OT: Sort of funny

I remember reading a study many years years ago on the inverse correlation between being the level of err.. ability and evaluation of ones own ability. Yep. The dumber you are, the less able you are to be able to accurately rate your dumbness.

-- Kevin Aylward

sort of like being drunk, but with out needing the alcohol.

And Slowman is in the lowest 1 percentile >:-} ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

Aha! So THAT is Slowman's problem >:-} ...Jim Thompson

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Pretty sure the vast majority of liberals aren't really asking for free stuff, we just don't appreciate being told "you should really thank us that we offer you the privilege of working for peanuts" by a bunch of billionaire tax-evaders.

That is to say, when one uses a lotta money to lobby to redefine what belongs to you as "whatever I can get my hands on by any means necessary" and the act of observing that this position is absurd as "theft", then accusations of it don't really carry a lot of clout.

If (some) Americans have decided that the best way to obtain a better life is to white-knight for the billionaires in the hope that they'll be tossed a few crumbs in exchange for their loyalty then hey, good luck, but I think they'll be disappointed in the end.

At least nominally government is supposed to work in the interests of the people - the Koch brothers definitely don't concern themselves with the success or failure of subspecies.

Jim would like to think so. He doesn't know much and is clever enough to find ways of explaining his ignorance that don't make him look bone-idle (or at least not from his point of view).

And Jim is ignorant enough not to realise that this isn't remotely credible.

He doesn't like people who stayed in the education system for long enough to get a Ph.D. - as he should have done - and takes out his resentment of his own poor judgement by being rude about them.

s/asking/demanding/

No one is forcing anyone to work for peanuts. The "evil billionaire" has no such power. Work for someone else or yourself. It really is that simple.

What a bunch of crap. Stealing one's labor is exactly what you rail against but it's OK when government does what no corporation can.

Crumbs? No one is forcing you to work for those who throw you "crumbs". You have choice but you don't think other should. That's the difference between lefties like you and normal people. We want everyone to have a choice of what they want to do with their life. Choices have consequences, of course.

You don't have to prove how truly stupid you are. We got it.

This also reminds me of the irrationality of those that define "the poverty level" with reference to an average income.

-- Kevin Aylward

Have you _ever_ met someone supposedly at the poverty level who DIDN'T have a smart phone and a large flat-screen TV ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

Ahh.. now I know the name.

Watching the earlier episodes of the X-Factor of a season is always a joy. It is actually quite stunning how many sing so bad, yet have absolutely no idea of it.

-- Kevin Aylward

Den onsdag den 12. april 2017 kl. 22.39.57 UTC+2 skrev Kevin Aylward:

if their parents etc. as some misunderstood dishonesty or clueless-ness keeps telling them they are good, how would they know otherwise...

And what are the reasons he should have gotten a Ph.D?

Money? Prestige? So he could be a snob?

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerman did not get a Ph.D. Are you saying they really messed up and should have gotten a _Ph.D?

Dan

gh to get a Ph.D. - as he should have done -

The Ph.D. does seem to be worth money. He's a snob anyway, and having a Ph. D. might have lead him to be snobbish about different irrelevant qualities.

The argument would be that he was bright enough - and persistent enough - t o do the kind of work required. He's an adequate integrated circuit designe r. If he had been asked to solve a wider variety of problems he might have found something that he was really good at - in the way the Bob Widlar and Barry Gilbert were in integrated circuit design.

eally messed up and should have gotten a Ph.D?

Bill Gates is a commercial success. If you contrast Windows with Linux, you can see how he might have done better from a technical point of view, but the business of exploiting a natural monopoly doesn't encourage technical i nnovation, and does encourage tricks like squeezing Netscape out of the mar ket, and trying to sell Explorer bundled into the operating system.

Mark Zuckerman seems to have been sued for ripping off his collaborators. T hat sort of attitude doesn't play well in a research environment.

Jim Thompson does seem to be capable of playing nicely with co-workers, whi ch does make him someone who might have completed a Ph.D.

So the answer is no. Which Dan should have been able to work out for himsel f.

Kevin doesn't bother telling us what he thinks a rational way of defining the poverty threshold might be. It's clearly different for a family with kids than it is for a single male or female.

The March 2017 issue of the Scientific American has an interesting graph (on page 40) of the statistical relationship between cortical surface area and parental income in the US.

The homeless people who hang around the Wayside Chapel in Sydney don't appear to have wide-screen TV's in the pile of possessions they carry around with them. A smart phone would be less visible.

One has to imagine that Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson doesn't meet all that many people that he supposes to be at the poverty level.

What's you point?

I would say that most on the ball would have actually understood that Jim, by use of the >:-} was illustrating a point, and not trying to be completely literal. Of course, there are those that most rational people would refer to as truly poor, and clearly Jim understands this, as do most. However, the point being made here is that, for example, in the UK they are a significant number of benefit claimants, that have houses filled with what the 3rd world refer to as luxuries such as large TVs, Computers, Play stations etc, yet still consider themselves in poverty, such that the tax payer should have a moral duty to give them more. There is a TV "reality" program "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole", that often illustrates this view. Of course, the program is designed to rile people up, but that does not make the point any less true. Millions are not in poverty, but claim that they are, and the system is engorging that view by nonsense definitions of poverty.

-- Kevin Aylward

You claim that it is irrational to define a "poverty level" with reference to the average income, but don't bother to point out what - precisely - you find irrational in this. I did go on to point out that a "poverty level" f or an individual would be different from that for a couple with kids, and I could have gone on to look for a rational definition of poverty.

Complaining that something isn't "rational" without providing a rational ex planation of why it might not be rational is a fairly irrational form of ar gument, and well worth rubbishing for that intellectual defect alone.

ea

eet

ely

In other words, adding ">:-}" to a common-or-garden right-wing nonsense con verts it into some kind of ironic comment?

Jim isn't actually capable of irony - he may appreciate that other people m ay use it, but it doesn't seem to be part of his repertoire.

Why do you think that Jim understands this? He grew up in a red-neck commun ity, some of whose members wouldn't have had much to do with the cash econo my.

ant

rld

I don't think that that kind of benefit claimant will spend much time talki ng about the moral duty of the tax payer to given them a higher benefit. Th ey do tend to spend time working the system to get as much benefit as they can.

The energy would be better devoted to getting a productive job, but these c an be thin on the ground.

the

ny

Depending on your definition of poverty. Their kids don't do particularly w ell, and not all of that is due to the UK employer preference for people wh o talk proper.

Since you haven't produce any definition of poverty yourself, nor contraste d it with whatever definition you think that the UK civil service uses, you are guilty of peddling your own brand of nonsense.

Not sure I'd use the word "joy" but certainly the appeal of the show declines as the more hilariously-untalented contestants are progressively weeded out.