|
Dr. Tough posted:Forbes has some genuinely bad writers. Jesus. How did this get printed. Even for a magazine that spends its every waking moment fellating the rich this comes off as some bullshit that the dimmest scions of old money wealth talk about when they're halfway through a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 01:42 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 02:04 |
|
Is that nutjob implying that aviation technology has been advanced solely by private industry? Like, has he never heard of World War I, World War II or the Cold War?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 01:59 |
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Jesus. How did this get printed. Even for a magazine that spends its every waking moment fellating the rich this comes off as some bullshit that the dimmest scions of old money wealth talk about when they're halfway through a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue. It didn't get printed, he's a strictly online writer. Forbes will let pretty much anyone write for their online service.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 02:34 |
|
Install Windows posted:It didn't get printed, he's a strictly online writer. Forbes will let pretty much anyone write for their online service. Yeah pretty much. Forbes has some people that are face meltingly stupid on their website. The guy I linked to is not even the worst I've seen on there.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 03:05 |
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Is that nutjob implying that aviation technology has been advanced solely by private industry? Like, has he never heard of World War I, World War II or the Cold War? Thing is, war, and especially secrecy is poo poo for technological innovation. What war does is jack up production, which can drop the unit cost, but it doesn't result in more/better poo poo faster. The span from 1940 to 1950 resulted in a lot fewer major technological discoveries than the 1950-1960 time period, in aeronautics and everything else. During war, you decide "jets are interesting, but gently caress it we have a war to win, build more Merlins and 4360's. But when you don't have to bend your entire economy toward building 100,000 1940's vintage bombers, you can spare a little juice for super-science.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 03:12 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Thing is, war, and especially secrecy is poo poo for technological innovation. What war does is jack up production, which can drop the unit cost, but it doesn't result in more/better poo poo faster. The span from 1940 to 1950 resulted in a lot fewer major technological discoveries than the 1950-1960 time period, in aeronautics and everything else. During war, you decide "jets are interesting, but gently caress it we have a war to win, build more Merlins and 4360's. But when you don't have to bend your entire economy toward building 100,000 1940's vintage bombers, you can spare a little juice for super-science. That may be the case for the field when it was already in a developed state, but I don't think the effects World War 1 had in advancing aviation can be denied. In only four years the state of aviation went from awkward, fragile and underpowered planes with limited endurance being flown by a handful of eccentric hobbyists, to maneuverable, robust and fast planes capable of covering extend distances and performing actual tasks and a giant pool of pilots from all walks of life with the interest and the expertise to fly them. The time to design and begin mass production of a plane was on the order of months and the concept of air power was so new and untested that every new design could render the enemies current model obsolete, so rapid turn over of models was encouraged. And all of this is moot anyway since most of the major aeronautical research post World War 2 was funded and directed by government interests, not private attempts. Hell even a good chunk of the private innovations of the 1920's and 30's was backed by government money, not job creators jizzing out rainbows and unicorns.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 05:00 |
|
"Exponentially" I do not think this word means what he thinks it means. I'm also reminded of something Chris Hedges has mentioned every time he's spoken in the last few years: capitalism is going to crash into the limits of our natural resources. Even if that retard's pipe dream came true, it's just pushing the opening date for Thunderdome closer.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 11:46 |
|
VideoTapir posted:"Exponentially" No, that will magically be solved by technology too, haven't you been paying attention? HELLOOOOOOOO - has anyone heard of something called mining asteroids? Perhaps you remember this little movie called ALIEN in which this was a central plot point? No, don't give me those bullshit equations that show how ridiculously impossible that would be - you liberals just have bad attitudes.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 19:06 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Thing is, war, and especially secrecy is poo poo for technological innovation. What war does is jack up production, which can drop the unit cost, but it doesn't result in more/better poo poo faster. The span from 1940 to 1950 resulted in a lot fewer major technological discoveries than the 1950-1960 time period, in aeronautics and everything else. During war, you decide "jets are interesting, but gently caress it we have a war to win, build more Merlins and 4360's. But when you don't have to bend your entire economy toward building 100,000 1940's vintage bombers, you can spare a little juice for super-science. This isn't really true, though. War breeds a great deal of technological competition. Tons of money is poured into incremental improvements to existing technologies to get the slightest edge.America refined and developed new and better piston aircraft throughout World War Two. American and British scientists advanced radar and sonar by leaps and bounds to help win the battle for the Atlantic. Computer technology received a great deal of development to break the codes that enabled secrecy. The Germans poured who knows how many resources into developing an eccentric hobby, rocketry, into a viable weapon. Even today's wars spur technological advancement. Prosthetics and trauma care have developed greatly in response to the Iraq War. Drones have gone from science fiction to reality thanks to the War on Terror.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 21:34 |
|
Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? Being Privileged Is Not A Choice, So Stop Hating Me For It quote:What do you suggest I do about it?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 23:20 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? The author should have titled this "I have serious self esteem and self worth issues: Please validate me'. It reads like an OP in E/N.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 00:09 |
|
Thought Catalog can be PAINFUL to read about 3/4 of the time anyway. This is just an extreme example of their overwrought Brooklyn Williamsburg hipster special snowflakeness. The comments are actually good, though.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 00:50 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? There is so much glorious white whine in here that I feel the need to pair it with a well-aged brie.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 01:46 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? This may be the best troll, in the sense that I was like two paragraphs in before I wished for this person to be beat into unconsciousness. If it's real, I guess I can take solace in the fact that everyone he knows hates him as much as I do. I bet when you ask him about women, he describes himself as "a nice guy."
