely won't do the job of the President in regards to protecting the country by force, when necessary. > Is there a chance of anyone else challenging as an > independent in the same way that, IIRC, Ross Perot > did a number of years ago? No. At least, it's not possible at the present time. Our parties have changed many times over our history, but are stable, currently. That's why Sanders, a long-time independent socialist, is running as a Democrat. That's why Trump, technically an independent, is running as a Republican. Both learned from Perot that you don't have enough support without backing from one of the major parties and will hurt the chances of the party you're closest to. > If not, what is the best option for you guys? Best option in regards to what? ... Our political party's decide upon a candidate. We pick a party. We vote. We suffer. Personally, I think the best option is to toggle back and forth between both party's. It keeps them somewhat stalemated. They have difficulty passing any more laws suppressing the populace further because they don't have enough support in congress or because the President is of the opposite party and opposes the legislation. It also shifts the country back in the opposite direction, i.e., we go straight by zig-zagging. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb6ubn$49o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9225 |
On 29/02/2016 01:40, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:25:27 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: [All OT] ... >> If not, what is the best option for you guys? > > Best option in regards to what? ... I was asking who would be the best President for you, of the choices available. I think you basically answered. What did you think of the following? Of the US Presidents who have had the office during my adult lifetime, from this side of the pond Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton seem to have had a good reputation (er, for their political work), and kept it after being in office. We had Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who were both remarkable PMs. By contrast, I cannot see anyone either here or there at the moment who appears to be of similar stature. At the last UK election the primary choice was between David Cameron (intelligent but deceptive and dangerous) and Ed Miliband (well meaning, possibly, but naive and having no answers). I miss the days of good British and American leaders. They are much needed right now - not so much on domestic issues, though such issues are always important, but on international policy. All the main free-world leaders seem to be either afraid or clueless as to what to do. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 21:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160302215040.67194722@_> |
| In reply to | #9235 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:49:12 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/02/2016 01:40, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:25:27 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: OT > What did you think of the following? Of the US Presidents who have > had the office during my adult lifetime, from this side of the pond > Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton seem to have had a good reputation > (er, for their political work), and kept it after being in office. Both were popular. Reagan did a good job with eliminating taxes and other barriers to business, which improved the economy immensely. Clinton didn't do much for the economy, although easy money at the end of his Presidency sparked the first stock market boom-bust for Internet companies and also the real estate boom which finally crashed a decade or so later in 2007 or 2008. Many people of my generation have one Republican and one Democrat as parents, i.e., plenty of Libertarians or mixed Republican-Democrat beliefs. People were moving around the country for jobs from the 1930's through 1960's. So, that's the problem affecting both parties. The Libertarians are usually referred to as "independents" since they don't consistently vote one party, and they're estimated at about 40% of U.S. voters. That could be the future for the U.S.: one party. Republicans tend to do much better with the economy perhaps because of war funding, do much better with beliefs based on religion, and do well with enforcing rights from the constitution. Democrats tend to kill the economy and the stock market for unknown reasons, do much better with social issues, and are willing to forgo their rights for safety or security. Overall, I'd say Republicans are smarter, more truthful, more conservative than Democrats who are less smart, more willing to lie or insult, and are more liberal, but earn more money. Cities tend to be more Democrat, and suburbs and rural areas tend to be more Republican. Republicans tend to be straightforward while Democrats are conundrums. In regards to Democrats being conundrums, they support gun restrictions, but won't support car restrictions. They mostly live in cities, take the subway or buses, and don't even drive. They don't even recognize car deaths as an issue, despite equivalent numbers of deaths as compared to guns. Democrats will forgo their rights for safety and security, but won't support a wall to prevent illegal immigration and the crime which results from it. Anti-gun Democrats in the cities use guns to kill each other at high rates, but cry about gun deaths at the same time. In predominantly pro-gun Republican areas, gun deaths are almost non-existent. (1 per 100,000 per year versus about 40 per 100,000 in cities). > We had Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who were both remarkable PMs. I don't know many of your politicians past or present by name. The media here only seems to love some of them. I also know of Charles and Princess Diana, and the Queen. > By contrast, I cannot see anyone either here or there at the moment > who appears to be of similar stature. There are two words in the English language which describe every _elected_ U.S President in my lifetime, even ones I was too young to vote for. From those two words, you can determine which candidate will be elected, Republican or Democrat, at least so far. Obviously, I can't do a regression test on earlier Presidents since I didn't live through their campaigns. I'm not going to tell you what those two words are. They are not measurable metrics but highly subjective. I will tell you some words they are not: male, white, winner, President, politician, intelligent, popular, competent, honest, ... Currently, there is only one candidate which fits both words, IMO. So, I suspect this candidate will become President. You (and everyone else for that matter) are unlikely to ever guess either of them. Although, the liberal media here does use one of the words to describe candidates from time to time, but they only apply it to the Republicans ... I've never heard the other word applied to any candidate. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbdt0b$gt8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9240 |
On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:49:12 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: [All OT] ... > Republicans tend to do much better with the economy > perhaps because of war funding, do much better with > beliefs based on religion, and do well with enforcing > rights from the constitution. > > Democrats tend to kill the economy and the stock > market for unknown reasons, do much better with > social issues, and are willing to forgo their > rights for safety or security. Same here. The right-wing party (the Conservative Party) are good for the economy but, especially if in power for too long, increase the inequalities in society. Some of them who are used to a life of privilege can be incredibly out of touch, though that's not true of all of them. By contrast, the left-wing party (the Labour Party) are better at forming a more equal society but, especially if in too long, overspend and kill the economy. And the economy is usually what's needed to pay for their social programmes. ISTM there are good people and valid arguments on both sides. Over time, the country flips between one side and the other - the same as your zig-zag comment - leading to an alternating succession of Labour and Conservative governments. In the last few years there has been a rise of smaller parties. I think that is a fairly new phenomenon and has diminished the dominance of the two-party system. However, the electoral system here - first past the post - makes it hard for smaller parties to get a voice and may end up squeezing them out. I am not saying whether that is good or bad. Like most things in life it has good and bad points. On one hand it fails fairly to represent voters but on the other hand it helps form strong governments. > Overall, I'd say Republicans are smarter, more > truthful, more conservative than Democrats who > are less smart, more willing to lie or insult, > and are more liberal, but earn more money. Cities > tend to be more Democrat, and suburbs and rural > areas tend to be more Republican. Republicans > tend to be straightforward while Democrats are > conundrums. Again, the same. Cities here tend to vote Labour and rural areas tend to vote Conservative. ... >> We had Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who were both remarkable PMs. > > I don't know many of your politicians past or present > by name. The media here only seems to love some of > them. I also know of Charles and Princess Diana, and > the Queen. Had you heard of Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair? It seems to me a little strange that so many Americans know about the British royals. Power now is vested in Parliament but don't the royals at least *represent* to you Britain's hated imperialist past? >> By contrast, I cannot see anyone either here or there at the moment >> who appears to be of similar stature. > > There are two words in the English language which describe > every _elected_ U.S President in my lifetime, even ones I > was too young to vote for. From those two words, you can > determine which candidate will be elected, Republican or > Democrat, at least so far. Obviously, I can't do a regression > test on earlier Presidents since I didn't live through their > campaigns. I'm not going to tell you what those two words are. (Puzzled.) Why would the two words be a secret? Do you mean they would give away your voting intention and you would rather keep that to yourself? Or are you sparing my feelings by not pouring out cursewords about the politicians? ;-) > They are not measurable metrics but highly subjective. I will > tell you some words they are not: male, white, winner, President, > politician, intelligent, popular, competent, honest, ... > Currently, there is only one candidate which fits both words, > IMO. So, I suspect this candidate will become President. > You (and everyone else for that matter) are unlikely to ever > guess either of them. Although, the liberal media here does > use one of the words to describe candidates from time to time, > but they only apply it to the Republicans ... I've never heard > the other word applied to any candidate. Very mysterious, Rod! I have no idea why. What's the big secret over a couple of words? James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:40 +0000 |
| Subject | OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI |
| Message-ID | <op.yduqt1qomsr2db@dell3100.dlink.com> |
| In reply to | #9249 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 06:09:00 -0000, James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:49:12 +0000 >> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > [All OT] > Not much about keystroke messages here! -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI |
| Message-ID | <20160305201128.53a88c3e@_> |
| In reply to | #9250 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:40:39 -0000 "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 06:09:00 -0000, James Harris > <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:49:12 +0000 > >> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > [All OT] > > > > Not much about keystroke messages here! > Yes, we should have put OT in the subject line, but alt.* Usenet hierarchy has no topicality requirement. We did put it in the message. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] |
| Message-ID | <20160305201112.554730dc@_> |
| In reply to | #9249 |
