Beloki retires



In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> kleutervreter wrote:
> >> 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 wrote:
> > 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 ?

What, "Deal or no Deal"? It's a pretty good illustration of valuations
of risk, and what the case models lack in nudity, they make up for in
volume.

No, I'm kidding. DoND drives me nuts, mainly because it is a veneer of
tedious, slow-paced melodrama over a rather straightforward set of
decisions.

I don't think I'd make a very good contestant, not least for my
willingness to pick case 1 as mine, then unlock cases 2-6 on the first
turn.

Also, there's not much math,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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 protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> Do mathematicians have pets ?
>
> Michael Press wrote:
> > 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

My dog defecates at home, not in public; he has his
self respect.

--
Michael Press
 
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:50:55 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
>> Benjamin Franklin
>
>I think it was the Earl of Oxford.

Obviously he was quoting Benjamin Franklin.

Curtis L. Russell
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it Benjamin
Franklin.
 
On 27 Jan 2007 14:10:55 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps, but assuming this is seen as one of the weaknesses of the
original Humanist Manifesto and why the second spent so much more time
in the area of ethics, religion and morality (and the third, if you
accept that one, in the area of man and nature). Knowledge can be
misused deliberately and terribly misused due to lack of deliberation.
Unfortunately, decades of generally ethical use of knowledge can be
undone by a short period of using knowledge to cause harm.

I agree with a presumption of general good in the advancement of
knowledge, but that is not the same as a presumption of good in its
use.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't know if this inversion makes any sense, but what the hell, it's
>Usenet: I drink coffee, doesn't that deprive the marginal worker of the
>opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
>enhanced productivity?

Senseo pod coffee makers. No marginalized coffee drinkers. The law
will be passed soon, probably first in Massachusetts.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 27 Jan 2007 14:10:55 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps, but assuming this is seen as one of the weaknesses of the
> original Humanist Manifesto and why the second spent so much more time
> in the area of ethics, religion and morality (and the third, if you
> accept that one, in the area of man and nature). Knowledge can be
> misused deliberately and terribly misused due to lack of deliberation.
> Unfortunately, decades of generally ethical use of knowledge can be
> undone by a short period of using knowledge to cause harm.
>
> I agree with a presumption of general good in the advancement of
> knowledge, but that is not the same as a presumption of good in its
> use.

Are we getting serious or something? Some people do
bad things. Some of them do very bad things all the
time. They will use anything at hand. More `knowledge'
will not make them capable of doing more or worse
things, nor will more `knowledge' increase or decrease
the fraction of populations doing bad things.

--
Michael Press
 
On Jan 30, 1:03 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > I agree with a presumption of general good in the advancement of
> > knowledge, but that is not the same as a presumption of good in its
> > use.
>
> Are we getting serious or something? Some people do
> bad things. Some of them do very bad things all the
> time. They will use anything at hand. More `knowledge'
> will not make them capable of doing more or worse
> things, nor will more `knowledge' increase or decrease
> the fraction of populations doing bad things.

More knowledge absolutely can enable people who do
bad things to do more and worse things. This is why it is
important for people who create knowledge to consider
the uses to which it will be put. The work of the inventor
or scientist is not necessarily morally neutral and claiming
that it is, is usually a dodge put forward by people who want
to take the grant-money without thinking about the source
lest they lose any sleep. Cases in point range all the way
from Heisenberg and von Braun to joe average doctors
who actually do want to help people but also engage in
clinical studies where the funding company has veto rights
over publication.

Ben
I resolve this moral dilemma by engaging in scientific
research that fails to create knowledge. Also, I'm taking
a firm moral stand against doping in science, because
I'm too cheap to buy greenies.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I resolve this moral dilemma by engaging in scientific
> research that fails to create knowledge. Also, I'm taking
> a firm moral stand against doping in science, because
> I'm too cheap to buy greenies.

