Source: Facebook

  • AS A RESISTANCE MOVEMENT Political Pundits Are Most Often Beggars In Fine Robes

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/16/an-argument-in-support-of-faith-as-a-limit-on-the-state/FAITH AS A RESISTANCE MOVEMENT

    Political Pundits Are Most Often Beggars In Fine Robes Of Reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-17 13:15:00 UTC

  • KNEW THAT DATA WAS WRONG. I KNEW IT

    http://blog.american.com/2012/04/obamas-inequality-argument-just-utterly-collapsed/I KNEW THAT DATA WAS WRONG. I KNEW IT.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-17 04:39:00 UTC

  • VERSUS PROTESTANT ETHICS “The “Catholic” approach has extremely high moral stand

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/catholic_versus.html#.T40iIE_Z7Ak.facebookCATHOLIC VERSUS PROTESTANT ETHICS

    “The “Catholic” approach has extremely high moral standards but enforces them loosely.

    The “Protestant” approach has moderate moral standards, but enforces them strictly.”

    IMHO: Protestant ethics are concerned with the actions and results needed to produce good works, catholic ethics are concerned with symbols and beliefs in order to create internal purity. Thats why all the entrepreneurs are protestant, and so many philosophers are catholic.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-17 04:01:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE” But then, assuming the state will co

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/aggregated-confusionAUSTRIAN ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE”

    But then, assuming the state will continue to pursue opportunities to increase taxes and decrease unemployment, the austrian approach would put the state in the position of trying to affect change via industrial policy. Meaning, being in bed with industries and unions.

    Maybe that isn’t all bad. It’s certainly better than being in bed with the financial sector.

    But then the state will always be in bed with someone.

    It needs someone to F***.

    (Apologies if light guttural humor is over the top. It was just THERE and I had to take it.)


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 16:43:00 UTC

  • TROUBLE WITH SERGEY BRIN’S COMMENTS ABOUT APPS *Please enlighten me.* I have a h

    TROUBLE WITH SERGEY BRIN’S COMMENTS ABOUT APPS

    *Please enlighten me.*

    I have a hard time taking Brin’s criticism of FB and Apple seriously. Google is an app. FB is an app. Apple is an app/hardware structure. Google makes its money from freely available information. FB and Apple, as well as some international sites, consist of closed content. Since advertising works on google and doesn’t work on FB and elsewhere, then I don’t understand what he’s complaining about. Google owns the commercial and intellectual sphere. Apple is trying to make sure porn and viruses don’t make it onto their platform, and FB is trying to make something, anything, that will make money over the long term by understanding consumers and their preferences in a way that Google seems unable to.

    Why this is bad just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Now, if you talk about the government’s threatening to hide information and communications from their people, then yes, I understand that. I understand that China should probably be isolated from the entire internet infrastructure so that we can as easily shut them out if we want to — and may need to since our military relies upon the internet now.

    But I don’t understand the concern with information that’s inaccesible in ‘apps’.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 14:47:00 UTC

  • By Dennet’s criteria, property, prices, and the state itself require faith. Any

    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/280FAITH?

    By Dennet’s criteria, property, prices, and the state itself require faith. Any time more than a few hundred people need to take independent action on a collective good, then need to have faith in each other. That faith comes from shared values. The mythical artifice that we wrap around that ‘faith’ is immaterial. Only that we share the myth. Even if that myth is the benevolence of the secular state.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 14:30:00 UTC

  • Advocates Are Most Often Beggars In The Fine Robes Of Reason

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/16/an-argument-in-support-of-faith-as-a-limit-on-the-state/Political Advocates Are Most Often Beggars In The Fine Robes Of Reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 12:33:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES HAPPIER? Because the reality of imperfect human nature doe

    WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES HAPPIER?

    Because the reality of imperfect human nature doesn’t trouble them. They don’t want to change the impossible. The universe is not something they struggle with. It’s something to appreciate. They celebrate present goods over future fantasies. They struggle to improve their their family and career, not the lives of others. They break the problem of life into small pieces. Each family doing the yeoman’s labor of creating the smallest tribe possible:the family. And by creating a multitude of those successful small tribes, the greater tribe emerges from the sum of its parts, not the pursuit of an idealistic folly: an attempt to obtain universal homogenous belief in the pursuit of shared feelings, ideas, and goals. The progressive instead, runs on a squirrel cage, attempting to gain consensus from the multitude, never getting there, and feeling frustrated for having failed. Human nature is all but immutable. Our preferences are genetic. They are determined by the difference in mating strategy between the genders and the imprecision of the gender creation process caused by the difference in in-utero concentrations of hormones that enhance or diminish those gender-based emotional biases.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 09:56:00 UTC

  • WORD BUDGETS: Writing vs Speaking, and the Male vs Female myth. I can’t quite te

    WORD BUDGETS: Writing vs Speaking, and the Male vs Female myth.

