madair

17 ms·

91.
by madair 16y ago
Yes, it is bizarre, and is David Brooks, apologist extraordinaire for the class system (us v them), so that's not a surprise. Matt Taibbi regularly takes down his articles, this looks like a perfect candidate for such a takedown.
92.
by madair 16y ago
This is why Feynmann disliked the social sciences, seriously, the Torrance tests is a perfect application of all of the problems with highly interpretative "tests".
93.
by madair 16y ago
Robin Hanson has been on this subject for awhile: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/why-schools-test-often... Also: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/06/school-attitudes.html
94.
by madair 16y ago
Sounds like a lot of people are "trash" to you.
95.
by madair 16y ago
Yeah, and a phone call is analogous. I'd retract my comment, but it's too late.
96.
by madair 16y ago
I wasn't thinking so much conspiracy theory...just marketing overreach, I didn't think there's possibly a technical explanation that holds water, interesting.
97.
by madair 16y ago
once a person connects to another person on FaceTime it for some reason non of us in the office can figure out, sends us APPLE a message and says those two people are connecting via Facetime and gives out their location to us. So for whate
98.
by madair 16y ago
In the absence of an absolute, we have to deal with what we have, there are people who wish to grant monopolies and claim a moral prerogative, all the while assuming or claiming that the inequalities created are justified. I suggest that th
99.
by madair 16y ago
Trickle down is most certainly not the broadly accepted view, FYI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
100.
by madair 16y ago
>>> You've yet to establish the net negative effect, so I think this is putting the cart before the horse just a little. I'm not the one claiming that trickle down economics is a morally justified way to rationalize the goodness
101.
by madair 16y ago
"Here is my simple formula for generalizing everyone into categories. If I think you're a jerk, and I think you're wrong, then clearly nobody should have to put up with what you have to say." Hmmm.
102.
by madair 16y ago
>>> You can talk about artificially constructed realities all you want, but the idea that other people matter is also artificially constructed. Yes, we can choose to believe that other moral matters relating to people driven i
103.
by madair 16y ago
You can unapologetically assume that only for as long as you do not accept culpability for the outcome. Or rather, you may accept culpability unapologetically, it just says a lot about you, even if you don't realize it. [Edit: people can't
104.
by madair 16y ago
1. Agreeing on it doesn't make it moral. [Edit: although it does create a moral majority, aka, the tyranny of the majority] 2. Trickle down economics at its finest. Where's the evidence? I'll give you some counter-evidence: music after vs m
105.
by madair 16y ago
Ah yes, Mob justice, bring the pitchforks plz. I start hearing Smeagol's my preccccciiooosssss when some artists and coders talk about their work. [Edit] Ownership of goods is a social construction, not a universal truth nor is there some
106.
by madair 16y ago
Which leads to another big point about financiers...too many preppies heading to college for a quick buck on Wall St.
107.
by madair 16y ago
I'm really confused, I'm not just trying to rile you up here, are you really sure that Greenwald has a idealized view of Wikileaks, the narrative of his article seems to find some motivations of Manning, and as he says, he has already come
108.
by madair 16y ago
Activism for transparency is not a value judgment? Analysis of information suppression by governments in relation to events and information which affect the lives of billions seems like a value judgment too.
109.
by madair 16y ago
Lamo bad. Poulsen bad. Ok. But it does not therefore follow that Manning is good. Or that Wikileaks is acting ethically and performing a vital service. Fortunately Greenwald gave us his actual reasoning, rather than the logical reduction
110.
by madair 16y ago
I guess they'll just have to use their convenient systems for entering ASCII then huh.
111.
by madair 16y ago
That sounds like an alternate form of the everyone is doing it argument. If, short of living in a cave, one can mostly only take symbolic action, then symbolic is what I take. But what's not symbolic is the effect of my action on me, it act
112.
by madair 16y ago
Meaningless? Hmmm. It may not always be 100% rational (as nothing is), but meaningless?
113.
by madair 16y ago
In part three he brilliantly draws a distinction between the objective sciences and others and subtly, if I'm understanding correctly, critiques a proponent of uncontrolled population grown by pointing out that the proponents degree from th
114.
by madair 16y ago
Haha, that too.
115.
by madair 16y ago
I'm presuming you don't have any reliable research to back up what "the users" care about in regards to their privacy. (Sounds a bit close to a politician talking about what Americans want, too.) Its doubtful that most even realize.
116.
Historian Simon Schama: Economic disaster as a stages of grief process(nakedcapitalism.com)
2 points by madair 16y ago|0 comments
117.
by madair 16y ago
:) Yes it is a shame. For me it's a few more years to get some teenagers through HS (it's not like that's without rewards) and then I can get back to wanton risk-taking. I spent my risk allowance for 10 years: founding a couple of lousy sta
118.
by madair 16y ago
I think it's worth mentioning the other block of people you left out: those who risk corporate jobs or contracts simply by having opinions that an employer doesn't agree with. Some (many?) of us have kids or other responsibilities and don't
119.
by madair 16y ago
No, but everyone is a social signaler.
120.
by madair 16y ago
Yeah, I was thinking more about the supporting infrastructure for subscriptions and perhaps tweaks if necessary so that a seed-file subscription via another protocol only has to occur initially... That said, I think it's one of those contex

More ›