But the moral dilemma might be that of graverobbing:

The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but the transference of bones from one
graveyard to another.
Benjamin Franklin
 
In article
<[email protected]>
,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Jan 30, 1:03 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > I agree with a presumption of general good in the advancement of
> > > knowledge, but that is not the same as a presumption of good in its
> > > use.
> >
> > Are we getting serious or something? Some people do
> > bad things. Some of them do very bad things all the
> > time. They will use anything at hand. More `knowledge'
> > will not make them capable of doing more or worse
> > things, nor will more `knowledge' increase or decrease
> > the fraction of populations doing bad things.
>
> More knowledge absolutely can enable people who do
> bad things to do more and worse things. This is why it is
> important for people who create knowledge to consider
> the uses to which it will be put. The work of the inventor
> or scientist is not necessarily morally neutral and claiming
> that it is, is usually a dodge put forward by people who want
> to take the grant-money without thinking about the source
> lest they lose any sleep. Cases in point range all the way
> from Heisenberg and von Braun to joe average doctors
> who actually do want to help people but also engage in
> clinical studies where the funding company has veto rights
> over publication.

You are completely wrong about this. Romans would
crucify people by the hundreds and by the thousands.
Armies would leave mountains of skulls. The Bolshevik
counter-revolution killed entire populations by walking
and starving them to death. Pol Pot did not really need
hand guns. Band came to a village; join our band of
killers or die. Stalin killed 20 million. Sure he used
railroads to transport, but walking them to the camps
would work just as well.

--
Michael Press
 
On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > More knowledge absolutely can enable people who do
> > bad things to do more and worse things. This is why it is
> > important for people who create knowledge to consider
> > the uses to which it will be put. The work of the inventor
> > or scientist is not necessarily morally neutral and claiming
> > that it is, is usually a dodge put forward by people who want
> > to take the grant-money without thinking about the source
> > lest they lose any sleep. Cases in point range all the way
> > from Heisenberg and von Braun to joe average doctors
> > who actually do want to help people but also engage in
> > clinical studies where the funding company has veto rights
> > over publication.
>
> You are completely wrong about this. Romans would
> crucify people by the hundreds and by the thousands.
> Armies would leave mountains of skulls. The Bolshevik
> counter-revolution killed entire populations by walking
> and starving them to death. Pol Pot did not really need
> hand guns. Band came to a village; join our band of
> killers or die. Stalin killed 20 million. Sure he used
> railroads to transport, but walking them to the camps
> would work just as well.



Dumbass -


Weak, weak reasoning.

Giving examples of low tech methods of killing a lot of people doesn't
add anything to the ethical dilemma presented by the potential
cataclysms that could be caused by the evil use of high technology.
Oppenheimer and Einstein were two principle enablers of the Manhattan
Project in the race to get the tech before the Third Reich, but they
were both profoundly disturbed by the ultimate potential harm that the
application of previously theoretical nuclear physics could have upon
the future of mankind.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
In article
<[email protected]>
,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > More knowledge absolutely can enable people who do
> > > bad things to do more and worse things. This is why it is
> > > important for people who create knowledge to consider
> > > the uses to which it will be put. The work of the inventor
> > > or scientist is not necessarily morally neutral and claiming
> > > that it is, is usually a dodge put forward by people who want
> > > to take the grant-money without thinking about the source
> > > lest they lose any sleep. Cases in point range all the way
> > > from Heisenberg and von Braun to joe average doctors
> > > who actually do want to help people but also engage in
> > > clinical studies where the funding company has veto rights
> > > over publication.
> >
> > You are completely wrong about this. Romans would
> > crucify people by the hundreds and by the thousands.
> > Armies would leave mountains of skulls. The Bolshevik
> > counter-revolution killed entire populations by walking
> > and starving them to death. Pol Pot did not really need
> > hand guns. Band came to a village; join our band of
> > killers or die. Stalin killed 20 million. Sure he used
> > railroads to transport, but walking them to the camps
> > would work just as well.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Weak, weak reasoning.

Nothing wrong with the reasoning.

> Giving examples of low tech methods of killing a lot of people doesn't
> add anything to the ethical dilemma presented by the potential
> cataclysms that could be caused by the evil use of high technology.
> Oppenheimer and Einstein were two principle enablers of the Manhattan
> Project in the race to get the tech before the Third Reich, but they
> were both profoundly disturbed by the ultimate potential harm that the
> application of previously theoretical nuclear physics could have upon
> the future of mankind.

Does not disturb me. Ethical dilemmas are for
weaklings. What disturbs me is that couple a number of
years ago who conceived a child so it could serve as a
kidney donor for their child who needed a kidney to
survive. Every city has an black market in children.
Children are conceived to be slaves. Talk to some
people in a public health service. These are the heros
in our society.

