Could somebody please tell me why the f2k we care how fast some random bird can fly? Why the swallow? Why not the bald eagle? Or the chickadee? Who gives a f2k.
Both Google and WolframAlpha answer this question almost instantly, without soaking up the fractional attention of dozens/hundreds of human readers here. Always try the simple automated query first: it's the only polite/efficient thing to do.
Precisely. It is not the strongest nor the smartest often that survive, but the best adapted. Dawkins has made this point himself, in that the genes which survive are the "mediocre" genes, genes that tend to do well in the "average" of their environments. Evolution is more likely to produce spineless wonders like T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock than Superman, roughly speaking, because Prufrock, dipshit though he may be, is adapted to the meine of his environs.
Professor Dawkins is one of my all time heroes. Selfish gene theory stands at the center ultimately of all anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology. He has transformed the world by giving us an understanding of our own existence, he has answered the age-old question of "Why are we here?". We are here, to preserve and copy the genes. They should build a statue of him next to Darwin. He is the apotheosis of human understanding. Like Prometheus, he has "given man a gift they had not conceived, and lifted darkness off the earth."
This is racism, pure and simple, teaching young kids to torture and kill any non-Aryans in the vicinity. The anti-immigrant people are Aryan supremacists who want America to be an Aryan homeland. It is despicable that this neo-Nazi propaganda is being taught to young people. Children are not born hating, they are taught to hate through brain washing outfits like the homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi boy scouts. It is repulsive. We should be teaching our kids about programming and useful skills, instead, we are teaching them to use minorities for target practice a la Ralf Fiennes' character in 'Schindler's List'. It is enough to make the sane people like me want to move to Canada quite frankly.
This has NOTHING to do with race at ALL, did you not read the article? It's about giving these children something to do that's (while a little strange) MUCH more helpful to them than trying to force them to learn a... programming language. Not everyone WANTS to do what you like to do, and until you can accept that, you're going to have a very closed view of the world.
The kids on the article's photo look mostly Mexican. Moreover, there's no such thing as an "aryan race". This program looks a bit like Hitler's youth in some ways, but let's be pragmatic: the program gives teenagers in a rather poor area something to do with their free time, and something to look for. I think it's better to have them practising marijuana field raids (though ludicruous that is) than joining a local gang and end up in prison years later to be nothing more than mere parasites of the system.
Blaming those ground under the heel of the US Justice system for being forcibly made into "parasites" is almost as repugnant as encouraging our youth to side with the oppressors instead of the oppressed
The writing off mass injustice and suffering as 'semantics' notwithstanding, you might enjoy learning that 'parasite' described those in Greek and Roman society who earned their daily meals by entertaining and flattering at the dinner tables of the rich
Hopefully you appreciate the irony in the word now describing those forced to live in incarceration, to satisfy a societal elite with a fetish for moralizing and punishment
The author is a fool. He is a fool who does not understand the free market. Users are cows. They should be treated as such. Cows do not know what they want. It is our job as programmers to give the cows what they need whether they like it or not. We the programmers know better than the cows who are the users. A programmer who does not understand that is a fool who should be weeded out of the free market. In a free market the cows can choose the software they want - if they don't like it, they are free to not buy it. But the programmer must do his best to save the cow (or the lemming) from himself. Users are fools who don't know what is best for them. Only we the programmers do. If they don't like our software they don't have to buy it. Such is the nature of the free market. Programmers should continue to write good software even if the user doesn't like it. Fools did not understand the buildings of Howard Roarke, nor do they understand the intricacies of software. So be it. The cows can go on mooing. The architects and programmers of the world will go on moving civilization forward.
I don't know if this is satire. I hope so, but either way it's emblematic of a common but absurd worldview.
Without empathy for your users, you will always make poor software. Users may not be able to perfectly articulate what they need, but neither are programmers able to infer what they need from first principles. If you treat your users like cows, what you create will not be fit for human consumption.
I think the question to be asked, is the question of if it is in the self-interest of the American taxpayer to subsidize schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, this is hard to answer. On one hand, it is unclear how more schools in these countries serve our national interest. On the other hand, without education, young people are more privy to fall into the brainwashing of terrorists. So one could make the argument that if one spends on education, that enhances national security by having more educated people in these unstable countries and therefore fewer people who are possible recruits for terrorists. I guess it is all in the way one does it, if one builds schools with good oversight (i.e. overseen by the coalition and Iraqi/Afghan governments) then one could perhaps justify that. However, if there is no oversight, then who knows what kind of stuff might end up getting taught there. We obviously don't want to spend our tax dollars building schools only so that religious extremists can teach in them. The same is true incidentally in the United States. Government vouchers for private schools are wrong, because these private schools often teach nonsense like Intelligent Design, which to my mind is the Ultimate-747-In-The-Junkyard-As-Designer theory and merits no serious consideration, let alone our tax dollars. So if there is a self-interest in our national security in helping with education in Iraq and Afghanistan that may be justifiable, provided there is strict oversight, and if there is no oversight then it is a no go. Similar to how education here at home should not have tax dollars going to private religious agendas. Ideally of course I think states, and not the federal government, should handle education, since this is an issue of federalism, but that is another issue than the present discussion.
Just say, "Well, how would YOU approach this?" to gauge where she is at. So rather than solve it for her every time, have her give it a stab first. Let her be totally wrong, but at least have her try. Then correct her approach and set her on the right path. Then if she really is stuck after making an honest effort, then help out with the answer, but basically the more times questions like "What do you think?" are put to her, the more she will hopefully think on her own.
Generally I want to work for my rational self-interest. My goal is to attain a state of non-contradictory joy, i.e., happiness. I want to preserve my life, and my liberty, and my property. If I preserve my life, liberty, and property, I at least have a chance to be happy. This is what it is all about. The individual pursuing his own happiness.
So, if I am working towards my own rational self-interest, there is nothing I would rather be doing.
If however I working for the Collective, then I would rather be working for my own rational self-interest.
That is all there is to it. Work for your own rational self-interest. And if you are not, then I would suggest changing that, because you cannot exist for others. You can only exist for yourself. So if you are not working for yourself, for your own self-interest, then it is time to do a re-think. If you work for an employer, that is fine, so long as it is to your mutual benefit. Everything you do must be to your own benefit in the end, and as soon as it is not, then you should cease and desist.
In brief, I will work for me. If I cannot work for me, then I will go Galt, I will disappear, and I will stop the motor of the world (or at least my part of that motor).
I hope, for your own sake and that of your loved ones, that humanity's interests overlap with your own self-interests, for it's better to serve the greater good by accident than not to serve at all.
