konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
You need to do what you love; money shouldnt be your primary. I think that was the problem with your recent business venture, and also a lot of your other jobs you previosly had. Still though, I see you searching for the best money-making jobs instead of finding a career you will love despite the money. Figure out what career you love and go get it.
-
Did I say that? I chose them because of that; did I imply that others did?
Youre right. I tried to sneak that part in there. I shouldnt have done that. Speaking for myself, I think most people choose either company because of their main product, which is the movies and its prices.
NetFlix has almost three times the number of customers than BlockBuster online, so others are choosing them for some reason-- I suspect it is largely to do with NetFlix being "first to market" and "top of mind" in this business.Also, I would say its because the Total Access program for Blockbuster is pretty much brand new and it will take some time for the amount of subscribers to add up for them. This will definitely entice a lot of subscribers of other online rentals services to consider switching to Blockbuster. Before, Blockbusters advantage they had over Netflix was only one extra in-store free rental a week, which I dont think was significant enough to get Netflix subscribers to switch over. Now, as we have already stated, Blockbuster gives you a couple in-store rentals a week, plus they ship out your other movies quicker. Definitely people who arent subscribers yet to any company and are going to decide on which one to choose, I see the majority choosing Blockbuster. And even some Netflix subscribers will switch over to Blockbuster too now. Thats why I think Blockbusters subscriber numbers will jump in the near future.
What dont you like about their new site? All I saw was that they changed the layout, but I only go on for a second to check my movie list, so I dont notice much.Truth is that BlockBuster's new and supposedly improved online interface is so bad that I might have switched, except that they sweetened the deal with "Total Access.The thing I have a question about is not the million dollars itself, but the fact that they intend to publish the winning algorithm for all to see!Wont it be patented at that point though?
At the end of a year, the best of these will get $50,000. To get the million dollar prize, one has to be 10% better than NetFlix's current algorithm.I see. Netflix knew nobody would beat them by 10%, so they had no risk of paying a million dollar to anyone. But they still get a lot of good advertising for the price of $50,000.
-
This contest was a great idea and is evidence of extremely good managers at Netflix. It's great that over 40 teams managed to beat the NetFlix benchmark within a month. Few managements have the guts to "expose" themselves that way, eat the humble-pie, and end up with a better business.
But now they have to hand over a million bucks. Is that worth it just to get people to know about their quality recommendation system? I mean, you said it yourself when you agreed with me, that most people choose a certain company based on what plans they offer(most movies for the cheapest price), not so much for their website features.
-
BlockBuster has upped the ante with something they're calling "Total Access" @ $18 a month. With this, one can return an online DVD to the neighbourhood BlockBuster store and get a new one immediately. In essence, they're using their stores to add more value.
I cant say it wasnt obvious that they would use their actual store buildings to their advantage. The Total Access plan allows online/mail renters to get the in-store movies immediately(the amount depends on how many online/mail movies you turn in to the store). Plus, they send out your next movies on your online list immediately too. Im pretty sure the Total Access applies for all the plans. I have the $14.99/month plan and I get it.
The most obvious NetFlix counter would be to cut the prices until BlockBuster hurts.Would Netflix be able to afford that, and still make enough profit? And why wouldnt Blockbuster be able to lower their prices to those levels as well?
-
Is that the main question that they want to answer with these missions, or are there other questions suspected to be answered with the finding of water on Mars? And why would this type of find give a good lead as to answering the "what makes life possible" question? -is it to be a comparison tool with Earth, finding similarities with each other?
Can anybody answer this?
-
Anyway, because the law making a certain place a polling location doesn't intend a religious bias, it will probably come out that it's okay to use a church as a polling location.
It seems biased to me. You go into a place called "Baptist Church" or "st john newman catholic church", isnt that a religious bias?
I think the average person who walks into a church immediately starts to think, "I better not do anything "bad" or something that will make god mad." So in effect they vote anti-abortion and whatever else that may support the common views of the church people.
-
I don't have $500 to invest, like many of these brokers require. I realize I may have to work with junk bonds or penny stocks, as I would be working with sums of money that only a homeless man would have, such as $5-10. I'm at the point of selling off my stuff on eBay just to pay the utility bills, but I need a large sum by Dec 31st to avoid devastating consequences.
Say you put $100 into a stock. Even if the price of that stock doubled for you, you will have only made $100, and most of the time it takes a long time for a stock to reach that return for you(if ever). A more realistic goal especially for a beginner is to try for a 10% average return on a stock, but with the amount of money you have to invest, that will hardly pay for your brokerage fees.