On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:09:00 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:49:12 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > The right-wing party (the Conservative Party) are good for the > economy but, especially if in power for too long, increase the > inequalities in society. Some of them who are used to a life of > privilege can be incredibly out of touch, though that's not true of > all of them. Inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. You cannot have people working to be rewarded, become wealthy, without actually rewarding them. If there are no rewards, who is going to outperform? Who is going to allocate capital more efficiently? Without an incentive, there is no incentive. We'd have lousy financial services, under-performing workers creating products of poor quality, and no one with an incentive to truly work or do anything. I'm really confused by the "basic income" movement in Europe and Canada. This would seem to not be workable economically. > >> We had Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who were both remarkable > >> PMs. > > > > I don't know many of your politicians past or present > > by name. The media here only seems to love some of > > them. I also know of Charles and Princess Diana, and > > the Queen. > > Had you heard of Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair? Yes. That's about it. Um, if I think about, others may come up, slowly, e.g., Winston Churchill. > It seems to me a little strange that so many Americans know about the > British royals. Power now is vested in Parliament but don't the > royals at least *represent* to you Britain's hated imperialist past? ... > >> By contrast, I cannot see anyone either here or there at the moment > >> who appears to be of similar stature. > > > > There are two words in the English language which describe > > every _elected_ U.S President in my lifetime, even ones I > > was too young to vote for. From those two words, you can > > determine which candidate will be elected, Republican or > > Democrat, at least so far. Obviously, I can't do a regression > > test on earlier Presidents since I didn't live through their > > campaigns. I'm not going to tell you what those two words are. > > (Puzzled.) Why would the two words be a secret? Do you mean they > would give away your voting intention and you would rather keep that > to yourself? Or are you sparing my feelings by not pouring out > cursewords about the politicians? ;-) No, no, curse words. One of them is also the name of a Disney character, if that helps. I'm keeping them secret. I don't want people to know my system. :-) > > They are not measurable metrics but highly subjective. I will > > tell you some words they are not: male, white, winner, President, > > politician, intelligent, popular, competent, honest, ... > > Currently, there is only one candidate which fits both words, > > IMO. So, I suspect this candidate will become President. > > You (and everyone else for that matter) are unlikely to ever > > guess either of them. Although, the liberal media here does > > use one of the words to describe candidates from time to time, > > but they only apply it to the Republicans ... I've never heard > > the other word applied to any candidate. > > Very mysterious, Rod! I have no idea why. What's the big secret > over a couple of words? Well, for one, they could be useful for someone or some agency in power, e.g., manipulation of who is elected or derailment. Two, I can't continue to confirm they work, if someone else knows them. They're subjective anyway. I.e., others may not see the two words as applying to candidates that I apply them to, in the manner I apply them. So, they might be worthless without my personal perspective on the elections. Why would someone in England need them anyway? Do they allow you to bet on U.S. elections? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] |
| Message-ID | <ncem6e$gag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9251 |
On 06/03/2016 01:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:09:00 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: [All OT] ... >> The right-wing party (the Conservative Party) are good for the >> economy but, especially if in power for too long, increase the >> inequalities in society. Some of them who are used to a life of >> privilege can be incredibly out of touch, though that's not true of >> all of them. > > Inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. You cannot have > people working to be rewarded, become wealthy, without actually > rewarding them. If there are no rewards, who is going to outperform? Accepted. I don't have a problem with company owners making money. My gripe is the money paid to senior employees. IIRC in the UK when the poorest in a company were paid £6,000 per annum the richest were paid £120,000 - 20 times as much. That seems to me a limit. Now the poorest might be paid £12,000 but the richest £1,200,000. That is 100 times as much and is much too big a discrepancy. The reason executive pay went up so much was not due to risk or skill or incentivisation. It was boards asking friends on the boards of other companies to suggest their salaries. They all did each other favours. Over time the result was that board-level pay skyrocketed not because of merit but because of cronyism. > Who is going to allocate capital more efficiently? Without an > incentive, there is no incentive. We'd have lousy financial services, > under-performing workers creating products of poor quality, and no > one with an incentive to truly work or do anything. I'm really > confused by the "basic income" movement in Europe and Canada. This > would seem to not be workable economically. ... >>> There are two words in the English language which describe >>> every _elected_ U.S President in my lifetime, even ones I ... > Why would someone in England need them anyway? Do they allow > you to bet on U.S. elections? Probably. Betting is not my scene. I was just curious to know what you meant. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 21:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] |
| Message-ID | <20160317210220.729ed0cb@_> |
| In reply to | #9269 |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:35:12 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/03/2016 01:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:09:00 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/03/2016 02:50, Rod Pemberton wrote: > [All OT] > >> The right-wing party (the Conservative Party) are good for the > >> economy but, especially if in power for too long, increase the > >> inequalities in society. Some of them who are used to a life of > >> privilege can be incredibly out of touch, though that's not true of > >> all of them. > > > > Inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. You cannot have > > people working to be rewarded, become wealthy, without actually > > rewarding them. If there are no rewards, who is going to > > outperform? > > Accepted. I don't have a problem with company owners making money. My > gripe is the money paid to senior employees. IIRC in the UK when the > poorest in a company were paid £6,000 per annum the richest were paid > £120,000 - 20 times as much. That seems to me a limit. Now the > poorest might be paid £12,000 but the richest £1,200,000. That is 100 > times as much and is much too big a discrepancy. All salaries come out of revenues, just like profits, and costs or rents. To pay the men at the top outlandish salaries, they must pay those beneath less, or substantially reduce costs, or charge more for their company's product. It's much easier to underpay lower level employees. People become desperate and take what they can get. Many times, they are unaware the company would pay much more. Reducing costs is difficult without sacrificing quality. Raising prices is difficult, if there is any market competition. I agree that there is no overpaid executive who could create the amount of wealth per year necessary to justify their pay. But, they are usually owner-operators. They have an equity stake, either because they started the company, bought in to the company, or were rewarded with equity for performance. So, they are usually paid well independent of their (current) performance. How do you incite a well paid man who doesn't need to work for money to work hard for even more money? You pay him a ton of money, ... based on his performance ... I don't see this as a bad thing. At least in the U.S., we all have the opportunity to end up at the top of a company. We can earn our way to the top, or we can start our own company and start out at the top, or if we have enough money earned from other sources, we can buy our way in at the top. I started at the bottom, made it to the middle, and would now like to make it to the top. Unfortunately, I was not as focused on building wealth or starting a company as I should have been when I was younger, although the ideas did interest me then. No one ever taught me or told me this. Basically, sex, religion, and politics, along with money, were taboo in both school and home settings. Why "cripple" your children by not teaching them about money? Ditto, for the others. So, the journey will be much more difficult now, unless luck decides to favor me for once, which it never has done so far. Hard work and smart work have been my only source of rewards. Now, I'm depressed ... LOL. ;-) > The reason executive pay went up so much was not due to risk or skill > or incentivisation. It was boards asking friends on the boards of > other companies to suggest their salaries. They all did each other > favours. Over time the result was that board-level pay skyrocketed > not because of merit but because of cronyism. I read an article which claimed, at least for the U.S., that corporate pay shifted from a "retain-reinvest" model to a "stock-buyback" model. In the retain-reinvest model, companies retained earnings to reinvest. The retain their employees by reinvesting in employee's salaries. They retained their market by reinvesting in research and development. This builds companies. In the stock-buyback model, companies buy stock with their retained earnings. This builds wealth. Specifically, it buys back the equity which was previously sold for capital needed for growth. The reduction in supply of public stock increases the value of the outstanding stock, which is mostly held in the retirement accounts of the company's executive class who were rewarded for "performance." Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 20:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160224200931.6c43ee2f@_> |
| In reply to | #9180 |
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:57:00 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15/02/2016 10:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:58:35 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14/02/2016 14:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > I guess your countrymen need to decide if the EU is worth saving. > > Saving it could lead to short-term negative consequences. > > That sounds interesting. What negative consequences did you have in > mind? > > ISTM that *leaving* it could result in short-term negative > consequences for the UK. The reasons are complex. I won't detail them > just now. Leaving would be better for the UK in the longer term. Apparently, HSBC did a financial review of Brexit: http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-research-eu-referendum-brexit-consequences-2016-2 Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nan4g4$inm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9214 |
On 25/02/2016 01:09, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:57:00 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> ISTM that *leaving* it could result in short-term negative >> consequences for the UK. The reasons are complex. I won't detail them >> just now. Leaving would be better for the UK in the longer term. > > Apparently, HSBC did a financial review of Brexit: > > http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-research-eu-referendum-brexit-consequences-2016-2 There have been a number of reports similarly warning of dire consequences of Brexit but I have learned to treat them cautiously for reasons such as the following. The EU is good for big multinational companies like HSBC. It helps them in the following areas. They get free movement of people between EU countries. This helps them recruit staff and keep wages down. The EU's protectionist policies help them fend off competition from overseas. Such protections are a key reason for the EU's existence! The EU also gives them advantages against smaller internal competitors. For example, their size lets them cope with the mass of regulations at a lower relative cost than smaller competitors. Big corporations may get lobbying access to the EU's decision makers. They thereby get a chance to influence EU policy which their smaller competitors and up-and-coming rivals do not. Needless to say, they like that but it is anticompetitive and is bad for consumers. The dire warnings of some big companies are contradicted by others. I infer from that that the reports are largely influenced by the CEOs or management teams' preferences. We heard very similar warnings when considering whether to change the currency from the Pound Sterling to the Euro. Fortunately, the UK kept the Pound. The warnings about doing so turned out to be nonsense. In fact, the countries which abandoned their own currencies and adopted the Euro in 1999 were badly hit by the financial crash of 2008. Some such as Greece and Spain are still suffering a great deal. I am no economist but I am told that the UK and Iceland keeping their own currencies helped them to get out of the financial crash more quickly. Many of the EU-enthusiasts who are now warning about Brexit are the same ones who warned about the supposed dangers and isolation of keeping the Pound. Interestingly, that includes some financial bodies, not just companies. At the end of the day they are just people with opinions and imperfect guesses. Some of those advocating staying in the EU receive supportive funding from the EU. In respect of banks like HSBC I suspect that post-Brexit they will find that they prefer the UK. I say that because the UK current government's instincts are toward lower taxation and lighter regulation whereas those of the EU are toward heavier regulation and higher taxation. At the end of the day banks go where the financial conditions are most favourable. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 03:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e658bdec-131f-44f6-a292-797cfde9dd5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9179 |