    I can’t quite tell if there is any data to support the commonly quoted difference between men and women’s speaking budgets. It’s one of those things that’s so commonly bandied about that you’d think you could easily find data on it. But you can’t. And what you can, is pretty specious. In fact, it looks pretty much ‘just plain wrong’ when I read it.

    But there is another explanation; it certainly does appear that men and women speak more in different **contexts**.

    One thing we know that helps us understand those contexts, is that men have more friends than women, but women have closer relationships than do men. Men tolerate greater diversity of value judgements in their friends. Women tolerate less diversity of value judgments in their friends. Or perhaps better stated, men and women view the source of loyalty that defines friendship as coming from different behaviors: cooperation in pursuit of opportunities for shared gain, versus care-taking which requires bearing costs on behalf of the other.

    For this reason fear of ostracization is lower in men, and higher in women. Add onto that the men not only feel more comfortable taking risks, but enjoy and seek taking them — albiet the level of risk varies substantially. But conversational risk is very low among men. We think it’s better to hear a bad idea than fail to hear all the ideas. Women are more cautious because they are more sensitive to variation in opinion.

    In my anecdotal experience, in business meetings and debates, men speak far more words than women. In social settings, and in personal conversations, women speak more words than men. Men seem to enjoy participating in competitive conversations. They even artificially create nonsense-conflicts just to have something to debate. (sports teams etc). Women seem to prefer gradual subtle conversations where they can build consensus.

    The result of these different preferences is more of a difference in velocity than anything else. Women tend to ‘get there’ using their conversational style just like men do, but more slowly. Like everything else, men are built for speed. The extraneous is removed by evolution.

    It certainly seems like most woman I’ve been in a relationship with has greater capacity for speech than I do — and I’m pretty talkative. But I suspect that it’s a difference in the content and circumstance not the number of words. I”m not the only man who thinks it’s odd that his mate must revisit her dreams in the morning, and her daily conversations at night.

    But it’s good for a relationship when men learn how to feign interest in these things that we lack the emotional bandwidth to appreciate and comprehend. Listening is an exercise in providing what the other person needs, and what she needs is not comprehension and problem solving – it’s to ensure we’re committed to one another, and for her to organize her emotions by way of speaking them the way men organize our ideas by visualizing them. Chatter after all, is negatively correlated with successful hunting. Communication during hunts and war is visual, not verbal. Besides, that female revisitation of emotions is why women help us with our emotional problems when we have them. They’re more experienced at dealing with them. Our compensation is that mechanical devices and politics are not opaque to our comprehension. But I”m not sure which gender gets the better deal.

    We forget that we all start out female, and that the template for human beings is female, and that males are highly specialized versions of females. Testosterone shuts all that ‘unnecessary’ emotional processing off for males in the womb so that we can worry about doing dangerous things and making tools, and inventing pretty much everything, without about the needs of children or the danger that other women might ostracize us in a time of weakness, when we and our children need communal support to survive.

    Applying that word budget to writing: I”m writing about 8K words a day on average now, with an average low of 5K, an average high of 10K, and a max of 25K on rare occasions.

    I’m not sure what that means. I know that if I dont talk to people all day, I write more, and vice versa. I also know that if I am writing for a competitive argument I write more than if I write in the explanatory neutral voice.

    We are the product of our genes. The universe is fascinating. Life is a miraculous luxury. And every breath of it is worth savoring.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 09:44:00 UTC

  • Virtue Of Government Competition

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F04%2F15%2Fbusiness%2Fcompetition-is-good-for-governments-too-economic-view.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3DtpQ26smidQ3Dfb-share&OP=195d78d3Q2FXVQ7DQ5CXTkmQ5BekkQ24Q27XQ27CQ20Q27XCQ2FXQ20%28XQ5CQ23Q5BLQ51Q7DQ5BQ5BXmkdQ7EQ7DQ24LQ24LkQ51Q25LQ5BQ25_kkTQ25bkeQ25_kZQ7DeQ51dQ7DQ51Q24Q5BQ25Q24kkQ25Q7DmkQ51kdLmQ25ZLQ7DVysQ24d6The Virtue Of Government Competition


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-15 00:13:00 UTC