Beloki retires

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Benjamin Franklin

I think it was the Earl of Oxford.

Dumbass -

A bit of a simplistic view by the Earl. Certain shared values are the
glue that holds cultures/societies together and the evolution of them
is the new social Darwanism.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact is, every one of us (or virtually every one of us) is locked
out of lucrative jobs by virtue of our inability to do them as well as
the top performers.

Now that's funny.

-Andy B.

Andy B. said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact is, every one of us (or virtually every one of us) is locked
out of lucrative jobs by virtue of our inability to do them as well as
the top performers.Now that's funny.

Dumbass -

It's also true.

with the possible exception of Fat Steve (just ask him).

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I think mathematics is an absolute good,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's not completely true. Knowledge and technology can be used for
good, evil or neither.I think increasing the sum of human knowledge is an absolute good.Dumbass -

Example: If the Nazis would've gotten their nuclear technology in order
a few years before the Americans. Knowledge increasing at a faster rate
= absolute good. Not.

Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

I see your argument clearly, and any evaluations are subjective, but
I agree with Ryan on this one because with no progress there no chance
at all for new good things to occur. My feeling is that eliminating
the possibility for good to occur through stagnation is bad. The "Dark
Ages", which actually did have some new knowledge develop, are a good
example of how stopping progress is a bad thing.
I guess I see the possible uses, for good, outweighing the fear of
negative usage as bsing a positive.
Depending on how you look at it, the worst things that can happen
are, wiping out the planet which we could do pretty well already, and
IMO controlling and enslaving the vast mass of humanity. We have
limited means to accomplish the latter, and progress could contribute
to that, but it could also massively improve the quality of life for
massive amounts of people and has.
Ben and I are taking optimist view, you a rationalist view, and lots
of people a conservative/negative view.
Great thing about soft science, it's subjective and IMO not really
science.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jan 26, 4:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I think mathematics is an absolute good,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's not completely true. Knowledge and technology can be used for
> good, evil or neither.I think increasing the sum of human knowledge is an absolute good.Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Example: If the Nazis would've gotten their nuclear technology in order
a few years before the Americans. Knowledge increasing at a faster rate
= absolute good. Not.

Quoted message said:

Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.

Quoted message said:

thanks,

Quoted message said:

K. Gringioni. I see your argument clearly, and any evaluations are subjective, but

I agree with Ryan on this one because with no progress there no chance
at all for new good things to occur. My feeling is that eliminating
the possibility for good to occur through stagnation is bad. The "Dark
Ages", which actually did have some new knowledge develop, are a good
example of how stopping progress is a bad thing.
I guess I see the possible uses, for good, outweighing the fear of
negative usage as bsing a positive.
Depending on how you look at it, the worst things that can happen
are, wiping out the planet which we could do pretty well already, and
IMO controlling and enslaving the vast mass of humanity. We have
limited means to accomplish the latter, and progress could contribute
to that, but it could also massively improve the quality of life for
massive amounts of people and has.
Ben and I are taking optimist view, you a rationalist view, and lots
of people a conservative/negative view.
Great thing about soft science, it's subjective and IMO not really
science.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

If I could keep the names straight now....If you were here day to day
you wouldn't even blink at it. I can remember esoteric [censored] that
happened 3000 years ago but can't find my keys when they are in my
hand.
Bill C

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy B. said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact is, every one of us (or virtually every one of us) is locked
out of lucrative jobs by virtue of our inability to do them as well as
the top performers.Now that's funny.

Dumbass -

It's also true.

Ha Ha. Except for sales, the ability to interview well and lick ass is
almost always inversely proportional with the ability to do the job. I
suppose if you're really talking about top jobs (e.g. athletes and artists)
its different, but gaining access to middle management (what Ryan was
talking about) is all about stroking your boss, not ability. Just look at
the American and European auto industry for an example of an almost trillion
dollar industry being run into the ground by "top performers" making
millions a year.

Most top jobs are landed by people who make better choices than others in
their career path.