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote: On freeloaders... I think that a lot of unexpected costs (not due to accidents, but rather due to health deteriorating beyond sustainable and manageable) can be cut down if we invest into and promote preventive care, which should include not only regular check- ups, but also somehow let people exercise despite having too many work/commute hours or making insufficient money to afford gym membership or whatever is the reason why they can't do it. It can even be that there's time and money, but the person thinks they have more important things than their own health or they are depressed and need a bit of help, a push and/or company. Often times we don't take much interest in each others well being or help each other or even are able to ask for help and listen and hear one another. I don't think that this is necessarily incompatible with capitalism and everyone must be forced to deal with problems of such importance and such common occurrences on their own. I think it's fixable. Now, on education and loans. Have you looked at the costs of higher education in the US over the past 50 years? They are growing like crazy. Is education improving or is it helping people get the knowledge/skills for the job better than a decade or two ago? Probably not. There's always a natural lag. If you consider technological advances of the recent past, you can notice that a number of disciplines are now much more accessible than before because it's no longer just your teacher or just your library that is the container or carrier of the information that you need. A lot of it is now online, including full courses. It is understandable that this can't work for every discipline. But this should be making education more and more accessible and cheaper. There's a problem in the education system (many, actually). And it needs to be addressed. Cheaper education will be less problematic w.r.t. repaying loans. I also don't quite get it why educational debt should be special and should be treated differently from any other in terms of bankruptcy. Is this a case of bad lobbying? As much as I'd like everyone responsible and smart, people do and will make mistakes. And we should be better at helping. Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 04:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160217042119.2e06ff38@_> |
| In reply to | #9182 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST) "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote: <OT> > On freeloaders... > > I think that a lot of unexpected costs (not due to accidents, > but rather due to health deteriorating beyond sustainable and > manageable) can be cut down if we invest into and promote > preventive care, which should include not only regular check- > ups, This issue was primarily for the poor, elderly, lazy, cheap, or unconcerned. Those who could afford to purchase healthcare before Obamacare, generally had frequent check-ups and regular appointments with internists, dentists, and optometrists. > but also somehow let people exercise despite having too > many work/commute hours or making insufficient money to afford > gym membership or whatever is the reason why they can't do it. This is an issue of willpower, not money. Weight rooms are plentiful in the U.S. It's not just gyms that have them. You can find them at many places of work, most hotels, almost any type of "club" such as tennis club, racquetball club, country club, and probably even some gun clubs. There are various charities that have them too. So, I wouldn't doubt it if some churches provided them also. The tennis and racquetball clubs will sell a day pass. You don't need a membership. This is similar to many other places of recreational activities in the U.S. such as bowling, billiards, arcades, amusement parks, national parks, and skiing, etc. You just need to purchase a day pass, a ticket, a license, etc. A small amount of funds will buy a complete weight set and basic equipment for home use. For most, the cost of something below $1000 or even $5000 USD is usually insignificant and the equipment can last for decades. > It can even be that there's time and money, but the person > thinks they have more important things than their own health > or they are depressed and need a bit of help, a push and/or > company. If someone decides to take that path, it's their choice. They don't need to take that path. They only need to pick one working solution: Family. Friends. Competition. Religion. Psychiatry. Drugs. > Often times we don't take much interest in each > others well being or help each other or even are > able to ask for help and listen and hear one another. Too many people are talkers and don't listen. Is there a drug to fix them? > I don't think that this is necessarily incompatible with > capitalism and everyone must be forced to deal with problems > of such importance and such common occurrences on their own. > I think it's fixable. If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing. This would have to be forced upon people. > Now, on education and loans. Have you looked at the costs of > higher education in the US over the past 50 years? They are > growing like crazy. Is education improving or is it helping > people get the knowledge/skills for the job better than a > decade or two ago? Probably not. Education isn't improving. Demand is. When my dad received his first degree, only 1% of the U.S. populace had university degrees. By the time I graduated from high school, almost 25% of the U.S. populace had a degree. Today, it's rumored to be nearly 50% of the younger generation. Major universities have become degree mills. It's clear that by intelligence alone that the U.S. shouldn't have so many people with degrees. Without the intelligence appropriate for the degree, a person will be incompetent. This is being driven by the demand for "white collar" (desk or office) jobs. That demand has exploded since "blue collar" (manual labor) jobs were exported to China and Mexico etc via free trade agreements. > If you consider technological advances of the recent > past, you can notice that a number of disciplines are now > much more accessible than before because it's no longer just > your teacher or just your library that is the container or > carrier of the information that you need. A lot of it is now > online, including full courses. It is understandable that > this can't work for every discipline. But this should be > making education more and more accessible and cheaper. It is. The cost of finding information is much lower than decades ago. Years ago you had to go to a university or research library to find government statistics. Today, you just go to the website of the IRS or Census Bureau or Bureau of Labor and Statistics or Federal Reserve. The problem isn't the availability of information or it's presentation. The problem is the lack of accreditation by alternate learning programs. E.g., you can go to a website like Udemy and buy an online MBA course or to Amazon to buy used collegiate textbooks in economics, finance, or accounting, management, marketing, investment, or venture capital, for maybe $100 USD, but you're not going to get a degree from doing so which an employer requires. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-mba-online-course-udemy-deal-2016-2 > There's a problem in the education system (many, actually). > And it needs to be addressed. Yes. E.g., cheating by U.S. fraternities is a serious continuing issue. It allows people who otherwise couldn't earn a degree through effort or intellect to obtain one with excellent grades. > Cheaper education will be less problematic w.r.t. > repaying loans. This is a supply versus demand problem. Once educators realize that only 10 out of every 400 students are capable of being an electrical engineer and employers begin to complain about incompetent people with degrees, then the standards will improve, but only after fraternity cheating is squashed by the universities. Those students who were pushed into an advanced degree for the degree's potential earnings without the intellect or desire for that degree, will inevitably fail in their job endeavors. > I also don't quite get it why educational debt should be > special and should be treated differently from any other > in terms of bankruptcy. Is this a case of bad lobbying? In the U.S., isn't it usually provided from taxes collected by the U.S. government from the people? How do you default on debt owed to the U.S. government which represents everyone? BTW, I took your comments to be regarding the U.S. and not another country. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 02:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1097b8d-ec6f-4231-b495-fe0619f90f47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9183 |
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:20:56 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST)
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> <OT>
>
> > On freeloaders...
> >
> > I think that a lot of unexpected costs (not due to accidents,
> > but rather due to health deteriorating beyond sustainable and
> > manageable) can be cut down if we invest into and promote
> > preventive care, which should include not only regular check-
> > ups,
>
> This issue was primarily for the poor, elderly, lazy, cheap, or
> unconcerned. Those who could afford to purchase healthcare
> before Obamacare, generally had frequent check-ups and regular
> appointments with internists, dentists, and optometrists.
Or not. More below...
> > but also somehow let people exercise despite having too
> > many work/commute hours or making insufficient money to afford
> > gym membership or whatever is the reason why they can't do it.
>
> This is an issue of willpower, not money.
If only it were that simple. More below...
> Weight rooms are plentiful in the U.S. It's not just gyms
> that have them. You can find them at many places of work,
The four last places of my work (three in the U.S.) had
nothing like that. And weights (or weights alone) aren't for
everyone.
> most hotels, almost any type of "club" such as tennis club,
> racquetball club, country club, and probably even some gun
> clubs. There are various charities that have them too. So,
> I wouldn't doubt it if some churches provided them also. The
> tennis and racquetball clubs will sell a day pass. You
> don't need a membership. This is similar to many other places
> of recreational activities in the U.S. such as bowling, billiards,
> arcades, amusement parks, national parks, and skiing, etc.
> You just need to purchase a day pass, a ticket, a license, etc.
> A small amount of funds will buy a complete weight set and
> basic equipment for home use. For most, the cost of something
> below $1000 or even $5000 USD is usually insignificant and
> the equipment can last for decades.
>
> > It can even be that there's time and money, but the person
> > thinks they have more important things than their own health
> > or they are depressed and need a bit of help, a push and/or
> > company.
>
> If someone decides to take that path, it's their choice.
> They don't need to take that path. They only need to pick
> one working solution:
>
> Family. Friends. Competition. Religion. Psychiatry. Drugs.
What about this guy?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFIa-Mc2KSk
While he may be not be the most representative (AD&(H)D,
bipolar, depressed), many get into similar holes and it
takes them quite a lot of time, effort, courage, shame
and so on to get out of there and well again, to
recognize a problem, to decide to do something about it,
to actually do that something and stabilize. Some fail
and never recover. If your family and friends (and maybe
church) aren't close and friendly enough, if you're
alone, if you're in denial ("it can't be happening to me,
I'm not a psycho"), if you feel down and powerless,
what do you do if anything? You keep doing whatever
you've been doing until something happens that either
breaks or helps you. Right? Or you're a lucky person to
have never been in such a position or to have always
been rescued quickly enough?
> > Often times we don't take much interest in each
> > others well being or help each other or even are
> > able to ask for help and listen and hear one another.
>
> Too many people are talkers and don't listen.
> Is there a drug to fix them?
Drug? No. But differently structured society will likely
do the trick.
> > I don't think that this is necessarily incompatible with
> > capitalism and everyone must be forced to deal with problems
> > of such importance and such common occurrences on their own.
> > I think it's fixable.
>
> If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the
> importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that
> people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt
> that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you
> know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing.
> This would have to be forced upon people.
See, that's one big problem with our society. We are too
quickly to judge and stigmatize and punish one another for
no good reason. People are generally aware of this and are
uneasy about entrusting others their thoughts, feelings,
pains, etc. Does your congregation still thinks gays are bad
or need to be "cured" or deserve hate, beating, death?
Or does it only think gays are smaller persons than anyone
else and maybe that it's OK to belittle and ridicule them
or teach them how to live their gay lives? Or is that one
that's a bit more progressive in the question and appears
in the list here?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations#North_America
It's just one example, where we as society still aren't
doing well.
> > Now, on education and loans. Have you looked at the costs of
> > higher education in the US over the past 50 years? They are
> > growing like crazy. Is education improving or is it helping
> > people get the knowledge/skills for the job better than a
> > decade or two ago? Probably not.
>
> Education isn't improving. Demand is. When my dad received
> his first degree, only 1% of the U.S. populace had university
> degrees. By the time I graduated from high school, almost
> 25% of the U.S. populace had a degree. Today, it's rumored
> to be nearly 50% of the younger generation. Major universities
> have become degree mills. It's clear that by intelligence
> alone that the U.S. shouldn't have so many people with degrees.
> Without the intelligence appropriate for the degree, a person
> will be incompetent. This is being driven by the demand
> for "white collar" (desk or office) jobs. That demand has
> exploded since "blue collar" (manual labor) jobs were exported
> to China and Mexico etc via free trade agreements.