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 07:50 |
|
cafel posted:The author should have titled this "I have serious self esteem and self worth issues: Please validate me'. It reads like an OP in E/N. I don't know, that sounds awfully esteemprivileged to me.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 08:10 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? For the first couple paragraphs, I actually thought, "this isn't so bad." I could have written them, they more or less described my college and graduate school experiences (at least until my PhD). My parents helped me with tuition, and I came out of my BA and MS debt free. Believe me, I know how fortunate I was. Then I got a little further into the article. As has already been said, if this was a troll, it was well done.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 11:41 |
|
Eh, it's okay. Nowhere near as funny as the immortal "If Only We Could Be Boring."
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 19:37 |
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Eh, it's okay. Nowhere near as funny as the immortal "If Only We Could Be Boring." Didn't know what that was so I looked it up. Holy christ, that's incredible.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2013 21:05 |
|
Bubbacub posted:Didn't know what that was so I looked it up. Holy christ, that's incredible. Same. As a person who often feels pressure to be 'on' in social situations I though the title sounded promising. But the whole website seems to be a fury mill of some sort?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 13:39 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Is it OK to post Thought Catalog garbage here? I had an aunt once who suffered from this. She was convinced that there were con men living across the street from her and used to sleep with a pair of hedge clippers in her bed so they couldn't rape her while she was sleeping. Seriously, if he's so paranoid about his clothes, then I'm guessing he's basically GOB Bluth ("...f-king $3000 suit! COME ON!"). If he's so dumb he can't just say "I was lucky enough to come out of school without any debt", then I don't know what to tell him.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 14:09 |
|
Alter Ego posted:I had an aunt once who suffered from this. She was convinced that there were con men living across the street from her and used to sleep with a pair of hedge clippers in her bed so they couldn't rape her while she was sleeping. I have no idea why, but when I read it I pictured a woman. Not going to bother checking for pronouns, etc. *EDIT* had to check.... Not that it matters, but unless this guy is the king of tinted-hair "so secure gender wise that he babysits" metrosexuals, it's a woman. Makes it no less irritating, but it does change things a bit.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 14:34 |
|
It's been showing up on other blogs for a few days, but it appears it's a woman writing the original piece.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 14:38 |
|
JDM3 posted:I have no idea why, but when I read it I pictured a woman. Not going to bother checking for pronouns, etc. Oh yeah, I missed the hair part. Still, she's probably an rear end in a top hat on the level of GOB Bluth.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 15:17 |
|
I actually read it as a guy who always paid someone to highlight his hair with Douchenozzle Bleach streaks before going to interviews with a new suit.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 15:28 |
|
flatbus posted:I actually read it as a guy who always paid someone to highlight his hair with Douchenozzle Bleach streaks before going to interviews with a new suit. "Douchenozzle" is so 2012, dude. Everyone knows it's douchetube now. Get with the program (<-- ironic use of 2008 term)
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 15:39 |
|
quote:Wake up people!
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 17:44 |
|
"see the Internet..."
|
# ? Sep 26, 2013 17:53 |
|
This woman would've had a good point if she had not chosen the worst analogy possible http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/226825631.html quote:According to some theories, Tony Blair (former British Prime Minister) supported the United States in Iraq not only because he wanted to preserve the special relationship, but also because he believed going to war was morally right. He supported the war without regards to his party’s support.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2013 03:32 |
|
Niall Ferguson recently published a 3-part series of full sized blog posts (2000+ words each) whining about how mean Paul Krugman is on the Huffington Post, joining the illustrious company of Jenny McCarthy and Bianca Jagger. Sample quotes from part 3: Niall Ferguson posted:You may ask: Why have I taken the trouble to do this? I have three motives. The first is to illuminate the way the world really works, as opposed to the way Krugman and his beloved New Keynesian macroeconomic models say it works. The second is to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse. And the third, frankly, is to teach him the meaning of the old Scottish regimental motto: nemo me impune lacessit ("No one attacks me with impunity"). quote:For too long, Paul Krugman has exploited his authority as an award-winning economist and his power as a New York Times columnist to heap opprobrium on anyone who ventures to disagree with him. Along the way, he has acquired a claque of like-minded bloggers who play a sinister game of tag with him, endorsing his attacks and adding vitriol of their own. I would like to name and shame in this context Dean Baker, Josh Barro, Brad DeLong, Matthew O'Brien, Noah Smith, Matthew Yglesias and Justin Wolfers. Krugman and his acolytes evidently relish the viciousness of their attacks, priding themselves on the crassness of their language. But I should like to know what qualifies a figure like Matt O'Brien to call anyone a "disingenuous idiot"? What exactly are his credentials? 35,550 tweets? How does he essentially differ from the cranks who, before the Internet, had to vent their spleen by writing letters in green ink? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/krugtron-the-invincible-p_b_4073956.html A claque! Also some classic "do you know who I am???" I don't think we've heard from him since he said Keynes was incapable of long-term thinking because he was gay.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2013 07:45 |
|
You can't talk about Niall Ferguson without bringing up the scathing review of Civilisation: The West and the Rest in the London Review of Books and the ensuing letters that came as a result. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man
|
# ? Oct 15, 2013 10:09 |
|
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/oct/20/letters-to-the-editor/?opinionlettersquote:VW imposing 'dictatorship' Anti-union people are the dumbest motherfuckers on earth. And LOL at VW "wanting" a union. How dare workers want fair wages and treatement!
|
# ? Oct 20, 2013 19:00 |
|
Normally Kersten's articles are just idiotic, but this one winds up being pretty offensive:quote:Liberals are waging a war on the weak Emphasis mine. Poor people are poor because they are immoral idiots who can't handle their lives unless society imposes upon them sexual norms and legally enforced morals. They are morally and culturally inferior to rich elites. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Oct 20, 2013 |
# ? Oct 20, 2013 20:09 |
|
Mo_Steel posted:Emphasis mine. Poor people are poor because they are immoral idiots who can't handle their lives unless society imposes upon them sexual norms and legally enforced morals. They are morally and culturally inferior to rich elites. Its funny because some studies have found the exact opposite is true. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109 quote:Abstract
|
# ? Oct 21, 2013 02:21 |
|
This is basically pocket Nietzsche, but from a conservative perspective, which immediately makes it useless. Still, in some sense he's right, inasmuch as it's true that the total eclipse of all values is upon us.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2013 02:26 |
|
What else has been happening since the 1960s that could have a negative impact on family formation? Gee, I can't think of anything.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2013 03:36 |
|
[quote="Shalebridge Cradle" post=""42075"] Its funny because some studies have found the exact opposite is true. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109 [/quote] It practical terms the rich also have better resources to make these moral... hiccups, "go away". I am also unequivocally reminded of this
|
# ? Oct 21, 2013 03:42 |
|
Niall Ferguson posted:The second is to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse. Is this really the same man who titled his biography of Thatcher 'Always Right'?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2013 04:30 |
|
[url=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149642030106938] ObamaCare 2016: Happy Yet? The website problems were finally solved. But the doctor shortage is a nightmare.[/quote] "Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston." Bradley Allen posted:Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anyway—because now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered. It goes on for quite a while like this. But this guy does make a convincing case for getting rid of clunky programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and laws like the ACA, to be replaced with fully socialized medical care where doctors will be employed directly by the government. Additionally, he makes a convincing case that medical education takes too long and costs too much, and should be streamlined and paid for by the government . Good work, Retired Doctor!
|
# ? Oct 23, 2013 03:32 |
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:ObamaCare 2016: Happy Yet? The website problems were finally solved. But the doctor shortage is a nightmare. Is this just ObamaCare fan fiction, or enemy fiction I guess? Jesus the WSJ has become lovely.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2013 03:38 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 02:04 |
|
Yeah, it reminds me of those LAST DAYS OF CAPITALISM stories after Obama's election.quote:EL PASO - Years into the Presidency of Barrack Obama and his promise of healthcare to everyone in America seems to be going well. But some, like Aaron Smith, seem to express reservations. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 23, 2013 |
# ? Oct 23, 2013 03:43 |