| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/1/8-11 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48905 Activity:low |
1/7 Summary of this week's troll:
dans-- I'm young and hip and I love the city. I love hanging out w/
my buds and walk to places to do things. Suburbs are boring and
I have to frigging drive and destroy the environment. I hate
suburbs and I can't imagine why anyone wants to live in it.
\_ You forgot: I may have a relatively harmless STD without knowing
it.
\_ Nope, just got tested last week. Clean bill of health. -dans
\_ I drive in the city all the time. While I do loathe suburbs, I
know lots of people who want to live in them, and why. I consider
most of the people in this group to be brain-damaged. -dans
\_ So much for other people's life styles being ok, huh? Only so
long as it is the same as yours I guess.
dimwit-- I'm mature and I have fine taste. I prefer the suburbs
because it's more spacious, quieter, safer, and has better
school districts for my kids. Lastly, I simply can't stand
smelly hippies and fog. PS people who don't agree with me
are really really strange. |
| 2008/1/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:48906 Activity:nil |
1/8 Angry White Man: The archives of Ron Paul's newsletters
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
\_ He's white? Wow I can't support a white man.
\_ LGF had this 2 months ago
http://csua.org/u/kf5 |
| 2008/1/8-11 [Recreation/Humor] UID:48907 Activity:nil |
1/8 Another comic I think is hilarious, possiably somewhat unintentionally
http://www.comics.com/comics/sam/archive/sam-20071227.html
Cue motd "that's not funny" guy!
\_ That's not funny.
\_ That's not funny. |
| 2008/1/8-11 [Transportation/Car] UID:48908 Activity:nil |
1/8 "Cell phone users tie up traffic: study"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080102/us_nm/usa_phones_traffic_dc
Note that the subjects in the study are already using hands-free
devices, not holding the phones with their hands.
\_ Even hands free cell drivers are obviously worse drivers. It
makes sense. A conversation with a phone takes a lot more
concentration (voice only means less information being passed
so you need to pay closer attention) and the person you are
talking to doesn't have any cues as to when to halt the
conversation so you can pay attention to navigating that
ton+ of steel.
\_ Agreed. I feel the same when I use my Bluetooth headset while
driving. So I mostly limit my conversation to "Hi. Whatsup?
I'm driving right now. Can I call you back?" -- OP
\_ I have sort of the opposite problem--I turn into a bad
conversationalist when I'm driving. "What? Sorry, didn't
hear that...", long pauses when I don't say anything...
It's just better not to drive and talk at the same time
if your situation is at all demanding. |
| 2008/1/8-11 [Finance/Investment] UID:48909 Activity:nil |
1/8 Have your broker buy-buy-buy Countrywide credit default swaps!
They now pay 26% of amount insured first year, 5% four subsequent
years! http://tinyurl.com/2m8m2b (Reuters)
\_ High risk, high reward |
| 2008/1/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48910 Activity:high |
1/8 Ron Paul says he didn't wright the vile things in his newsletter.
Ron Paul lies.
http://csua.org/u/kfc [LGF]
\_ Whether or not he's lying, he allowed it to be published. I've
had vague doubts about Ron Paul, and this morning, I finally
realized why. Paul's espoused ideology ultimately comes down to
every man(*) for himself. I don't trust someone who is motivated
purely by self interest, but isn't willing to come out and say it.
-dans
(*) As an aside, I say 'man' here because Ron Paul is a misogynist.
His views on the role of women in society are a throwback to the
middle ages.
\_ Please cite a primary reference for Paul's view on role of women.
\_ a) His stated views on abortion and a woman's right to choose.
b) His newsletters. Go read them. -dans
\_ Anti-abortion == middle ages? You're nuts. Women have the
right to choose not to fuck people.
\_ the constitution is not "freedom to NOT do things."
It's freedom TO.
\_ That's a really stupid statement. You don't have the
freedom to kill a baby. Abortion has little to do
with the Constitution. Personally, I see both sides
of the argument: I don't care about it as an issue
and a candidate's view on abortion doesn't matter to
me.
\_ Odd, it's not "every man for himself", it's that the government
shouldn't intervene in what every man does.
\_ I may be mistaken, but I don't get the sense that Ron Paul
is espousing the ideologically pure libertarian viewpoint I
think you're referencing. I am curious though, if you strip
the government of power, how do you effectively avoid society
turning into a free for all? -dans
\_ The impression I get of him is that he's trying to push
towards a pure libertarian stance. Unfortunately, he's a
hypocrite. However, how do you define "free for all", and
how do you see it as being bad? -emarkp
\_ What is "pure libertarian"? He's not advocating removal
of government. He's advocating limited government based
on Constitutional principles.