It's not necessarily just the demand from future employees.
The world is entering post-industrial economy and the society
needs to follow. Good jobs are increasingly more intellectual
and less unskilled or physically laborious. If your job can
be outsourced to e.g. Asia or Africa or be done by a machine,
you (will) have no job. And if you have no job, how do you
make a living? So, either you need one of those jobs that
require some education and skill or there must be someone or
something that'll provide for you if you can't get and hold
a job to be self-sufficient.
> > If you consider technological advances of the recent
> > past, you can notice that a number of disciplines are now
> > much more accessible than before because it's no longer just
> > your teacher or just your library that is the container or
> > carrier of the information that you need. A lot of it is now
> > online, including full courses. It is understandable that
> > this can't work for every discipline. But this should be
> > making education more and more accessible and cheaper.
>
> It is. The cost of finding information is much lower than
> decades ago. Years ago you had to go to a university or
> research library to find government statistics. Today, you
> just go to the website of the IRS or Census Bureau or
> Bureau of Labor and Statistics or Federal Reserve.
>
> The problem isn't the availability of information or it's
> presentation. The problem is the lack of accreditation
> by alternate learning programs. E.g., you can go to a
> website like Udemy and buy an online MBA course or to
> Amazon to buy used collegiate textbooks in economics,
> finance, or accounting, management, marketing, investment,
> or venture capital, for maybe $100 USD, but you're not
> going to get a degree from doing so which an employer
> requires.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-mba-online-course-udemy-deal-2016-2
>
That's an important aspect as well. And if you think about it,
the particular combination of the two probably only furthers
the inequality divide. See, if you get a job, if you get past
that entrance barrier, all those online things are going to
help you get better and make more (if you make use of them,
of course). But they they won't help if the filter is tuned to
weed out those without a formal degree or without a degree
from a well-known university/whatever, no matter what courses
are taken, no matter what the person actually knows or is
capable of doing.
> > There's a problem in the education system (many, actually).
> > And it needs to be addressed.
>
> Yes.
>
> E.g., cheating by U.S. fraternities is a serious continuing
> issue. It allows people who otherwise couldn't earn a degree
> through effort or intellect to obtain one with excellent grades.
I'm not sure here. I mean, there are multiple issues at play
here. Just one thing, doesn't a more expensive education make
students (and parents) think that the money spent should not
be wasted ('cause it's too much to waste) and if things aren't
working very well that somehow justifies cheating?
Cheating is a rather broad subject and the above is just one
part of it.
> > Cheaper education will be less problematic w.r.t.
> > repaying loans.
>
> This is a supply versus demand problem. Once educators
> realize that only 10 out of every 400 students are capable
> of being an electrical engineer and employers begin to
> complain about incompetent people with degrees, then the
> standards will improve, but only after fraternity cheating
> is squashed by the universities. Those students who were
> pushed into an advanced degree for the degree's potential
> earnings without the intellect or desire for that degree,
> will inevitably fail in their job endeavors.
Maybe not everyone needs a degree after all (advanced or
not). But then, like I said, if you have no job or if your
job has a lousy pay, there must be way for you to get the
basic necessities of life. I can't see how we're going to
deal with the "unwanted" people going forward, if they get
neither jobs nor support of the rest of the society. They
didn't earn it (said support), correct. But. Any buts?
Or should we "humanely" ignore problems of these people or
even get rid of these people altogether?
> > I also don't quite get it why educational debt should be
> > special and should be treated differently from any other
> > in terms of bankruptcy. Is this a case of bad lobbying?
>
> In the U.S., isn't it usually provided from taxes collected
> by the U.S. government from the people? How do you default
> on debt owed to the U.S. government which represents everyone?
I've heard this term, personal bankruptcy, and that educational
debt survives it. I don't have first hand experience, so,
correct me if I'm wrong.
> BTW, I took your comments to be regarding the U.S. and
> not another country.
You got it right.
Thanks,
Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160224180348.6d311595@_> |
| In reply to | #9206 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:12:55 -0800 (PST)
"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:20:56 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST)
> > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton
> > > wrote:
<OT>
> > > It can even be that there's time and money, but the person
> > > thinks they have more important things than their own health
> > > or they are depressed and need a bit of help, a push and/or
> > > company.
> >
> > If someone decides to take that path, it's their choice.
> > They don't need to take that path. They only need to pick
> > one working solution:
> >
> > Family. Friends. Competition. Religion. Psychiatry. Drugs.
>
> What about this guy?:
> [ADHD, BiPolar, depressed]
Didn't watch the video, but that dude is messed up.
Electroshock. Seriously, they'll still use it on you in
the U.S., if you're known to be suicidal, which I would
suspect he'll be someday.
Or, perhaps, he wants to try an alternative home remedy,
such as psilocybin (mushroom drug) since recent research
shows that use of certain psychoactive drugs rebuilds
neuronal connections in the brain, which can eliminate
such symptoms. Another one rumored to do the same is
dimethehyltryptamine (DMT) made from the bark of a tree
or leaves of vines in South America.
http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-mushrooms-change-brain-connections-2014-10
http://www.livescience.com/48502-magic-mushrooms-change-brain-networks.html
Of course, I don't recommend anyone take drugs illicit
or prescribed that affect the human mind. However, they
do help some people.
> While he may be not be the most representative (AD&(H)D,
> bipolar, depressed), many get into similar holes and it
> takes them quite a lot of time, effort, courage, shame
> and so on to get out of there and well again, to
> recognize a problem, to decide to do something about it,
> to actually do that something and stabilize. Some fail
> and never recover. If your family and friends (and maybe
> church) aren't close and friendly enough, if you're
> alone, if you're in denial ("it can't be happening to me,
> I'm not a psycho"), if you feel down and powerless,
> what do you do if anything? You keep doing whatever
> you've been doing until something happens that either
> breaks or helps you. Right? Or you're a lucky person to
> have never been in such a position or to have always
> been rescued quickly enough?
Is someone like that going to go to medical care for
a required yearly mental evaluation? No.
> > > Often times we don't take much interest in each
> > > others well being or help each other or even are
> > > able to ask for help and listen and hear one another.
> >
> > Too many people are talkers and don't listen.
> > Is there a drug to fix them?
>
> Drug? No. But differently structured society will likely
> do the trick.
Why should the majority of society suffer due to the needs
of the minority?
> > > I don't think that this is necessarily incompatible with
> > > capitalism and everyone must be forced to deal with problems
> > > of such importance and such common occurrences on their own.
> > > I think it's fixable.
> >
> > If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the
> > importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that
> > people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt
> > that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you
> > know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing.
> > This would have to be forced upon people.
>
> See, that's one big problem with our society. We are too
> quickly to judge and stigmatize and punish one another for
> no good reason. People are generally aware of this and are
> uneasy about entrusting others their thoughts, feelings,
> pains, etc. Does your congregation still thinks gays are bad
> or need to be "cured" or deserve hate, beating, death?
I have no congregation. I'm non-religious. I have no known
psychological issues. I deal with reality as it is. I don't
embrace this as life is difficult and full of pain. I don't
attempt to change it either. Doing so is a way to lie to
yourself about reality, perhaps for reasons of self-empowerment,
but ineffective nonetheless. I believe accepting the truth
and progressing from there is the best course of action.
I think there are a handful of problems affecting the rights
or equality of homosexuals. First, most religions indoctrinate
people that homosexuality is a sin, essentially a religious
crime, and much of the world is either Christian or Muslim.
Second, much common law is based upon religious beliefs. Third,
some governments are based entirely on religious beliefs,
especially the Ten Commandments. Fourth, continued victimization
of children by pedophilic priests in established churches
ensures that homosexuality continues to be demonized by major
religions. Fifth, countries like the U.S. and Russia see
marriage as a long-standing institution between men and women,
and should not be allowed same sex couples. Sixth, in the U.S.,
applying equal equality laws can weaken the rights of the
government to outlaw and punish other undesirable human behaviors,
such as murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. Seventh, in free
and democratic countries, majority rule is the norm, and not
demands by the minority, e.g., by homosexuals, even if based
on laws of equality.
> Or does it only think gays are smaller persons than anyone
> else and maybe that it's OK to belittle and ridicule them
> or teach them how to live their gay lives? Or is that one
> that's a bit more progressive in the question and appears
> in the list here?:
> [link]
> It's just one example, where we as society still aren't
> doing well.
Ironic? You're from what country again? Wasn't it Russia?
IIRC, you attended a Moscow university. What do you think about
Russia discriminating against homosexuals by outlawing their
behavior? ... Is Russia the future or the past in this regard? ...
> > > Now, on education and loans. Have you looked at the costs of
> > > higher education in the US over the past 50 years? They are
> > > growing like crazy. Is education improving or is it helping
> > > people get the knowledge/skills for the job better than a
> > > decade or two ago? Probably not.
> >
> > Education isn't improving. Demand is. When my dad received
> > his first degree, only 1% of the U.S. populace had university
> > degrees. By the time I graduated from high school, almost
> > 25% of the U.S. populace had a degree. Today, it's rumored
> > to be nearly 50% of the younger generation. Major universities
> > have become degree mills. It's clear that by intelligence
> > alone that the U.S. shouldn't have so many people with degrees.
> > Without the intelligence appropriate for the degree, a person
> > will be incompetent. This is being driven by the demand
> > for "white collar" (desk or office) jobs. That demand has
> > exploded since "blue collar" (manual labor) jobs were exported
> > to China and Mexico etc via free trade agreements.
>
> It's not necessarily just the demand from future employees.
> The world is entering post-industrial economy and the society
> needs to follow. Good jobs are increasingly more intellectual
> and less unskilled or physically laborious.
I disagree. The need is still there. The jobs have just
shifted to countries with lower labor costs. I.e., such
jobs are building the middle-class in Mexico and China, and
soon, India and Africa, but this won't go on forever.
> If your job can
> be outsourced to e.g. Asia or Africa or be done by a machine,
> you (will) have no job.