-Andy B.

http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/nice.html#hedwige

-ilan

Donald Munro said:

ilan said:

I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
career.Do mathematicians have pets ?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Andy B. said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy B. said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

> The fact is, every one of us (or virtually every one of us) is locked
> out of lucrative jobs by virtue of our inability to do them as well as
> the top performers.Now that's funny.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's also true.

Ha Ha. Except for sales, the ability to interview well and lick ass is
almost always inversely proportional with the ability to do the job. I
suppose if you're really talking about top jobs (e.g. athletes and artists)
its different, but gaining access to middle management (what Ryan was
talking about) is all about stroking your boss, not ability. Just look at
the American and European auto industry for an example of an almost trillion
dollar industry being run into the ground by "top performers" making
millions a year.

Taking your specific example, we should probably remember three things:

1) predicting car trends years into the future is hard
2) GM in particular has benefit liabilities for current and retired
workers, which, while entirely its own fault, mean it has a very hard
row to hoe in competing
3) Toyota is extremely good at what they do, and it must suck to have to
sell beside them.

After all, it's not that this year's GM cars are worse than last year's
GM cars. It's more that this year's GM cars are not quite as good as
this year's Toyota cars.

Regarding the Euro auto makers, I think they are doing okay, aside from
DaimlerChrysler, which seems to be suffering from lingering effects of
the merger. And having to compete with Toyota.

Indeed, one could read the entire auto industry as a continuing
progression of meritocratic "winner takes more" economics.

On the other hand, there's a big transition to EV that is likely to be
driven by Li-Ion (or even better next-gen energy storage systems) in the
next decade. I predict that one or more current major autobuilders will
fumble the ball and do badly through the transition, and that several
small car or EV component companies will profit handsomely, if only by
the inevitable buyout.

Quoted message said:

Most top jobs are landed by people who make better choices than others in
their career path.

Well, I don't see how that contradicts my assertion.

More importantly, unless your boss is retarded (it happens; send out
resumes) stroking is virtually irrelevant. I don't know what it's like
in your offices, but even in my public-sector IT backwater, what makes
the boss look good and feel happy is competent employees who do good
work on time. This year's supervisors were last year's best technicians.
And I say this as the tech who didn't get promoted.

To hire and promote badly is for an organization to put itself at a
competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that. It happens, and then
market shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.

Have you considered a better company?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

There's a fair argument to be made that the list of top-tier
mathematicians of the 20th century goes like this:

1) Erdos
2) Ramanujan

I majored in pure and applied mathematics and I have never heard of
these people. We were teached things like chaos theory (Poincaré),
Lorentz transformations, the Dirac equation. Should I ask for my money
back or should I just get a TV?

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jason Spaceman said:

Kinda sad. I wish a team had of offered him a contract, but he was
never the same after The Crash in the 2003 TdF.

http://www.cyclingpost.com/rider/article_004088.shtml

That crash still haunts my dreams. Not even the actual thump to the
ground so much (though the footage of the rear wheel locking up, the
tubie unspooling from the rim, and the eventual smack is plenty awful)
as the shots of an anguished, pained Beloki screaming and crying as he
lay there.

Broken hip, chasing victory in the Tour, it was a miserable moment.

i remember thinking, oh, maybe it's not so bad, just road rash. But then
you heard him screaming... so sad, he was having such a good Tour!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

More importantly, unless your boss is retarded (it happens; send out
resumes) stroking is virtually irrelevant. I don't know what it's like
in your offices, but even in my public-sector IT backwater, what makes
the boss look good and feel happy is competent employees who do good
work on time. This year's supervisors were last year's best technicians.
And I say this as the tech who didn't get promoted.

To hire and promote badly is for an organization to put itself at a
competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that. It happens, and then
market shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.

Have you considered a better company?

In general, you're probably right but there are certainly exceptions. I'm not
going into the gory details, mind you. Sometimes that has to do with the job
market...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

ilan said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

career.Do mathematicians have pets ?

ilan said:

http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/nice.html#hedwige

Looks a bit anaemic, perhaps you should consult a vet about boosting his
red blood count.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Do mathematicians have pets ?

Michael Press said:

Yes. My dog is named Cauchy. He leaves a residue at every pole.