-
Are you referring to aequalsa as an SOB in the nice,friendly, we're having a conversation kind of way, or in the mean nasty you're an A-Hole kind of way?
I would guess the former, but given the context I don't think it's appropriate either way. How could he have known you didn't finish the book yet?
It was said in a joking way. I know he didnt know I didnt read the ending of AS.
Listen to this if you want to know what I was thinking of when I wrote it: http://www.celebrityprankcalling.com/downl...hp?id_files=120
-
The primary problem that I would expect, for the man in this scenario, is that he would be making decisions primarily by emotion. The high expereienced is primarily related to novelty and anticipation. So say he find a very excellent woman. Knows her for a year and is rationally convinced of her extraordinary charactor. Her year is almost over and he finds himself responding to another girl. She has a nice rack, is very fun to be with, etc. Whatever gets him going. He decides that she is the equal of the first girl in every way. The problem is, he actually knows very little about the new gal, and has filled in all of the gaps in his knowledge with best case scenario details. He doesn't have an accurate picture. So he discards the first one, which he knows to be excellent, for one which he imagines to be "perfect" during the throws of his emotional bliss. In a world where most people were great dagnys and galts the odds for his emotional decision would be in his favor. In the world that I am familiar with, dagnys are hard to come by.
Yeah, it is a little too risky. The man in my example is similar to being a thrill seeker.
Sorry. I didnt realize. If galt died or dumped her for super-dagny, then she would still try to find the best that she could. You are not obliged to be with the best in existence...just the best you can find and get. If you are stuck on a desert island with one women...I'm gonna guess that she'll be your "dagny" within about 3 months.I agree with the first part. The desert island example, it depends what woman is on the desert island with me, as long as shes not a real lunatic or a nagger, then we would most likely be at least good friends.
-
I know a lot of the locations for this years elections took place at churches. There seem to be a few problems with allowing this to happen, such as: 1) contradicts church and state separation, 2) biased location that could persuade certain individuals to vote a certain way(the weak-minded at least), 3) for an atheist or supporter of a different religion, it makes the experience of visiting such a place to be extremely discomforting.
Heres one more reason why churches will probably not be voting polls in the future: a man is suing the govt over this issue: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_...recinct_lawsuit
-
Regarding finding a better every few months; without starting very very low on the "scale", what do you think the chances of being able to do that are? Remember, I said significantly better. If you are focusing on some minor thing that's better and using that for a reason to move on, then the problem is probably with your attention span. It needs to be a clear, better overall, kind of comparison. You can't actually quantify people. Lisa is a 74 and suzi is a 76, therefore I must move on. It is a is clearly better then b in every significant way.
But the man in my example is one who enjoys a new relationship not necessarily because its a significantly better person, but because its of equal or better quality AND mostly because its a new person. It may not be a short attention span either, since I think its well known that in the beginning of a relationship the feelings are usually the most intense. So his plan would be to not settle with "good" feelings, but instead with that "extraordinary" feeling from starting a new relationship(say every year or so, not every few months).
To continue with the Dagny example, she started with Francisco, and he left her. Not a choice she made. Then a decade later she found Hank who was a very productive man with some psychological inadequacies. The she found Galt. He was not a very productive man with a few less psychological issues. He was an incredibly productive man with very few, if any psychological problems. The jump was huge. Where could she go after that? Maybe a guy who is incredibly productive, saves the world, has no psychological problems, cooks an excellet creme brule, colonizes, the moon and then invents time travel, all without messing up his very great hair?You son of a bitch, I still havent read the ending of AS. I should have said that earlier. About your comment though, what would Dagny do if John Galt died fairly soon? If she only chooses to have relationships with a better man than previously, than that would mean she cant have anymore guys the rest of her life. I personally think she would settle for Francisco or Rearden or someone like that if Galt dumped her or he died.
-
Because of my general interest in understanding reality. Things such as "What makes life possible".
Is that the main question that they want to answer with these missions, or are there other questions suspected to be answered with the finding of water on Mars? And why would this type of find give a good lead as to answering the "what makes life possible" question? -is it to be a comparison tool with Earth, finding similarities with each other?
-
The criteria is the highest value possible. The highest you can find. She only left Hank because someone signiificantly better came along. She wasn't sleeping with everyone who met some minimum criteria. She was pursuing the best men she knew.
Well say she(or someone else) constantly keeps finding a better man than the previous one. Every few months on average a new, better person comes to their attention and they want them instead.