I agree. That's a serious problem. You must be a worker
to be a consumer. Without workers, there are no consumers.
Without consumers, there is no economy, no capitalism. What
do you do with seven or ten billion people who have no jobs
because industrialization and robotization and artificial
intelligence eliminated all of their jobs? Do we revert to
socialism or communism, but worldwide? Without capitalism,
I see no way out of this conundrum.
> And if you have no job, how do you
> make a living? So, either you need one of those jobs that
> require some education and skill or there must be someone or
> something that'll provide for you if you can't get and hold
> a job to be self-sufficient.
Education isn't the solution. Artificial intelligence will
eliminate the need for educated workers also.
> That's an important aspect as well. And if you think about it,
> the particular combination of the two probably only furthers
> the inequality divide.
As I've indicated above, I don't think there will be an inequality
divide going forward. I foresee everyone not having any type of
work in the future. There will be people with small sums of money
which will quickly deplete, and those with larger sums that will
deplete more slowly. Those with larger sums, including world
governments, simply cannot afford to provide for everyone forever.
If all the wealth of the billionaires in the world is confiscated,
it will only provide 10% of one year's worth of the global wealth
product, or world's global domestic product. How does the world
survive without capitalism? ...
> > > There's a problem in the education system (many, actually).
> > > And it needs to be addressed.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > E.g., cheating by U.S. fraternities is a serious continuing
> > issue. It allows people who otherwise couldn't earn a degree
> > through effort or intellect to obtain one with excellent grades.
>
> I'm not sure here. I mean, there are multiple issues at play
> here. Just one thing, doesn't a more expensive education make
> students (and parents) think that the money spent should not
> be wasted ('cause it's too much to waste) and if things aren't
> working very well that somehow justifies cheating?
> Cheating is a rather broad subject and the above is just one
> part of it.
>
According to recent articles, there has been a tremendous shift
to government provided college funding in the U.S.. So, the
psychological "cost" or barrier of obtaining funds for a chance
at a "better" life or advantageous financial opportunity is
very minimal. It's the reality, paying back government loans,
where the younger generation, "millenials", are crying foul.
Past generations were partially subsidized by the savings of
their "blue collar" parents, but with a much smaller working
class, most of these young adults have to pay off these loans
entirely by themselves. They don't like that. These loans
are too easy for them to get. The universities are generating
far too many degrees because of easy government financing.
> Maybe not everyone needs a degree after all (advanced or
> not). But then, like I said, if you have no job or if your
> job has a lousy pay, there must be way for you to get the
> basic necessities of life. I can't see how we're going to
> deal with the "unwanted" people going forward, if they get
> neither jobs nor support of the rest of the society. They
> didn't earn it (said support), correct. But. Any buts?
> Or should we "humanely" ignore problems of these people or
> even get rid of these people altogether?
I agree. See some comments above. There will be an abundance
of unemployed in the future if something doesn't change.
Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 02:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79a6efdd-1220-4d31-8fc2-60e7b3dc8197@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9211 |
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:03:25 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:12:55 -0800 (PST)
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:20:56 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST)
> > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton
> > > > wrote:
>
> <OT>
>
> > > > It can even be that there's time and money, but the person
> > > > thinks they have more important things than their own health
> > > > or they are depressed and need a bit of help, a push and/or
> > > > company.
> > >
> > > If someone decides to take that path, it's their choice.
> > > They don't need to take that path. They only need to pick
> > > one working solution:
> > >
> > > Family. Friends. Competition. Religion. Psychiatry. Drugs.
> >
> > What about this guy?:
> > [ADHD, BiPolar, depressed]
>
> Didn't watch the video, but that dude is messed up.
s/is/was/. Doing well on meds. In video he recounts his
story, his struggle and his way to normalcy.
> Electroshock. Seriously, they'll still use it on you in
> the U.S., if you're known to be suicidal, which I would
> suspect he'll be someday.
Should've watched the video. :)
I'm not sure your words should be taken as medical advice. :)
There probably are better ways to deal with certain things
than electroshock, lobotomy, etc. Like I said, one would
need a doc to figure out what's going on and what can be
done.
> Or, perhaps, he wants to try an alternative home remedy,
> such as psilocybin (mushroom drug) since recent research
> shows that use of certain psychoactive drugs rebuilds
> neuronal connections in the brain, which can eliminate
> such symptoms. Another one rumored to do the same is
> dimethehyltryptamine (DMT) made from the bark of a tree
> or leaves of vines in South America.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/magic-mushrooms-change-brain-connections-2014-10
> http://www.livescience.com/48502-magic-mushrooms-change-brain-networks.html
>
> Of course, I don't recommend anyone take drugs illicit
> or prescribed that affect the human mind. However, they
> do help some people.
Apparently, experiences change the brain too. :)
> > While he may be not be the most representative (AD&(H)D,
> > bipolar, depressed), many get into similar holes and it
> > takes them quite a lot of time, effort, courage, shame
> > and so on to get out of there and well again, to
> > recognize a problem, to decide to do something about it,
> > to actually do that something and stabilize. Some fail
> > and never recover. If your family and friends (and maybe
> > church) aren't close and friendly enough, if you're
> > alone, if you're in denial ("it can't be happening to me,
> > I'm not a psycho"), if you feel down and powerless,
> > what do you do if anything? You keep doing whatever
> > you've been doing until something happens that either
> > breaks or helps you. Right? Or you're a lucky person to
> > have never been in such a position or to have always
> > been rescued quickly enough?
>
> Is someone like that going to go to medical care for
> a required yearly mental evaluation? No.
Someone like who/what? Required why? What's your point?
> > > > Often times we don't take much interest in each
> > > > others well being or help each other or even are
> > > > able to ask for help and listen and hear one another.
> > >
> > > Too many people are talkers and don't listen.
> > > Is there a drug to fix them?
> >
> > Drug? No. But differently structured society will likely
> > do the trick.
>
> Why should the majority of society suffer due to the needs
> of the minority?
I'm not so sure about suffering or where you divide society
into majority and minority. (And the say, btw, soon the US
will be a minority majority (did I get the word order right?
)).
> > > > I don't think that this is necessarily incompatible with
> > > > capitalism and everyone must be forced to deal with problems
> > > > of such importance and such common occurrences on their own.
> > > > I think it's fixable.
> > >
> > > If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the
> > > importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that
> > > people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt
> > > that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you
> > > know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing.
> > > This would have to be forced upon people.
> >
> > See, that's one big problem with our society. We are too
> > quickly to judge and stigmatize and punish one another for
> > no good reason. People are generally aware of this and are
> > uneasy about entrusting others their thoughts, feelings,
> > pains, etc. Does your congregation still thinks gays are bad
> > or need to be "cured" or deserve hate, beating, death?
>
> I have no congregation. I'm non-religious. I have no known
> psychological issues.
Good!
> I deal with reality as it is.
That's debatable as most of us have certain biases, filters, etc. :)
But that's not the topic. At least, you're not in the focus of it.
> I don't
> embrace this as life is difficult and full of pain.
I wasn't asking you to. What I was saying is that people don't
always share their problems (real physical pains included) and
miss out on help and then when they do share they sometimes get
put down instead of getting help.
> I don't
> attempt to change it either. Doing so is a way to lie to
> yourself about reality, perhaps for reasons of self-empowerment,
> but ineffective nonetheless. I believe accepting the truth
> and progressing from there is the best course of action.
Putting aside what truth is, if you had a problem and you
knew it could be solved or alleviated, wouldn't you want that?
People like that man from the video don't know what they don't
know for a long time. They wish their problems gone, but they
don't know what the problems really are and what can be done
about them. They don't want to embrace their suffering or
their negative impact on the people around them (e.g. like
that man not showing up for work for days). We build and
change reality. Not always, not always in good ways, but it's
not like something set in stone (or given from god as some may
say). Some change is good. That man has changed his reality
and that of the people he interacts with. And he used help for
that change to happen.
> I think there are a handful of problems affecting the rights
> or equality of homosexuals. First, most religions indoctrinate
> people that homosexuality is a sin, essentially a religious
> crime, and much of the world is either Christian or Muslim.
> Second, much common law is based upon religious beliefs. Third,
> some governments are based entirely on religious beliefs,
> especially the Ten Commandments. Fourth, continued victimization
> of children by pedophilic priests in established churches
> ensures that homosexuality continues to be demonized by major
> religions. Fifth, countries like the U.S. and Russia see
> marriage as a long-standing institution between men and women,
> and should not be allowed same sex couples. Sixth, in the U.S.,
> applying equal equality laws can weaken the rights of the
> government to outlaw and punish other undesirable human behaviors,
> such as murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. Seventh, in free
> and democratic countries, majority rule is the norm, and not
> demands by the minority, e.g., by homosexuals, even if based
> on laws of equality.
What's your point?
> > Or does it only think gays are smaller persons than anyone
> > else and maybe that it's OK to belittle and ridicule them
> > or teach them how to live their gay lives? Or is that one
> > that's a bit more progressive in the question and appears
> > in the list here?:
> > [link]
> > It's just one example, where we as society still aren't
> > doing well.
>
> Ironic? You're from what country again? Wasn't it Russia?
> IIRC, you attended a Moscow university.
And your point is?
> What do you think about
> Russia discriminating against homosexuals by outlawing their
> behavior? ... Is Russia the future or the past in this regard? ...
And your point is?
Some scholars put the sin of homosexuality into the context
of a people struggling for freedom from oppression and
persecution, IOW, it not being sinful per se but being a
waste when every person counts and the count needs to be
bigger to gain strength.
There's some logic in it. More than in it being sin just
because. If it's yucky, if you don't like it, if it's a
sin in your religion, you don't do it. But people, while
similar, are not exactly the same. And not everyone is
a Christian or a Muslim and even in those groups there's
divide. So, it's kind of imprudent to expect or want
everyone behave in exactly same manner or share everyone
else's values (good luck with sharing diametrically
opposite ones!). Unless, of course, the thing you're
after is domination and you need your numbers up, no
matter what. More children, more soldiers. Homosexuals
don't fit or must procreate as anyone else.
