Source: Facebook

  • Fascinating. Because china is an empire that is hard to keep from revolution, th

    Fascinating.

    Because china is an empire that is hard to keep from revolution, the government acts as did the British government when the western militia were in place in britain.

    A government should fear its people.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 09:20:00 UTC

  • (humor) (software) Kirill: “Wait. Do we store the current currency rate when we

    (humor) (software)

    Kirill: “Wait. Do we store the current currency rate when we allocate the resource, or do we store the price?”

    Curt: “We store a ‘value’ or a ‘cost’ as a base currency when the action takes place at a given point in time; but a ‘price’ is a time independent number and currency that we don’t have to store in converted form. The question is whether you’re storing a price or a value.”

    Kirill: “That’s right… So…. this, but…..”

    Curt: “Oh… Yeah. F___K… that means”.

    Kirill: “F____KKKKK!!!!”

    Curt: “There is a reason very few companies do this you know.”

    Kirill: “Yeah. Because it’s so F___KING HARD!!!”

    (laughter)

    Of course Kirill actually remembers all the business rules in the entire application and how to apply them. He wrote the workflow and state engines. He wrote the multi-currency system. And the multi-dimensional organizational system. Now he’s working on the entity types (different types of ‘tasks’ and how to calculate their current and forecast values.)

    So. When he says “F___K” that means something is actually pretty damned hard. lol

    Kirill Latish . Love you man. lol :’)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 08:05:00 UTC

  • (humor)(office) “OMG Denis. That looks AWESOME! It’s beautiful. I want to kiss y

    (humor)(office)

    “OMG Denis. That looks AWESOME! It’s beautiful. I want to kiss you. Can I kiss you?”

    (laughter) “No.” (more laughter) “But you can give me money.”



    He knows how to shut me up. lol.

    (with Denis Chmel)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 07:56:00 UTC

  • (personal) (sentiment) I loved my university experience. All six years of it. 🙂

    (personal) (sentiment)

    I loved my university experience. All six years of it. 🙂 Mostly what I loved was being with the people. Although very few of the professors were all that interesting. It was a lot less anxious environment for me than ‘real life’ which seemed largely populated by zombies.

    But as much as I loved the university, I learned almost everything of value reading on my own. And I think picking up debate as a hobby turned out to be almost as educational. Because it forces you to question your own ideas. As long as you learn from your failures.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 07:52:00 UTC

  • FOR THE DECLINE OF THE HUMANITIES (good)(attack on academia) (Disclaimer: I have

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7629REASONS FOR THE DECLINE OF THE HUMANITIES

    (good)(attack on academia)

    (Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.)

    [Warning: Harsh words follow.]

    1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them.

    2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful).

    3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses.

    4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities.

    However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society.

    5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful.

    6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means.

    7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought.

    SO BEFORE YOU JUSTIFY THE HUMANITIES PERHAPS AN *EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS** WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENEFITS ARE SOLELY RESERVED FOR ACADEMICS AT TRAGIC COST TO SOCIETY. AND THAT BY AND LARGE, THE HUMANITIES HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MORE HUMAN SUFFERING AND CORRUPTION THAN THE CHURCH EVER MANAGED TO MUSTER.

    That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us. 🙂

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 05:52:00 UTC

  • THE MELTING POT THAT ISNT Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely sc

    THE MELTING POT THAT ISNT

    Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely scientific, legal, and commercial; and what doesn’t melt is family, morality, metaphysics, and therefore politics.

    Or, what I would describe in Propertarian terms, as “explicitly calculable” implicit knowledge vs “inexplicitly calculable” tacit knowledge.

    We can structure formal institutions only for a subset of knowledge.

    Myth, tradition, ritual, family, morals, ethics, and manners are something that can also be institutionalized.

    And that us the conservative vision: formal institutions are not enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 05:00:00 UTC

  • BUT IS IT GENETIC? Yes, conservatives are INNATELY more critical of free-riders:

    BUT IS IT GENETIC?

    Yes, conservatives are INNATELY more critical of free-riders:

    “North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)”

    “…. *** Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.***” -Kevin MacDonald

    AND SO:

    Whether it is cultural or genetic or both doesn’t matter so much, although I’m in the 60/40 camp in favor of genetic on this topic. And the pareto rule would suggest that as long as you’re in a 90/10 proposition or less, diversity isn’t a problem.

    But two things are certain: a) people don’t actually assimilate outside of their gene pool, and b) our tribal differences – our tribal DIVERSITY is something very precious for everyone. Probably the ‘cuircumpolar’ in particular. Because that individualism is economically superior to group-ishness.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 04:12:00 UTC

  • (memories)(personal) Loved my ex-wife more than life itself, for almost twenty y

    (memories)(personal)

    Loved my ex-wife more than life itself, for almost twenty years. Used to think she was obsessed when she said she needed to put on makeup to go out. In my opinion she was beautiful just getting out of the shower. More beautiful in ragged jeans, a sweatshirt, no makeup and running socks.

    Anything else was gilding a lily and all that.

    Dolling up is for other women. Not for us.

    As for men, we don’t see details: women are beautiful. It’s their nature.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 02:16:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.oublio.com/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-04 18:13:00 UTC

  • a little closer on the Flynn effect?

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/flynn-effect-as-retesting-rule-based.htmlGetting a little closer on the Flynn effect?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-04 16:09:00 UTC