--
Michael Press
 
On 30 Jan 2007 17:47:32 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > More knowledge absolutely can enable people who do
>> > bad things to do more and worse things. This is why it is
>> > important for people who create knowledge to consider
>> > the uses to which it will be put. The work of the inventor
>> > or scientist is not necessarily morally neutral and claiming
>> > that it is, is usually a dodge put forward by people who want
>> > to take the grant-money without thinking about the source
>> > lest they lose any sleep. Cases in point range all the way
>> > from Heisenberg and von Braun to joe average doctors
>> > who actually do want to help people but also engage in
>> > clinical studies where the funding company has veto rights
>> > over publication.
>>
>> You are completely wrong about this. Romans would
>> crucify people by the hundreds and by the thousands.
>> Armies would leave mountains of skulls. The Bolshevik
>> counter-revolution killed entire populations by walking
>> and starving them to death. Pol Pot did not really need
>> hand guns. Band came to a village; join our band of
>> killers or die. Stalin killed 20 million. Sure he used
>> railroads to transport, but walking them to the camps
>> would work just as well.
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>Weak, weak reasoning.
>
>Giving examples of low tech methods of killing a lot of people doesn't
>add anything to the ethical dilemma presented by the potential
>cataclysms that could be caused by the evil use of high technology.
>Oppenheimer and Einstein were two principle enablers of the Manhattan
>Project in the race to get the tech before the Third Reich, but they
>were both profoundly disturbed by the ultimate potential harm that the
>application of previously theoretical nuclear physics could have upon
>the future of mankind.

Dumbass -

Both of them, like so many other people, had overinflated opinions about the
value, importance, danger of their work. Humanity is perfectly capable of
elevating or destroying itself without them.

Ron
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know if this inversion makes any sense, but what the hell, it's
> >Usenet: I drink coffee, doesn't that deprive the marginal worker of the
> >opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
> >enhanced productivity?
>
> Senseo pod coffee makers. No marginalized coffee drinkers. The law
> will be passed soon, probably first in Massachusetts.

Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
some pretty marginal coffee.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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
 
On Jan 31, 7:57 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I don't know if this inversion makes any sense, but what the hell, it's
> > >Usenet: I drink coffee, doesn't that deprive the marginal worker of the
> > >opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
> > >enhanced productivity?
>
> > Senseo pod coffee makers. No marginalized coffee drinkers. The law
> > will be passed soon, probably first in Massachusetts.
>
> Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
> some pretty marginal coffee.

It's a new development: "pod coffee maker" doesn't mean a
maker that uses pods of coffee, it means a coffee maker for
Pod People. Like cubical warriors only ever so much more
equal and standardized, for maximum efficiency in large
corporate environments.

To answer your original question, no you aren't depriving the
marginal worker of the opportunity to drink coffee. You're
making coffee fractionally more expensive by increasing
demand. But you're in competition with Some Guy - in the
cubical next to you or across the country - who is roughly your
peer and probably just as capable of affording coffee.
Coffee, unlike say platinum or the number of hours in a day,
is not a commodity that is close to the limit of scarcity.

Choosing to drink coffee and stay alert in meetings while
your cubical-mate dozes may give you a leg up, but
arguably he could do the same while suffering only yellow
teeth. Amphetamines and dependence on them seem to be
a step farther. But I'm sure there are plenty of people
who would use them to get a leg up. I think some of my
colleagues might except they're too nerdy to know where
to score greenies.

My point is that the main distinction I can see between
Erdos-like doping in your career and doping in your bike
career is that bike racing is a game, and the game has rules,
and doping is against them. Now, I also think that this is
not arbitrary, and that doping in bike racing is to be
discouraged, for the health of the athletes and because
I'd rather it be about the best athlete than the best Ferrari
(Dr). However, I think fans and WADA officials who take a
righteous position on crusading for clean sport while
embedding it in a hyper-competitive culture are somewhere
between hypocritical and willfully blind.

Kurgan likes to make the point that you can't expect to get
rid of performance enhancing drugs in a culture that tolerates
recreational drugs. I actually don't agree because I think
the motivations are different. People do recreational drugs
because they don't mind bending the rules to have fun, but
PEDs because they bend the rules to succeed. I think you
won't get rid of PEDs in a culture that valorizes success
over ethics. It's all Ayn Rand's fault.