Why would you need more people in the US or Russia now?
For another world domination war? Number-wise we both
lose to China.
If it's not that, what is it? The everlasting search
for enemies, for someone culpable in all our problems,
for someone who's simply not like us? Hasn't the humanity
gone there already? Nobody returned, let's go again?
Some things don't make sense.
> > > > Now, on education and loans. Have you looked at the costs of
> > > > higher education in the US over the past 50 years? They are
> > > > growing like crazy. Is education improving or is it helping
> > > > people get the knowledge/skills for the job better than a
> > > > decade or two ago? Probably not.
> > >
> > > Education isn't improving. Demand is. When my dad received
> > > his first degree, only 1% of the U.S. populace had university
> > > degrees. By the time I graduated from high school, almost
> > > 25% of the U.S. populace had a degree. Today, it's rumored
> > > to be nearly 50% of the younger generation. Major universities
> > > have become degree mills. It's clear that by intelligence
> > > alone that the U.S. shouldn't have so many people with degrees.
> > > Without the intelligence appropriate for the degree, a person
> > > will be incompetent. This is being driven by the demand
> > > for "white collar" (desk or office) jobs. That demand has
> > > exploded since "blue collar" (manual labor) jobs were exported
> > > to China and Mexico etc via free trade agreements.
> >
> > It's not necessarily just the demand from future employees.
> > The world is entering post-industrial economy and the society
> > needs to follow. Good jobs are increasingly more intellectual
> > and less unskilled or physically laborious.
>
> I disagree. The need is still there. The jobs have just
> shifted to countries with lower labor costs. I.e., such
> jobs are building the middle-class in Mexico and China, and
> soon, India and Africa, but this won't go on forever.
With what exactly do you disagree as I don't disagree with
your statements on the shift and forever?
Or are you suggesting that those Americans who have trouble
getting a job in the US should simply move to other countries,
e.g. the aforementioned Mexico, China, India and African
countries? Btw, some do, but I think most won't ever.
> > If your job can
> > be outsourced to e.g. Asia or Africa or be done by a machine,
> > you (will) have no job.
>
> I agree. That's a serious problem. You must be a worker
> to be a consumer. Without workers, there are no consumers.
> Without consumers, there is no economy, no capitalism. What
> do you do with seven or ten billion people who have no jobs
> because industrialization and robotization and artificial
> intelligence eliminated all of their jobs? Do we revert to
> socialism or communism, but worldwide? Without capitalism,
> I see no way out of this conundrum.
And now we're back to the structure of society. :)
You can't grow and expand trade indefinitely while reducing
the number of those who can actually earn and spend money.
Some might wish for a planet to colonize, but we seem to be
alone in the physically reachable space. No creatures to
parasitize(?) on on the moon.
> > And if you have no job, how do you
> > make a living? So, either you need one of those jobs that
> > require some education and skill or there must be someone or
> > something that'll provide for you if you can't get and hold
> > a job to be self-sufficient.
>
> Education isn't the solution. Artificial intelligence will
> eliminate the need for educated workers also.
To some extent. But I'm still not holding breath for strong
AI or however-else-qualified AI.
> > That's an important aspect as well. And if you think about it,
> > the particular combination of the two probably only furthers
> > the inequality divide.
>
> As I've indicated above, I don't think there will be an inequality
> divide going forward. I foresee everyone not having any type of
> work in the future. There will be people with small sums of money
> which will quickly deplete, and those with larger sums that will
> deplete more slowly. Those with larger sums, including world
> governments, simply cannot afford to provide for everyone forever.
> If all the wealth of the billionaires in the world is confiscated,
> it will only provide 10% of one year's worth of the global wealth
> product, or world's global domestic product. How does the world
> survive without capitalism? ...
How does the world survive with capitalism? :) I mean, what
features of it in particular are key for survival? And are they
unique to it?
> > > > There's a problem in the education system (many, actually).
> > > > And it needs to be addressed.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > E.g., cheating by U.S. fraternities is a serious continuing
> > > issue. It allows people who otherwise couldn't earn a degree
> > > through effort or intellect to obtain one with excellent grades.
> >
> > I'm not sure here. I mean, there are multiple issues at play
> > here. Just one thing, doesn't a more expensive education make
> > students (and parents) think that the money spent should not
> > be wasted ('cause it's too much to waste) and if things aren't
> > working very well that somehow justifies cheating?
> > Cheating is a rather broad subject and the above is just one
> > part of it.
> >
>
> According to recent articles, there has been a tremendous shift
> to government provided college funding in the U.S.. So, the
> psychological "cost" or barrier of obtaining funds for a chance
> at a "better" life or advantageous financial opportunity is
> very minimal. It's the reality, paying back government loans,
> where the younger generation, "millenials", are crying foul.
> Past generations were partially subsidized by the savings of
> their "blue collar" parents, but with a much smaller working
> class, most of these young adults have to pay off these loans
> entirely by themselves. They don't like that. These loans
> are too easy for them to get. The universities are generating
> far too many degrees because of easy government financing.
So why is the "middle class" smaller now?
> > Maybe not everyone needs a degree after all (advanced or
> > not). But then, like I said, if you have no job or if your
> > job has a lousy pay, there must be way for you to get the
> > basic necessities of life. I can't see how we're going to
> > deal with the "unwanted" people going forward, if they get
> > neither jobs nor support of the rest of the society. They
> > didn't earn it (said support), correct. But. Any buts?
> > Or should we "humanely" ignore problems of these people or
> > even get rid of these people altogether?
>
> I agree. See some comments above. There will be an abundance
> of unemployed in the future if something doesn't change.
There again. Different structure of society.
Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 20:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160228201501.0729fe48@_> |
| In reply to | #9223 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:53:17 -0800 (PST) "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:03:25 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton > wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:12:55 -0800 (PST) > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:20:56 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST) > > > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod > > > > > Pemberton wrote: [...] > I'm not sure your words should be taken as medical advice. :) > There probably are better ways to deal with certain things > than electroshock, lobotomy, etc. Like I said, one would > need a doc to figure out what's going on and what can be > done. A high school acquaintance of mine was suicidal. They treated him with electroshock but only after nothing else worked to eliminate his tendencies. I.e., medication failed, psychology failed, ... > > Of course, I don't recommend anyone take drugs illicit > > or prescribed that affect the human mind. However, they > > do help some people. > > Apparently, experiences change the brain too. :) > Yes, you can watch other people do stupid, daredevil stuff on Youtube, and be just as thrilled without the danger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA#t=3m40s In just a few years, stuff like that will be filmed in 3D and delivered via VR ... Just imagine a movie theater without any screens, but a whole bunch of people wearing headsets. > > Is someone like that going to go to medical care for > > a required yearly mental evaluation? No. > > Someone like who/what? Required why? What's your point? > It was in regards to now snipped content: > > If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the > > importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that > > people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt > > that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you > > know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing. > > This would have to be forced upon people. The guy you cited likely wouldn't be helped by the medical community unless 1) he was forced to have a medical evaluation yearly and determined to be in need of help or 2) he eventually self-admitted himself to a hospital or psychologist. > (And the say, btw, soon the US > will be a minority majority The predominant race of the majority in the U.S. might switch, or change or "merge," yes. Scientists think we'll all look like people in South America in due time. And, some scientists are claiming that genetically modifying humans, with chlorophyll, will solve the world's presumed future food shortage. So, we'll be green looking too ... ;-) > minority majority (did I get the word order right? > )). Probably not ... Scientists have claimed that for generations. I.e., blacks will overtake whites in America. Now, they're saying it won't be blacks, but it'll be Hispanics, except many of them are voluntarily returning to Central and South America, or are being permanently deported. Time will tell. > What I was saying is that people don't > always share their problems (real physical pains included) and > miss out on help and then when they do share they sometimes get > put down instead of getting help. Yes, so that guy you cited, really needed to be forced to get help, correct? ;-) > Putting aside what truth is, if you had a problem and you > knew it could be solved or alleviated, wouldn't you want that? That depends on the side-effects of the solution. If the solution is to amputate an arm to eliminate incurable elbow pain, I might think twice about a cure. If I'm a successful author and playwright, but only while I'm drunk, I might think twice about a cure. If I'm a rich, abusive asshole and the solution to my deep seated fears is to be hypnotized into being a polite and upstanding citizen, I might think twice. If the solution is lobotomy or electroshock, then the symptoms must be considered to be substantially worse, e.g., death. > People like that man from the video don't know what they don't > know for a long time. They wish their problems gone, but they > don't know what the problems really are and what can be done > about them. They don't want to embrace their suffering or > their negative impact on the people around them (e.g. like > that man not showing up for work for days). How would he find out in a timely manner without someone forcing him to take a yearly mental examination? > > I think there are a handful of problems affecting the rights > > or equality of homosexuals. First, most religions indoctrinate > > people that homosexuality is a sin, essentially a religious > > crime, and much of the world is either Christian or Muslim. > > Second, much common law is based upon religious beliefs. Third, > > some governments are based entirely on religious beliefs, > > especially the Ten Commandments. Fourth, continued victimization > > of children by pedophilic priests in established churches > > ensures that homosexuality continues to be demonized by major > > religions. Fifth, countries like the U.S. and Russia see > > marriage as a long-standing institution between men and women, > > and should not be allowed same sex couples. Sixth, in the U.S., > > applying equal equality laws can weaken the rights of the > > government to outlaw and punish other undesirable human behaviors, > > such as murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. Seventh, in free > > and democratic countries, majority rule is the norm, and not > > demands by the minority, e.g., by homosexuals, even if based > > on laws of equality. > > What's your point? You brought up acceptance and non-acceptance of homosexuals with: > Does your congregation still thinks gays are bad > or need to be "cured" or deserve hate, beating, death? I was describing what I see as problems interfering with their widespread acceptance in the U.S. > > > Or does it only think gays are smaller persons than anyone > > > else and maybe that it's OK to belittle and ridicule them > > > or teach them how to live their gay lives? Or is that one > > > that's a bit more progressive in the question and appears > > > in the list here?: > > > [link] > > > It's just one example, where we as society still aren't > > > doing well. > > > > Ironic? You're from what country again? Wasn't it Russia? > > IIRC, you attended a Moscow university. > > And your point is? You cited society, i.e., U.S. society, not doing well in regards to gays (and lesbians), but you're from a society (Russia) which is doing worse in that regard. Don't you find that to be ironic? I do. > > What do you think about > > Russia discriminating against homosexuals by outlawing their > > behavior? ... Is Russia the future or the past in this > > regard? ... > > And your point is? I was asking your opinion in regards to Russia, since you seem supportive of gays (and lesbians) in U.S. society. Do you not also support gays (and lesbians) in Russian society? If not, why the bias? > Some scholars put the sin of homosexuality into the context "sin of homosexuality" What's that? And, what's sin? ... AIR, the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. Church leaders do. In fact, the bible says that only Jewish, male, virgins make it into Heaven, which would imply that God is either a male pederast, or possibly a female pedophile. Neither of these is acceptable to any church, for different reasons, i.e., a homosexual God or a female God are both unacceptable. That's if the Bible is true, as most Christians and Muslims believe it is: Revelation 7:4 (144K Jewish children) Revelation 14:1 (144K who stand with Christ) Revelation 14:3 (144K sing a song) Revelation 14:4 (144K male Virgins) > Some scholars put the sin of homosexuality into the context > of a people struggling for freedom from oppression and > persecution, I would not classify racism or homosexuality as a form of oppression and persecution. By comparison, they're nowhere near as extreme. I would classify slavery as oppression and persecution, which was a long-standing practice in Africa, not initiated by white men. > IOW, it not being sinful per se but being a > waste when every person counts and the count needs to be > bigger to gain strength. ... > Why would you need more people in the US or Russia now? Russia is mostly empty. Large parts of the U.S. is too, but not like Russia. Russia could easily form three or four countries, without much economic effect in Moscow. Military issues might be a different matter. Some things may be badly located. > For another world domination war? Number-wise we both > lose to China. Salvation through technology or partnership? ... I doubt that either government would consider the latter, unless forced by China. > > > It's not necessarily just the demand from future employees. > > > The world is entering post-industrial economy and the society > > > needs to follow. Good jobs are increasingly more intellectual > > > and less unskilled or physically laborious. > > > > I disagree. The need is still there. The jobs have just > > shifted to countries with lower labor costs. I.e., such > > jobs are building the middle-class in Mexico and China, and > > soon, India and Africa, but this won't go on forever. > > With what exactly do you disagree as I don't disagree with > your statements on the shift and forever? 1) You classified the entire world as entering post-industrial economy, not just the developed world. 2) You said good jobs are increasingly more intellectual and less unskilled or physically laborious, which is true in the developed world, but not so in underdeveloped regions. > Or are you suggesting that those Americans who have trouble > getting a job in the US should simply move to other countries, > e.g. the aforementioned Mexico, China, India and African > countries? Btw, some do, but I think most won't ever. Some jobs are returning, but most of them never will. It's too late to turn back the clock. The jobs were exported. They're not being replaced. This goes toward the demand for a college degree by the less-than-qualified. > But I'm still not holding breath for strong > AI or however-else-qualified AI. What? Even given the negative outcome, it's worth a fortune to governments and businesses. Imagine what the U.S., Russia, China, or Iran would pay for a machine with the mind of 100,000 geniuses. > > > That's an important aspect as well. And if you think about it, > > > the particular combination of the two probably only furthers > > > the inequality divide. > > > > As I've indicated above, I don't think there will be an inequality > > divide going forward. I foresee everyone not having any type of > > work in the future. There will be people with small sums of money > > which will quickly deplete, and those with larger sums that will > > deplete more slowly. Those with larger sums, including world > > governments, simply cannot afford to provide for everyone forever. > > If all the wealth of the billionaires in the world is confiscated, > > it will only provide 10% of one year's worth of the global wealth > > product, or world's global domestic product. How does the world > > survive without capitalism? ... > > How does the world survive with capitalism? :) It builds and produces everything. Men would not do what is required without money or being forced or conned. > I mean, what features of it in particular are key for survival? By survival, I'll take it you mean modern survival and not subsistence farming, hunting, and harvesting. None of those, in conjunction, will support the current world populace. So, monetary exchange. How do you obtain a can of corn without money involved in the transaction? Steal? Barter? Work? These are all inefficient in terms of both time and money. How does a great poet have time to write, painter to paint, etc if he must spend all day in the fields to survive? > And are they unique to it? Yes, efficiency is. At least, efficiency is provided by capitalism in terms of properly allocated capital, most of the time. You can never eliminate overzealous people. > So why is the "middle class" smaller now? More people in poverty. More people on government support. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 20:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbf4c30d-f5c9-461b-9207-1699819559b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9224 |
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 5:14:37 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:53:17 -0800 (PST) > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:03:25 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:12:55 -0800 (PST) > > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:20:56 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:56:36 -0800 (PST) > > > > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:55:25 AM UTC-8, Rod > > > > > > Pemberton wrote: > > [...] > > > I'm not sure your words should be taken as medical advice. :) > > There probably are better ways to deal with certain things > > than electroshock, lobotomy, etc. Like I said, one would > > need a doc to figure out what's going on and what can be > > done. > > A high school acquaintance of mine was suicidal. > They treated him with electroshock but only after > nothing else worked to eliminate his tendencies. > I.e., medication failed, psychology failed, ... That's still medical help. Although, as I said, there may now be alternative methods. > > > Of course, I don't recommend anyone take drugs illicit > > > or prescribed that affect the human mind. However, they > > > do help some people. > > > > Apparently, experiences change the brain too. :) > > > > Yes, you can watch other people do stupid, daredevil stuff > on Youtube, and be just as thrilled without the danger. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA#t=3m40s To some extent, yes. However, first-hand experience is probably the most acute. > In just a few years, stuff like that will be filmed in > 3D and delivered via VR ... Just imagine a movie theater > without any screens, but a whole bunch of people wearing > headsets. That movie theater will be Netflix or something like it. Delivered to your home PC, no need to dress and go out. :) > > > Is someone like that going to go to medical care for > > > a required yearly mental evaluation? No. > > > > Someone like who/what? Required why? What's your point? > > > > It was in regards to now snipped content: > > > > If someone is in such a state, do they even recognize the > > > importance of them not being there? I.e., it implies that > > > people need a yearly mental health evaluation. I doubt > > > that anyone would sign up for that. It implies that you > > > know there is something wrong with you which needs fixing. > > > This would have to be forced upon people. > > The guy you cited likely wouldn't be helped by the medical > community unless 1) he was forced to have a medical evaluation > yearly and determined to be in need of help or 2) he eventually > self-admitted himself to a hospital or psychologist. Probably. > > (And the say, btw, soon the US > > will be a minority majority > > The predominant race of the majority in the U.S. might switch, > or change or "merge," yes. Scientists think we'll all look > like people in South America in due time. And, some scientists > are claiming that genetically modifying humans, with chlorophyll, > will solve the world's presumed future food shortage. So, we'll > be green looking too ... ;-) Not sure about food. Just watched a documentary, where they said insects were much more effective than cattle in terms of protein cost. Perhaps one day we'll be eating fried grasshoppers or cockroaches instead of beef burgers. :) Just as our ancestors did and just as some people still do these days. > > minority majority (did I get the word order right? > )). > > Probably not ... Scientists have claimed that for generations. > I.e., blacks will overtake whites in America. Now, they're > saying it won't be blacks, but it'll be Hispanics, except many > of them are voluntarily returning to Central and South America, > or are being permanently deported. Time will tell. We have lots of Asians in the valley. Just look at the racial makeup of Apple's hometown. In 2010 there were 63% Asians, 31% Whites (since when is it spelled with a capital W? (taken from Wikipedia)) and 4% of Hipsanic/Latino. So, in some places whites are already in the minorities. > > What I was saying is that people don't > > always share their problems (real physical pains included) and > > miss out on help and then when they do share they sometimes get > > put down instead of getting help. > > Yes, so that guy you cited, really needed to be forced to get > help, correct? ;-) I'd say, it depends on what you force you have in mind. I don't think brute force would be appreciated. > > Putting aside what truth is, if you had a problem and you > > knew it could be solved or alleviated, wouldn't you want that? > > That depends on the side-effects of the solution. Right. > If the solution is to amputate an arm to eliminate > incurable elbow pain, I might think twice about a cure. > > If I'm a successful author and playwright, but only > while I'm drunk, I might think twice about a cure. > > If I'm a rich, abusive asshole and the solution to my > deep seated fears is to be hypnotized into being a > polite and upstanding citizen, I might think twice. > > If the solution is lobotomy or electroshock, then > the symptoms must be considered to be substantially > worse, e.g., death. Sure, you balance the choices if you can/have them. > > People like that man from the video don't know what they don't > > know for a long time. They wish their problems gone, but they > > don't know what the problems really are and what can be done > > about them. They don't want to embrace their suffering or > > their negative impact on the people around them (e.g. like > > that man not showing up for work for days). > > How would he find out in a timely manner without someone > forcing him to take a yearly mental examination? Sometimes it's through shared personal experience of others. When you see lots of similarities you may consider something similar happening to you. Sometimes it's an experience "shared" too late, after the person is gone and by someone else who was close with them. But like I said earlier, our society is often cruel or unhelpful to its members and so many prefer to hide their "weaknesses". > > > I think there are a handful of problems affecting the rights > > > or equality of homosexuals. First, most religions indoctrinate > > > people that homosexuality is a sin, essentially a religious > > > crime, and much of the world is either Christian or Muslim. > > > Second, much common law is based upon religious beliefs. Third, > > > some governments are based entirely on religious beliefs, > > > especially