\_ That's what I meant by "pure libertarian". -emarkp
\_ Is he really a hypocrite? Let's imagine I am an
opponent of public schools. Am I a hypocrite if
I send my kid to a public school? No, because
that is the existing system. I'm not sure just
what you're referring to however.
\_ He's a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into
bills and then votes against them. -emarkp
\_ He's a hypocrite because of what he's done as a
rep, not because of anything in this
discussion. For instance, he adds pork to
bills, and then votes against them so that he
can bring pork to his district and also say he
votes against it. -emarkp
\_ That's why I brought up the school analogy.
\_ so if you're taking political ideologies to their extremes,
you'd perfer the opposite, where the government controls everyone
and everything, for their own good?
\_ 1st, the things weren't that vile and a couple of them have been
lied about. For example the article in question did not "support PLO
terrorists".
2nd, a philosophy "based on self-interest" is not necessarily
against the common interest. Communism vs. capitalism. We know
that EVERYONE is motivated primarily by self interest, that's
human nature. Even when you help someone else you're doing that
because it makes you feel good. This is how markets work and why
they generally perform better over time than management by fiat,
no matter how selfless the masters. So many supposedly well-
intentioned efforts end up doing more harm than good. Wasting
public resources on pointless wars and bloated government
programs hurts everyone.
\_ please let us know when you finish reading Atlas Shrugged. -tom
\_ let me know when you have anything interesting to say.
\_ Holy shit, I agree with tom. I actually believe in such a
thing as enlightened self interest, but the self-interest
Ron Paul espouses doesn't qualify. -dans
\_ why not?
\_ GOLD STANDARD. |
| 2008/1/8-12 [Recreation/Dating, Industry/Startup] UID:48911 Activity:high |
1/8 I'm in a weird situation. I've been in my company for a while and
we acquired a startup company a while ago. Now my group is being
"migrated" into their group, and I'll be reporting to a bunch of
young managers and directors some who are 10-15 years younger
than me. These guys are great-- they're energetic and bright but
some are also egotistic and boss people around. Mind you
they're also 1/4 vested hotshot millionaires, some are
accelerated and almost fully vested. Their "I'm your boss"
attitude shows it. What do old timers do, just shut up and wait
it out till they're fully vested and leave? There isn't much
opportunity elsewhere in the company.
\_ not weird at all; it's an example of why mergers usually fail.
Deal with it or leave are your options.
\_ merger for the sake of complementing business operations vs.
acquisition for the sake of replacing an existing operation
are very different things.
\_ If these people are as hot as you say it's great to have them as
your boss. Suck up and learn from them. They have that attitude
because they earned it. Look it as a chance to get great recs from
them. Look at it as a chance to say "I worked with these hot
shots and held my own."
\_ sucking up. Learned that being at the right place at the
right time (luck) is more important than meritocracy. -op
\_ Luck definitely matters, but sometimes positioning oneself
to be 'in the right place at the right time' requires a
degree of risk-taking and arrogance that not everyone
posesses. Then again, it could all be luck, YMMV. If you're
going to suck it up, why not allow some room to learn
something just in case the opportunity presents itself? -dans
\_ I think someone who fucks random men and women to the
extent that they need to be tested for VD is a sign
of brain damage and self-esteem issues, too.
\_ Gotta disagree with you there, and I think dans is
obnoxious.
\_ I'm glad I don't have sex with you. STD testing
should be a given if you are sexually active,
especially if you aren't in an ongoing monogomous
relationship. It's not like it's only something
you should do if you are regularly fucking half
the football team.
\_ Same woman for 15 years. No need for STD testing.
\_ Good for you. Allow for the possibility that
others may not want your life, and there's
nothing wrong with that. -dans
\_ Oh, I think there's something wrong with
a lot of people who choose to have a lot
of sex partners just like I think there's
something wrong with most strippers. It's
not a moral judgement, but somehow related
to upbringing, which is why I mentioned
self-esteem.
\_ Why do you think that? I have known many
healthy, happy, successful people who have
had lots of sex partners. Why is sex worse
than playing tennis?
\_ Define lots. I think 3 in 2 weeks is
beyond lots.
\_ Oh, I will leave it up to you to
decide that. More than one per year
is lots to some, but not very many
to others. Three in two weeks would
probably consume a lot of time and
energy, trying to juggle all those
relationships, but if that is your
hobby, it is probably better for you
than sitting home and watching TV.