But, being a public spirited individual, you do at least pick up the
Cauchy products

In article <[email hidden]>,

kleutervreter said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

There's a fair argument to be made that the list of top-tier
mathematicians of the 20th century goes like this:

1) Erdos
2) Ramanujan

I majored in pure and applied mathematics and I have never heard of
these people. We were teached things like chaos theory (Poincar?),
Lorentz transformations, the Dirac equation. Should I ask for my money
back or should I just get a TV?

Yes.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

kleutervreter said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

There's a fair argument to be made that the list of top-tier
mathematicians of the 20th century goes like this:

1) Erdos
2) Ramanujan

I majored in pure and applied mathematics and I have never heard of
these people. We were teached things like chaos theory (Poincar?),
Lorentz transformations, the Dirac equation. Should I ask for my money
back or should I just get a TV?

Okay, fairly played. But Dirac and Lorentz were physicists. They each
won Nobels, for heaven's sake, and there's no Nobel for mathematicians!

I mean, if you're going to claim Dirac and Lorentz, then next the
mathematicians will claim every theoretical physicist, thus kidnapping
Einstein, Fermi, and what the heck, probably Feynmann too.

And that would be stupid.

Similar, though lesser arguments could be thrust at Poincare, who at
least had the decency to not win a Nobel (hey, how did that Matteucci
Medal get in here?). But his major mathematical contribution was pure
conjecture.

In conclusion, you should have just admitted you were studying physics.
Applied mathematics, indeed!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

kleutervreter said:

Quoted message said:

I majored in pure and applied mathematics and I have never heard of
these people. We were teached things like chaos theory (Poincar?),
Lorentz transformations, the Dirac equation. Should I ask for my money
back or should I just get a TV?

Ryan Cousineau said:

Yes.

A bit dated:
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_4_6_98.html

Perhaps they should get some really hot semi-naked chicks to present a
maths program on tv. Heather, are you tired of your scrotum examination
job yet ?

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To hire and promote badly is for an organization to put itself at a
competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that. It happens, and then
market shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.

That's why I fired DaimlerChrysler two years ago.

Quoted message said:

Have you considered a better company?

After two years of suffering at another bad German company, I now work for
the market leader in my field with one of them lucrative jobs you spoke of
;^)

-Andy B.

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most top jobs are landed by people who make better choices than others in
their career path.

Well, I don't see how that contradicts my assertion.

Just to clarify what I mean here: There are a lot of top jobs out there.
Most people do not choose to go for them and therefore never land a top job.
It's not because they can't perform, it's because they didn't know, didn't
try etc.

-Andy B.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Andy B. said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To hire and promote badly is for an organization to put itself at a
competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that. It happens, and then
market shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.

That's why I fired DaimlerChrysler two years ago.

Quoted message said:

Have you considered a better company?

After two years of suffering at another bad German company, I now work for
the market leader in my field with one of them lucrative jobs you spoke of
;^)

-Andy B.

The system works!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Andy B. said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most top jobs are landed by people who make better choices than others in
their career path.

Well, I don't see how that contradicts my assertion.

Just to clarify what I mean here: There are a lot of top jobs out there.
Most people do not choose to go for them and therefore never land a top job.
It's not because they can't perform, it's because they didn't know, didn't
try etc.

-Andy B.

Fair enough. I think there's a lot of competition for most top jobs,
inasmuch as lots of people who make manager in one way or another (or by
forming their own company) plan to be a holder of a top job.

There's also people who are happy with what they have: a small business
owner who is prosperous enough, or whatever.

But the competition for top jobs surely consists of a group of
successful job-holders who generally beat out a lot of unsuccessful
aspirants. And I would dare to claim that even if they never submit a
resume, most VPs at most major companies have to be considered to be
auditioning for the top job.

But I'll go check my original assertion:

Quoted message said:

The fact is, every one of us (or virtually every one of us) is locked
out of lucrative jobs by virtue of our inability to do them as well as
the top performers.

I think that stands up. There are virtually no lucrative jobs which are
not the subject of substantial competition. And in general, I think that
while the job market is imperfect, it's considerably better than chance.
Almost all of the people who don't have a lucrative job are worse at
that job than the person who has it.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos