Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think you even have a slightest idea about what you are talking about...
Most of the internet use, maybe 99% is now WWW that wasn't part of arpanet.
I don't think you even have a slightest idea about what you are talking about...
Most of the internet use, maybe 99% is now WWW that wasn't part of arpanet.
No. They are not THE internet, they are websites which implies they use www more than other protocols.
I pretty much realized already that you have no clue what you are taking about in the subject of the internet and other subjects you brough up.
Amazes me that still want to have your voice heard
I've been there. I didn't say bankruptcy was a magical button that brought your money back. You might be washed out of your finances, but how many people are out on the streets living off the land or the kindness of the soup kitchen because they're Discount Furniture and Disco store went under because they never bothered to write a business plan?
Who said anything of the sort? You're making things up. Nobody said anything about soup kitchens.
We're talking about risk here. Please stay on topic. Are you conceding that starting a business is risky as hell? Because if you're not, then please argue that point in its entirety, I could give a damn about soup right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
When it comes to failures of business, the vast majority are because of personal error. Chance plays a small roll in failure of business. Just as chance plays a small role in failing companies, it plays a large role in successful people and companies.
Tell me you didn't just say this. This is just logically flawed at it's core. And I was really prepared to give you more credit than this.
Eating less doesn't tend to keep you skinny, but eating more tends to make you fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Ten businesses in an area could be doing the same thing, all of them equal with the exception of their location. An investor is in the city looking to do some commerce, and happens by chance to stop at company 3 first, and decides to invest with them. All of the business were equally good, but because the investor stopped at company 3 first, which none of those companies have control over, it did well.
Oh man. A successful business is not the result of one chance meeting or any one single thing. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
No, but failing to actualize that the government is involved in everything, no matter how small, is intellectually dishonest.
Yawn. Strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I don't. Not unless you can actually break down project milestones for the development of the internet. I'd say it's more 20\80, since without ARPANET, there was no internet. Just because private enterprise launched themselves off the back of government research, doesn't make them the virtual owners of the invention of the internet. It is, again, intellectually dishonest to say that the government played a small role. ARPANET is just the beginning. You have, again, infrastructure, copyright laws, electricity (!), laws increasing penetration, etc.
On top of which you have massive amounts of work done in the private sector.
Again, government laid the groundwork. That's about it.
"To solve the problem, the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) decided to try to connect a handful of large computers so they could share software, research information, or even storage space across whole states. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Sources.
Oh no, you got me, I lied about Intel's R&D budget.
As I said it's pretty irrelevant to the topic, so if you want to read more, look it up yourself. A google search for "intel's r&d budget amd revenue" will yield some relevant results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Intel stated they could make 1000 core chips as well, but you start losing chips pretty quickly to overhead. Core counts are an arbitrary limit--and you wouldn't be able to do anything with an 80 core chip anyway.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Consumers don't use 8 cores as is.
Do you really think the high end CPU market is targeted at 12 year old girl's laptops?
Those 4U G34 boxes with up to 64 cores per over at my supplier must just be a figment of my imagination. Not nearly as fast as Intel per core, but relatively cost effective. I'm just waiting for the higher end 6200s to go down in price so I can cram 4 of them into a 4U with 16 SATAs and 8 SSDs (just for /var ). Just need an excuse to grab one...
Come to think of it, the 6 core i7s are being sold to end users as we speak, give it another year or two for 8 cores.
You're not going to win on the tech arguments here lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
There is an obvious marketable need for faster computers, so Intel can dump their billions. 3-5 years is quite short term.
Well that's why I said 3-5 years for something not all that revolutionary. More cores isn't, I just threw in that link so I could make my ebay joke.
What's ironic is that when the government invested in ARPA they had a specific purpose as well, no different than Intel's 80 core CPU mission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Sure, as we know today, maybe in context of the billions of websites.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
How much as changed since TCP\IP was developed?
It hasn't. Point? We're not going to make this about TCP/IP and TCP/IP only.
We're talking about the internet. How much has changed since "the internet" was developed?
A hell of a lot. The government didn't create the vast majority of the software/hardware that is used to run the internet. Want me to list all of the technologies used by this web site alone? I'll see your TCP/IP and raise you PHP, MySQL, vBulletin, Apache, Linux (most likely CentOS, in other words, RedHat). Presumably multi homed bandwidth, being at SoftLayer (I don't know, maybe Level3, Cogent, Savvis, Global Crossing, HE, and some peers) a few highly advanced routing protocols (BGP, FCP) and extremely high end and costly Cisco networking equipment on the network level. Plus of course Google's algorithms, which probably brought you here.