\_ Tennis hasn't been known to spread
disease on a mass scale, cause pregnancy,
or make people do stupid things. Why did
you even have to ask this?
\_ Sex doesn't do any of those things
either, if done safely. I agree that
unwanted pregnancy and disease are
problems, but any sane person with
multiple partners keeps it wrapped
up. What is wrong with safe sex
with multiple partners?
\_ Funny that you would say that and then bash
people elsewhere on the motd who don't want
yours.
\_ Don't hate the player, hate the game.
\_ Why can't I hate the player of a destructive game?
\_ stop ripping on yer mom like that
\_ I take it from your comment that you don't get regularly
tested for STD's. Unless your in a stable monogamous
marriage, that's pretty reckless and irresponsible.
Seriously, the window period for HIV is six months.
Did you date more than one person in the last year?
I suppose you also think it's okay not to use condoms
if you're in a 'committed' relationship. So not only
are you utterly off topic, but you're an irresponsible
asshole! AWESOME! Who were you referring to anyway?
-dans
\_ You got tested for every std? Really?
\_ God wants you to remain chaste until marriage and
then only have sex with your wife, without birth
control, so that you may be fruitful and multiply.
All these disease problems you are having are
because you have violated God's Law.
\_ Wisdom from the talmud: it's a mitzvah with a
shiksah. Bad troll. No cookie. -dans
\_ I can see how someone who has been "unlucky" might think
that. I personally have worked at three startups and all
three of them filed for IPOs. One could be luck, but all
three? I know other people who have similar track records.
I am working at a big company now, but so far, I am doing
well there, too. No one can control things like when a
recession happens (I was out of work for seven months in
2001) but you can prepare for it. It is probably some
combination of luck and skill and hard work that determines
success.
\_ I don't think the op is "unlucky", but just NORMAL.
\_ I think both you and pp are right. But pp makes a
point which is that, even if you factor in luck, some
people play the startup game more effectively than
'normal' (i.e. average) people. -dans
\_ I can't see why you wouldn't at least give it a whirl and see
how things go. If you don't enjoy it, you can always leave.
It is very common to have some employee turnover in this kind
of situation, so no one will be surprised.
\_ I would try to see where I fit in and leave if it doesn't work
out. No one wants to work with young kids with attitude, but
the merger is new. Maybe it's just your perception. If they
really are punks then leave.
\_ Is your problem simply that they are younger? Get over it. If
they were older and acted the same would that be ok with you? If
so then this is your internal problem.
\_ I disagree. Age does matter, because age equals experience
and wisdom and "putting in time". No one begrudges the guy who
worked his ass off for 35 years and now has it made. Some
snot-nosed kid who got lucky three years out of college and now
thinks he knows-it-all is annoying.
\_ Age does not always equal wisdom or experience. Age often
equals warming the same chair for 35 years. That 'snot nosed
kid' obviously had something you didn't: balls, skill, luck,
and quite likely worked his ass off during those 3 years.
35 years of 80 hour weeks? Doubt it. More like 35 years of
9-5 and long lunches in most cases. I report to someone
younger than me. I've got no problem with that. He's
actually really cool. I've reported to older people who were
just horrible managers and human beings. Age does not matter
except in your head. But a jerk is still a jerk. You are
apparently ok reporting to an older jerk but not a younger
one. I don't see why the older jerk gets a pass. If your
35 years of work guy was so damned smart why'd it take him
32 years longer to succeed than the snot nosed kids you
despise so much?
\_ Right place at the right time. I am not saying all
older employees are better, just that it is easier to
respect them. Age always equals experience. Each day
is full of new experiences. You would be surprised
how much even a low IQ person learns over a lifetime.
I am not disparaging the young, because we need their
contributions, too. I am disparaging snot-nosed hot
shot youth who basically got lucky but thinks their
shot youth who basically got lucky but think their
success was because of something they did and who
looks down their nose at the 9-5 lifer. I work in an
look down their noses at the 9-5 lifer. I work in an
environment with an equal share of older, less
educated, but experienced engineers and younger, much
better educated, less experienced engineers. There is
always a stigma against the old guys (with some
exceptions) but if you actually bother to listen to
what some of them have to say instead of thinking you
know best and writing them off as career losers you
might be surprised what they know. They have just
given up on trying to impress and compete with
snot-nosed brats at their stage in life. As a society
we should value our elders more than we do, because
with age comes experience and, often, wisdom.
with age comes experience and, often, wisdom. Also, we
need to stop equating luck with hard work and talent.