Ben
I tried to sell out but no one was buying.
 
On Feb 1, 12:06 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:


> Kurgan likes to make the point that you can't expect to get
> rid of performance enhancing drugs in a culture that tolerates
> recreational drugs. I actually don't agree because I think
> the motivations are different. People do recreational drugs
> because they don't mind bending the rules to have fun, but
> PEDs because they bend the rules to succeed. I think you
> won't get rid of PEDs in a culture that valorizes success
> over ethics. It's all Ayn Rand's fault.

dumbass,

i disagree with chang because it seems to me the popularity of a
specific rec. drug is usually tied in with some cultural movement, for
instance the "rave" scene.

or this :
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/1054760

but there are some similarities the users share. i think i saw
something that suggested that people with a risk taking personality
were also more likely to dope for sports. makes sense to me. drinking
and smoking doesn't make you cool, but all the cool people smoke and
drink.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Choosing to drink coffee and stay alert in meetings while
> your cubical-mate dozes may give you a leg up, but
> arguably he could do the same while suffering only yellow
> teeth. Amphetamines and dependence on them seem to be
> a step farther. But I'm sure there are plenty of people
> who would use them to get a leg up. I think some of my
> colleagues might except they're too nerdy to know where
> to score greenies.

While not dozing off in meetings is an advantage to be gained from using speed,
there are other negatives than just having yellow teeth, like the erratic behavior
and mood swings that seems to go with it. I know it varies by the individual, but,
having worked around speedsters a couple of times, the negatives outweigh the
positives. Unless the boss is a participant, of course.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> While not dozing off in meetings is an advantage to be gained from
> using speed,
> there are other negatives than just having yellow teeth, like the
> erratic behavior and mood swings that seems to go with it. I know it
> varies by the individual, but, having worked around speedsters a
> couple of times, the negatives outweigh the positives. Unless the boss
> is a participant, of course.
>

They are also America's fastest growing special interest group.

http://tinyurl.com/384ny9

--
Bill Asher
 
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:57:55 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
>some pretty marginal coffee.

You have to look around and try a bunch of pods. Some are really,
really bad. And too many say 'makes a cup of coffee' and they mean 4
or 5 ounces.

OTOH, if you drink only caffeinated coffee right up to bed time and
your wife goes to decaf at noon, a pod maker is absolutely great (once
you find the right pod - I order Reunion Island off the Internet and
it is Fair Trade too). Plus when you get back from walking the dogs at
4:30 in the morning, its nice to be able to have a cup in less than
two minutes. Especially in winter.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On 31 Jan 2007 21:06:10 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Choosing to drink coffee and stay alert in meetings while
>your cubical-mate dozes may give you a leg up, but
>arguably he could do the same while suffering only yellow
>teeth.

Do keep in mind the unfortunate experience of Al Gore, when he drank
too much tea and missed all that important security council info
during the bathroom breaks. You would be at the mercy of the person
who took the notes.

Wonder who screwed Al with the bad notes?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:57:55 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
> >some pretty marginal coffee.
>
> You have to look around and try a bunch of pods. Some are really,
> really bad. And too many say 'makes a cup of coffee' and they mean 4
> or 5 ounces.
>
> OTOH, if you drink only caffeinated coffee right up to bed time and
> your wife goes to decaf at noon, a pod maker is absolutely great (once
> you find the right pod - I order Reunion Island off the Internet and
> it is Fair Trade too). Plus when you get back from walking the dogs at
> 4:30 in the morning, its nice to be able to have a cup in less than
> two minutes. Especially in winter.

Here are instructions for making pods with your
favorite coffee, in case you want fresh ground from
your favorite local purveyor of beans.
<http://www.ineedcoffee.com/04/coffeepods/>

I like a 2 cup french press maker.

--
Michael Press
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Lousy Old Beloki
Replies
18
Views
1K
Road Cycling
sonarrat
S
R
Ugh. Poor Beloki
Replies
2
Views
731
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
T
Moreau and Beloki on Armstrong's Shoulders
Replies
7
Views
478
Road Cycling
Michael Thomas
M
B
Joseba Beloki 2003 Crash Video Clip?
Replies
4
Views
752
Road Cycling
Bryan K. Walton
B
T
Beloki ?
Replies
2
Views
370
Road Cycling
Tony Rall
T
Top Bottom Back