TCP/IP is but a sliver of what your computer is doing right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's not a direct return on investment. Your power lines don't generate their own revenue. It's used indirectly by millions to form commerce, which comes back eventually as taxes. It's an expense.
And you've now demonstrated that not only do you not know what multithreading is ("nobody can use 80 cores"), but also that you don't know what investment is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's akin to moving to a new office building. You don't own the office building, it isn't making you money, but its an expense that might draw in more traffic down the road which you might eventually see an ROI. It doesn't make money though, you don't own the building, you rent the office space.
I think you can come up with a better analogy than that.
But even so, if you rent office space without at least thinking about ROI, you're a dummy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You can considered infrastructure to be a long-term investment with small ROI that exists in the distant future, maybe, but infrastructure isn't designed to be revenue-generating. I don't intend to contradict myself, but perhaps explanation is required. Other expenses this country has, like food-stamps and re-education programs--I mean food stamps because nobody in power is smart enough to retrain our unemployed--are similar. You don't see a direct payout by providing people a means to feed themselves when you otherwise might, but when they're able to spend their money not trying to scrape together food and instead spend it on moving out of the city to a lower rent domicile, where they can find work, it comes back eventually.
My friend, as you have explained it, that would be return on investment. There is no expiry on ROI, and no amount of indirection invalidates it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Are you accusing me of strawmen arguments, and then claim that "my divine government?"
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
That doesn't nullify the fact that these agencies use government funding and assistance to operate. And I don't recall ever claiming that government created society. Words in my mouth?
Well you seem to be magnifying it quite a bit.
Again, the poster was addressing the general attitude in the speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's called critical analysis. Greed, and the desire for money, has its own ethics. It doesn't. Money doesn't have ethics. Isn't there an idiom for this? Blood from a turnip?
There are entire college degrees called "Business Ethics."
Actually, this is hanging. You've provided absolutely no context to that statement. What system?
Raw capitalism? No inherent ethics.
Look, his statement was very simple, if you don't get it by now, you probably won't get it later.
If you really can't see the inherent ethics in a system that rewards those that provides things that others want and desire, well...
And to preempt your strawman, nobody's saying that the free market is all rainbows and unicorns. Just that there are inherent ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
How many honest business owners do you know?
Plenty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Our government has been around for a couple hundred years and change, and we, as citizens of that government, are influenced by it. That is an inescapable fact which you and your puppetmasters seem to forget.?
Yes, we have denied that the government exists, and that it has an effect on us. That is exactly what we've done.
Look, you want to call out the RWNJs who claim that we'd be better off in near anarchy, be my guest. But you've called out the more sensible ones. The poster you originally quoted has gone out of his way numerous times to say yes, we need government, yes, we need infrastructure, and yes, we need income taxes.
The issue is the general attitude and minimization of the contributions of the private sector. All other arguments aside, the private sector pays for all of these great things that you are attributing the government. Every. Single. Penny.
I asked this probably 50 pages ago, but I really want to hear you all's point on this thing. Why are you singling out business? Businesses already pay taxes. And please, hold the GE anecdotes.
Who said anything of the sort? You're making things up. Nobody said anything about soup kitchens.
We're talking about risk here. Please stay on topic. Are you conceding that starting a business is risky as hell? Because if you're not, then please argue that point in its entirety, I could give a damn about soup right now.
Again, marcopolo stated specifically that people lost their homes because of businesses. I don't doubt that they may have forclosed, but we have such a large safety net in this country, I'm willing to bet there isn't a hobo out there who lives on the streets because his Tea and Shoe Shine Buffet didn't work out.
Quote:
Tell me you didn't just say this. This is just logically flawed at it's core. And I was really prepared to give you more credit than this.
Eating less doesn't tend to keep you skinny, but eating more tends to make you fat.
False analogy, consumption is something you control.
One in ten new businesses fail, with the reason being some kind of failure on the account of the business owner. There is the potential for the business to fail, despite the owner doing everything right. Market falls through after three years of being open, business has to close its doors. That happens, an d there was no way to predict the market failing. But that's uncommon. Most new businesses don't fail because the owners are doing everything right and everything works out.