Every startup is full of bright, hard-working people
with a great idea and yet very few succeed. Mostly
it's a matter of timing, who you know, who can
bankroll you (e.g. Sameer's dad), and other elements
outside of your control. Microsoft didn't succeed
because they worked harder, had a better product, had
a better vision, or any of that. Same with Apple or
most other success stories.
\_ Here's the thing you're missing: those snot nosed kids
you hate did something the older folks never did. They
came up with a new idea and had the balls to pursue
their dreams.
\_ How do you know this? One older guy had his own
company for a long time before taking a 9-5 job.
Like I said, you'd be surprised.
Your "we just give up trying to impress"
older folks have entirely the wrong idea. It is not
about trying to impress anyone. It is about going for
it. Startups are not for everyone. The risk is very
high, the rewards are not guaranteed and the effort is
great. It is *not* dumb luck or "right place, right
time". They put themselves in that place at that time.
They earned it.
\_ Not true. I worked in a startup with a lot of
smart people who later went on to success and
the startup just didn't take off. Everyone was
smart (even some PHDs), hard working (slept at
the office), had a great idea (now being
emulated by lots of successful companies but at
the time the only competitor was IBM and they
had only a 6 person team), and even money from
investors willing to take risk. It just didn't
happen. We were too early and the company folded
about 2 years before the time was right. We
"went for it" and failed. It's very common. I
know a successful business owner who failed MANY
times (losing his house in the process) before
he finally made it. Was he less talented or hard
working or whatever? Hell no. However, there is
a big element of luck. You meet the right
person, you get the right contract with a client
who just happens to hit it big and take you with
them, and so on. There are a lot of these little
uncontrollable moments that contribute to
success. No one is saying that it's *just* luck
but that luck plays a bigger part in it than you
are willing to admit. I knew a secretary who was
one of the first 10 people hired at AMZN and a
sysadmin who was one of the first at SUN. The SA
told me he didn't even want the job when he saw
the place, but he took it because his first
choice turned him down. Both of these people are
now very wealthy. You are saying it's because
they had the foresight to put themselves in such
a position? BS.
\_ What you're describing in the failure cases is
the right place at the *wrong* time. Successful
people like the young founders you despise will
have other people around them dragged along on
the success train. The secretary and sysadmin
are both very wealthy because they put themselves
at a small company working for snot nosed kids who
done good. It wasn't foresight. No one can
predict the future. It was the willingness to
work at a 'less than typical corporate pit'. The
startup thing is not for everyone. It probably
isn't for most people. That's why most people
work 9-5+lunch at a grey pit sucking their soul
out getting bitter when some snot nosed kid ends
up as their rich boss. Your example of the guy
who tried over and over until he made it, losing
his house in the process is exactly who I'm
talking about when I said it takes balls and an
idea to go from nothing to +++++. "Working hard"
will *never* get you there alone. That will get
you a pay check and a pink slip when the corp.
downsizes.
\_ No argument about working hard being
insufficient. However, you are overlooking
that the guy who failed many times failed
many times. He wasn't a kid by the time he
succeeded. He had a lot of experience to
draw on. That's quite different from some
kid who happened to pick the right company
to work for. Some people chose Borland,
Apple (when Apple was not doing well), or
Sybase. Others chose Cisco or Microsoft.
Nothing was really different about their
situations except that some companies did
better than others. People who saw the
advent of NAS worked at Auspex, but Netapp
was probably a better choice in hindsight.
Who could have guessed? There was a lot of
luck involved. Yahoo! and Google did well.
Altavista and Lycos didn't do as well. Maybe
Google and Yahoo! had a better management
team. I can't say. I can say that the rank
and file employees at each were just as
talented, hard-working, intelligent and
ambitious and yet they were not equally
rewarded. That's luck.
\_ Thank you, I nearly cried when I read your
post. I also worked very very hard at several
startup. Long hours, great ideas, super smart
and super-charged team members, etc. None of
them ever became successful, and now I'm
just a normal 9-5 dad with a suburban home.
In contrast some of my friends got really
lucky and were acquired by other companies.
Being at the right place at the right time
definitely plays a large role. Maybe 65%.
I tried. I learned. But I didn't fail. Would
I do it again if I'm single and don't have
any responsibility anymore? DEFINITELY.
\_ If you don't have kids there's nothing stopping
you from trying again.
\_ He said he's a dad. |