the Ten Commandments. Fourth, continued victimization > > > of children by pedophilic priests in established churches > > > ensures that homosexuality continues to be demonized by major > > > religions. Fifth, countries like the U.S. and Russia see > > > marriage as a long-standing institution between men and women, > > > and should not be allowed same sex couples. Sixth, in the U.S., > > > applying equal equality laws can weaken the rights of the > > > government to outlaw and punish other undesirable human behaviors, > > > such as murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. Seventh, in free > > > and democratic countries, majority rule is the norm, and not > > > demands by the minority, e.g., by homosexuals, even if based > > > on laws of equality. > > > > What's your point? > > You brought up acceptance and non-acceptance of homosexuals with: > > > Does your congregation still thinks gays are bad > > or need to be "cured" or deserve hate, beating, death? > > I was describing what I see as problems interfering with > their widespread acceptance in the U.S. > > > > > Or does it only think gays are smaller persons than anyone > > > > else and maybe that it's OK to belittle and ridicule them > > > > or teach them how to live their gay lives? Or is that one > > > > that's a bit more progressive in the question and appears > > > > in the list here?: > > > > [link] > > > > It's just one example, where we as society still aren't > > > > doing well. > > > > > > Ironic? You're from what country again? Wasn't it Russia? > > > IIRC, you attended a Moscow university. > > > > And your point is? > > You cited society, i.e., U.S. society, not doing well in regards > to gays (and lesbians), but you're from a society (Russia) which > is doing worse in that regard. Don't you find that to be ironic? > I do. Speaking of irony, I find it ironic that in the US, one of the leading countries in technology and science (humanities, social studies, etc included) so many people live as if in the previous century, be it personal development or simple poverty. > > > What do you think about > > > Russia discriminating against homosexuals by outlawing their > > > behavior? ... Is Russia the future or the past in this > > > regard? ... > > > > And your point is? > > I was asking your opinion in regards to Russia, since you > seem supportive of gays (and lesbians) in U.S. society. > Do you not also support gays (and lesbians) in Russian society? > If not, why the bias? The thing is, growing in Russia I knew very little about these things. Because, as we know, there was no sex in the USSR. :) It is the US where I've learned a tiny bit about gay people and their lives. It is the US where I've had gay coworkers. And it's the US where I've learned not to hold anything against LGB(and really the whole alphabet goes here)Ts. However, openly supporting these groups of people as in e.g. holding posters saying "gays are people too" on the Red Square may not be something wise to do these days because as the officials put it this gay propaganda (that's what they call it in one of the most inhumane laws enacted recently) will make Russian kids gay and that is a bad thing. At any rate, one may lose their ability to help gays by doing jail time. So, practical support should probably take on other forms in Russia. And hey, we don't have rights problems in Russia anymore, everything's fine and under control: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/moscows-un-human-rights-office-to-shut-its-door.html > > Some scholars put the sin of homosexuality into the context > > "sin of homosexuality" > > What's that? And, what's sin? ... > > AIR, the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. > Church leaders do. Some definitely do and contribute to spreading hate and discrimination. > In fact, the bible says that only Jewish, male, virgins > make it into Heaven, which would imply that God is > either a male pederast, or possibly a female pedophile. > Neither of these is acceptable to any church, for > different reasons, i.e., a homosexual God or a female > God are both unacceptable. That's if the Bible is > true, as most Christians and Muslims believe it is: > > Revelation 7:4 (144K Jewish children) > Revelation 14:1 (144K who stand with Christ) > Revelation 14:3 (144K sing a song) > Revelation 14:4 (144K male Virgins) Sorry, not versed in the verses. > > Some scholars put the sin of homosexuality into the context > > of a people struggling for freedom from oppression and > > persecution, > > I would not classify racism or homosexuality as a form > of oppression and persecution. By comparison, they're > nowhere near as extreme. I would classify slavery as > oppression and persecution, which was a long-standing > practice in Africa, not initiated by white men. No need to look for extra people to lay blame on, it's in history. Though, that history is not quite over. It looks like there's still some human "trafficking" going on. And not just in Africa or just by white men. Sad. > > IOW, it not being sinful per se but being a > > waste when every person counts and the count needs to be > > bigger to gain strength. > > ... > > > Why would you need more people in the US or Russia now? > > Russia is mostly empty. Large parts of the U.S. is too, > but not like Russia. Russia could easily form three or > four countries, without much economic effect in Moscow. > Military issues might be a different matter. Some things > may be badly located. > > > For another world domination war? Number-wise we both > > lose to China. > > Salvation through technology or partnership? ... > I doubt that either government would consider the > latter, unless forced by China. Is homosexuality an issue of national security in the US? It probably isn't. Why does it look like it may be in Russia? I don't know. An easy (culturally-approved?) target to crack down on dissent? > > > > It's not necessarily just the demand from future employees. > > > > The world is entering post-industrial economy and the society > > > > needs to follow. Good jobs are increasingly more intellectual > > > > and less unskilled or physically laborious. > > > > > > I disagree. The need is still there. The jobs have just > > > shifted to countries with lower labor costs. I.e., such > > > jobs are building the middle-class in Mexico and China, and > > > soon, India and Africa, but this won't go on forever. > > > > With what exactly do you disagree as I don't disagree with > > your statements on the shift and forever? > > 1) You classified the entire world as entering > post-industrial economy, not just the developed world. Ah, OK, but they're seeing shifts as well. > 2) You said good jobs are increasingly more intellectual > and less unskilled or physically laborious, which is > true in the developed world, but not so in underdeveloped > regions. Right. > > Or are you suggesting that those Americans who have trouble > > getting a job in the US should simply move to other countries, > > e.g. the aforementioned Mexico, China, India and African > > countries? Btw, some do, but I think most won't ever. > > Some jobs are returning, but most of them never will. > It's too late to turn back the clock. The jobs were > exported. They're not being replaced. This goes toward > the demand for a college degree by the less-than-qualified. > > > But I'm still not holding breath for strong > > AI or however-else-qualified AI. > > What? Even given the negative outcome, it's worth a fortune > to governments and businesses. Imagine what the U.S., Russia, > China, or Iran would pay for a machine with the mind of > 100,000 geniuses. I'm all for research here. It will surely bear fruit, maybe not as quickly or not as great, but it will. I just think some are overly optimistic about the when or the what. The recent Microsoft AI fiasco is showing immaturity (pun intended): http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35902104 > > > > That's an important aspect as well. And if you think about it, > > > > the particular combination of the two probably only furthers > > > > the inequality divide. > > > > > > As I've indicated above, I don't think there will be an inequality > > > divide going forward. I foresee everyone not having any type of > > > work in the future. There will be people with small sums of money > > > which will quickly deplete, and those with larger sums that will > > > deplete more slowly. Those with larger sums, including world > > > governments, simply cannot afford to provide for everyone forever. > > > If all the wealth of the billionaires in the world is confiscated, > > > it will only provide 10% of one year's worth of the global wealth > > > product, or world's global domestic product. How does the world > > > survive without capitalism? ... > > > > How does the world survive with capitalism? :) > > It builds and produces everything. Men would not do what is > required without money or being forced or conned. > > > I mean, what features of it in particular are key for survival? > > By survival, I'll take it you mean modern survival > and not subsistence farming, hunting, and harvesting. > None of those, in conjunction, will support the current > world populace. > > So, monetary exchange. > > How do you obtain a can of corn without money involved > in the transaction? Steal? Barter? Work? These are all > inefficient in terms of both time and money. How does > a great poet have time to write, painter to paint, etc > if he must spend all day in the fields to survive? > > > And are they unique to it? > > Yes, efficiency is. At least, efficiency is provided by > capitalism in terms of properly allocated capital, most > of the time. You can never eliminate overzealous people. > > > So why is the "middle class" smaller now? > > More people in poverty. More people on government support. > > > Rod Pemberton Read thus far, not sure I have much meaningful to say here. Some topics need further research. Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 18:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160328182313.33bc48ed@_> |
| In reply to | #9314 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT) "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 5:14:37 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:53:17 -0800 (PST) > > "Alexei A. Frounze" <...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In just a few years, stuff like that will be filmed in > > 3D and delivered via VR ... Just imagine a movie theater > > without any screens, but a whole bunch of people wearing > > headsets. > > That movie theater will be Netflix or something like it. > Delivered to your home PC, no need to dress and go out. :) I'd like to think that the movie theaters could still provide a superior performance over home equipment. The home equipment is likely to be expensive for a while, and go through a period of rapid change. When prices drop and people can easily afford home equipment, movie theaters will have to come up with some other method to attract customers or go out of business, like drive-in theaters did when VCRs and sit-down theaters became more widespread in the U.S. Maybe, they can offer vibrations and tilting like a Disney experience. Or, maybe they will have technology that creates smells (non-carcinogenic). Or, maybe the lead characters in the movie switch to first person, so you become the main character, like FPS games. There seems to be one movie doing that: Hardcore Henry. It's likely to be interesting to see what movie theaters do to survive. > Speaking of irony, I find it ironic that in the US, one of the > leading countries in technology and science (humanities, social > studies, etc included) so many people live as if in the previous > century, be it personal development or simple poverty. What should we do about that? Accept more socialism? Accept more government? ... > > > But I'm still not holding breath for strong > > > AI or however-else-qualified AI. > > > > What? Even given the negative outcome, it's worth a fortune > > to governments and businesses. Imagine what the U.S., Russia, > > China, or Iran would pay for a machine with the mind of > > 100,000 geniuses. > > I'm all for research here. It will surely bear fruit, maybe > not as quickly or not as great, but it will. I just think some > are overly optimistic about the when or the what. The recent > Microsoft AI fiasco is showing immaturity (pun intended): > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35902104 Well, there are exponential growth rates for many things. So, it might be here far faster than we could ever imagine, or it might take centuries for us to grasp the depths and intricacies of artificial intelligence. It's mainly a question of do we lose our way or lose control in the process. Personally, I don't believe that a few simple rules can effectively control a sentient being. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web