On the other hand, 9\10 business aren't incredibly successful. They all do what they're supposed to, but due to some event out of the business owners control (chance), one business becomes more successful than the others. That is a large reliance on luck. If luck played a small role, you'd have more "successes."
This makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Oh man. A successful business is not the result of one chance meeting or any one single thing. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.
You're downplaying chance. Business constantly succeed over other businesses through innovation, but there most certainly is chance involved. Being someone whose good at what he does in a time and place in which being good at that got him a chance to become successful. Chance is huge.
Quote:
Yawn. Strawman.
Whatever you say. I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of this. Conservative fellows such as yourself love to ignore the amount of chance required to become successful. If success only came from hard work, skill, intelligence, or palm-greasing, just about everyone would be successful. Millions of people work hard. Millions of people are skilled. Millions are intelligent (including more intelligent than you. And more intelligent than I.). Millions of people should be successful if this is all it took--but its not. It requires chance. Statistical odds of winning the lottery, so to speak. Some people can "increase" their odds by being better than others, but there are others just as good who never get that chance to be successful. Wrong place, wrong time.
Ignore chaos as long as you want. When you die of cancer, I'll be enjoying my margarita.
Well first, I must commend you on your ability to move the goalposts. First it was government, now it's luck. What's next? White privilege?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Again, marcopolo stated specifically that people lost their homes because of businesses. I don't doubt that they may have forclosed, but we have such a large safety net in this country, I'm willing to bet there isn't a hobo out there who lives on the streets because his Tea and Shoe Shine Buffet didn't work out.
That is irrelevant to his point.
We're talking about risk here. Period. End of story. We're not talking about the hypothetical living situations of people who have happened to own businesses that went broke.
Risk. Do you understand?
Is starting a business very risky, somewhat risky, or not risky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
False analogy, consumption is something you control.
Wow. Just wow.
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? My point obviously sailed a good 5 miles over your head.
I really can't argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic logic, so I'm just going to let this one go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
On the other hand, 9\10 business aren't incredibly successful. They all do what they're supposed to, but due to some event out of the business owners control (chance), one business becomes more successful than the others. That is a large reliance on luck. If luck played a small role, you'd have more "successes."
2 pages ago, you were arguing the exact opposite. You said that most failed business failed because of poor management. You said that.
Do you really want me to go back and quote you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You're downplaying chance. Business constantly succeed over other businesses through innovation, but there most certainly is chance involved. Being someone whose good at what he does in a time and place in which being good at that got him a chance to become successful. Chance is huge.
Yeah, there's chance involved. I might get hit by a bus tomorrow.
I'll put it at 2%. What's your number?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Whatever you say. I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of this. Conservative fellows such as yourself love to ignore the amount of chance required to become successful. If success only came from hard work, skill, intelligence, or palm-greasing, just about everyone would be successful. Millions of people work hard. Millions of people are skilled. Millions are intelligent (including more intelligent than you. And more intelligent than I.). Millions of people should be successful if this is all it took--but its not. It requires chance. Statistical odds of winning the lottery, so to speak. Some people can "increase" their odds by being better than others, but there are others just as good who never get that chance to be successful. Wrong place, wrong time.
And with this, I say there's a 99.87% chance you've never run a business or acted in a business management capacity in any way. In fact, I don't even see how someone who's entered the workforce can make such ridiculous statements.
Get your liberal buddies together, maybe you can put forth some legislation to invalidate the laws of probability.
Well first, I must commend you on your ability to move the goalposts. First it was government, now it's luck. What's next? White privilege?
I never said the government was responsible. I said they play a role. And there is a institutional advantage to having wealth, primarily controlled by a bunch of old white guys.
Quote:
We're talking about risk here. Period. End of story. We're not talking about the hypothetical living situations of people who have happened to own businesses that went broke.
Risk. Do you understand?
Is starting a business very risky, somewhat risky, or not risky?
If your personal finances are all you care about, you can call it risky, but nobody died because their business fell through. I wouldn't call it risk.
Quote:
2 pages ago, you were arguing the exact opposite. You said that most failed business failed because of poor management. You said that.
Do you really want me to go back and quote you?
I'm still saying that here. Where do you see otherwise?
Quote:
Yeah, there's chance involved. I might get hit by a bus tomorrow.
I'll put it at 2%. What's your number?
Well, there are about 100 related fatalities a year on buses, out of some 35,000 vehicular accidents per year. Considering I don't live, drive, or operate in an area with a large bus density, my odds are pretty good I don't get hit.
But at 2%, you mustn't have a year without being clipped by a bus.
Quote:
And with this, I say there's a 99.87% chance you've never run a business or acted in a business management capacity in any way. In fact, I don't even see how someone who's entered the workforce can make such ridiculous statements.
Get your liberal buddies together, maybe you can put forth some legislation to invalidate the laws of probability.
I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Another person who knows nothing about me, but takes wild stabs in the dark. Keep stabbing, you might poke something good.
I never said the government was responsible. I said they play a role. And there is a institutional advantage to having wealth, primarily controlled by a bunch of old white guys.
And now you're talking about luck. You've pretty much abandoned the government argument, seeing as how you're not responding to about 80% of what I'm saying to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
If your personal finances are all you care about, you can call it risky, but nobody died because their business fell through. I wouldn't call it risk.
Starting a business is not risky? Please, I just want to make 100% sure this is what you're saying.
If they risk their house, is that a risk?
If they risk their life savings, is that a risk?
If they risk destruction of their credit, is that a risk?
If they risk the value of say 2 year of 12 hour work days, is that a risk?
I wasn't aware that the word "risk" only referred to situations in which the possible negative result had something to do with soup kitchens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm still saying that here. Where do you see otherwise?
"On the other hand, 9\10 business aren't incredibly successful. They all do what they're supposed to, but due to some event out of the business owners control (chance), one business becomes more successful than the others. That is a large reliance on luck. If luck played a small role, you'd have more "successes.""
Notice the word "all" in there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
But at 2%, you mustn't have a year without being clipped by a bus.
I wasn't talking about buses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Another person who knows nothing about me, but takes wild stabs in the dark. Keep stabbing, you might poke something good.
It's a pretty logical assumption, based on your obvious ignorance of what goes into a successful business.
You're sitting here telling us that business success is a result of luck. You've never run a business. Anyone here who has run a business will back me up on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
In the mean time, keep rejecting chance.
Keep waiting for "luck" to make you rich. You'll be waiting a long time.
And now you're talking about luck. You've pretty much abandoned the government argument, seeing as how you're not responding to about 80% of what I'm saying to you.
****ing quote me then. I stated that the government is involved in everything, by nature of its existence. I didn't say the government was responsible for the success of your business. Feel free to try and find me saying that, there's only a hundred pages to sort through.
There are multiple factors to success, but pretending that all its takes is hard work and a skillset is entirely asinine and devoid of any reason. If that's all it took, everyone would be successful, but that's not the case. One factor is chance. Another is the groundwork of government infrastructure and codified laws.
Quote:
Starting a business is not risky? Please, I just want to make 100% sure this is what you're saying.
If they risk their house, is that a risk?
If they risk their life savings, is that a risk?
I wasn't aware that the word "risk" only referred to situations in which the possible negative result had something to do with soup kitchens.
We have different ideas of risk. Your life is never at risk. Maybe you don't get to live in your McMansion anymore, and have to downsize to a double-wide, but you're never really at risk. The safety net in the United States is tremendous.
So no, risking your house and life savings, while tragic if lost, is not a risk. You just get to start from square one.
Quote:
"On the other hand, 9\10 business aren't incredibly successful. They all do what they're supposed to, but due to some event out of the business owners control (chance), one business becomes more successful than the others. That is a large reliance on luck. If luck played a small role, you'd have more "successes.""
Notice the word "all" in there.
What about it? You have ten businesses, all doing what they're supposed to do to remain successful. All other things being equal, which includes every other factor, chance will play the key role. It's isolating chance as a factor in determination of success.
And chance does play a role. You just continue to reject it.
Quote:
I wasn't talking about buses.
You said you had a 2% chance of being hit by a bus. Now you're not talking about being hit by a bus?
You'll have to be more specific.
Quote:
It's a pretty logical assumption, based on your obvious ignorance of what goes into a successful business.
It's a meta-analysis of success. Keep stabbing.
Quote:
You're sitting here telling us that business success is a result of luck. You've never run a business. Anyone here who has run a business will back me up on this.
Keep waiting for "luck" to make you rich. You'll be waiting a long time.
Long odds to wait. That's why we work.
But that's also not what I'm saying--speaking of strawmen.
I don't see how you find this difficult to understand. I'm smart. Statistically so. In fact, about smarter than 85% of my peers. I also work hard. I don't have a means test for "hard work," but subjectively, compared to my peers, I'm working harder than at least half. Average hard work. I also have a skill set that most of my peers don't have.
Without chance of any kind, I should be successful. In fact, another six people who work as hard, if not harder, who are as smart, if not smarter, and who also have unique skill sets should be successful, yet they aren't.
Well that's a lie. We're all successful, we're just not filthy ****ing rich--which is what we really mean by "successful." it's a euphemism and all. So, if not for chance, what allows seven equally skilled, hardworking, smart persons to become successful?
Not everyone can or will become rich, and hardwork and skills and intelligence will increase your odds, put you in better places, but it indeed does come down to chance.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine had told me that the interview for a job position he was at, decided to go with a different candidate. A few months later, he ended up getting a job with them. The reason they went with the original candidate? Someone at the business new the first guy. Equally skilled, equally educated persons, but the difference was entirely out of control of my friend. That is chance in action. The only determining factor between the two candidates was someone knew someone.
****ing quote me then. I stated that the government is involved in everything, by nature of its existence. I didn't say the government was responsible for the success of your business. Feel free to try and find me saying that, there's only a hundred pages to sort through.
There are multiple factors to success, but pretending that all its takes is hard work and a skillset is entirely asinine and devoid of any reason. If that's all it took, everyone would be successful, but that's not the case. One factor is chance. Another is the groundwork of government infrastructure and codified laws.
Strawman. I never took any absolutist position. That was you, claiming that 9/10 businesses failed because of bad luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
We have different ideas of risk. Your life is never at risk. Maybe you don't get to live in your McMansion anymore, and have to downsize to a double-wide, but you're never really at risk. The safety net in the United States is tremendous.
So no, risking your house and life savings, while tragic if lost, is not a risk. You just get to start from square one.
Here it is folks, he's redefined the word risk.
Risk is no longer "exposure to the chance of injury or loss" as defined in the dictionary, risk is now "exposure to the grim reaper"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
What about it? You have ten businesses, all doing what they're supposed to do to remain successful. All other things being equal, which includes every other factor, chance will play the key role. It's isolating chance as a factor in determination of success.
Okay.
You're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And chance does play a role. You just continue to reject it.
Strawman. Never said that.
I said chance did not play the key role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You said you had a 2% chance of being hit by a bus. Now you're not talking about being hit by a bus?
You'll have to be more specific.
I wasn't referring to the bus when I said that. I was referring to the percentage of business success defined by luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's a meta-analysis of success. Keep stabbing.
Stab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Long odds to wait. That's why we work.
Well some of us work hard and are more successful than others. I, for example, work harder than anybody I know, and I get paid nicely for it. And yeah, about 98% of this is as a direct result of the work I do, not my good luck.
I got unlucky and got a flat tire last month. That cost me a tiny percentage of the money I've earned since. By doing work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
But that's also not what I'm saying--speaking of strawmen.
I don't see how you find this difficult to understand. I'm smart. Statistically so. In fact, about smarter than 85% of my peers. I also work hard. I don't have a means test for "hard work," but subjectively, compared to my peers, I'm working harder than at least half. Average hard work. I also have a skill set that most of my peers don't have.
Okay, I'm with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Without chance of any kind, I should be successful. In fact, another six people who work as hard, if not harder, who are as smart, if not smarter, and who also have unique skill sets should be successful, yet they aren't.
Well that's a lie. We're all successful, we're just not filthy ****ing rich--which is what we really mean by "successful." it's a euphemism and all. So, if not for chance, what allows seven equally skilled, hardworking, smart persons to become successful?
Not everyone can or will become rich, and hardwork and skills and intelligence will increase your odds, put you in better places, but it indeed does come down to chance.
Yes, this is common sense. Now, how much of this do you attribute to luck? That's what I'm asking you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine had told me that the interview for a job position he was at, decided to go with a different candidate. A few months later, he ended up getting a job with them. The reason they went with the original candidate? Someone at the business new the first guy. Equally skilled, equally educated persons, but the difference was entirely out of control of my friend. That is chance in action. The only determining factor between the two candidates was someone knew someone.
I hear you, but you don't have to explain to me what luck is, you just have to explain how luck is the dominant factor in determining success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Just need an excuse to grab one...