What about Ayn Rand? She was married to Frank O'Connor who supposedly wasnt a great intellectual. She pursued him initially based on his physical appearance. Then when Nathaniel Branden came along, she was having sex with him too. Theres a contradiction to her values in there somewhere. Possibly because Ayn Rand was having sex with Nathaniel Branden, who at the time was closer to Ayn Rands ideal man, and was also with Frank. Why was she with Frank if she wanted the "best" man?
-
It is quite significant to me if there are single-celled organisms roaming Mars.
Why?
-
What will a country gain for itself when(if) water is discovered on Mars? NASA says it is a huge discovery because that could mean life might be present or have existed in the past. But what importance is that to us if single-celled organisms are roaming Mars? Is it worth the substantial amount of money they spent on these missions even if they do find water? And if they are having this much trouble finding only a slight amount of water, does that not mean there is very very little on Mars- what good will that do for us if miniscule amounts are there?
Im not for or against missions to Mars because I dont quite have enough knowledge on the subject to make a judgment call.
-
I was responding to konerkos first statement where he said that dagny was sleeping with everyone she wished. Everyone she wished was actually very few people over a long period of time and I only meant to point out her very rigid selectivity.
Maybe it was just because the opportunities never arose. She had sex with everyone she wanted to, and the type of guys she loved went crazy for her like she was the ideal woman. What if she met more guys that fit her criteria? I think she would have had a lot more partners in that case.
-
Now wait, before you said with lots of others that you love. This does not sound like that. This sounds like promiscuity.
I didnt mean for it to sound like a promiscuity. I was referring to new people the person meets who he falls in love with, not less quality terms than that. Say a man and woman are currently engaged in a long term relationship. But they both have fallen in love with a co-worker of theirs, and they agree to allow each other to venture out in terms of sexual relationships. A few months later the man finds another woman he falls in love with and decides to have sex with her instead of the other one because the feelings are more fresh and intense. Then 7 months later the man and woman each fall in love with another person and they have sex with them. And the pattern continues.. The main couple here decided to allow external sexual relationships because they have been having sex with each other for so long it became too repititive and common of a task. They enjoyed sex more when it was with a new person. Do you think this type of situation would be considered hedonism even though they are only having sex with people they love?
-
Too big a risk? He was homeless!!! There was nothing to risk!!!
I said he should get a decent paying job for time being so he and his son can afford a home and food, instead of just starting to pursue a job as a stock broker, which is a hard profession to make money at especially for someone who has no experience. But I dont want to comment any further because I dont know the whole story of his life yet.
-
Why do they necessarily have to be short term?
Maybe the person likes having sex with new people more than he does with the same partner.
Or, to paint a new scenario, a couple who is love and have had a long term relationship together, but they want to have sex with lots of others as well.
-
I disagree. I do some of my most serious pondering when I'm stoned.
Yeah, I dont like that comment I made earlier. I confused non-ponderers with non-thinkers in it.
-
What are your thoughts on the topic konerko14?
Well Im trying to figure out if having sex with a lot of (rational) people is a form of hedonism. Having sex with a lot of partners who you love doesnt seem to go against what Ayn Rands depiction of what sex should be, but it might fit the definition of hedonism because all it really is is seeking short term joy. But what benefits would a long term relationship with someone give you as opposed to many short term relationships?
-
Forget the second part to my question then. The main questions I want answered are in the first paragraph.
-
Ayn Rand said sex should be performed with someone who shares your values, and with someone who you love and are attracted to. But is there a limit to how many partners you sleep with, even if they all are with someone you love? And is it wrong to be constantly sleeping around with rational people, instead of having extended monagmous relationships?
It seemed like Dagny would have kept sleeping with more and more guys if she had met them. She actually had sex with every guy she wished she could, and I think she would have kept doing more guys if the opportunity had arisen(assuming hypothetically she never met John Galt, who was her highest ideal man).
-
Thanks. Number 1(subtopics) I thought was a brilliant idea too. A software developer will figure it out eventually and put it in his program. I'll just wait.
Christmas: Celebrate, Replace, Rename or Ignore?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
*** Mod's note: Merged into an existing thread with a similar discussion. - sN ***
From what I have gathered, many cultures have had popular celebrations during the end of December long before Jesus was born. These traditions celebrated such things as certain gods, winter solstice, and other things as well Im sure. This was the way December was celebrated when pagan religions were dominant. Then as the Christian religion was created and started to spread, the Christian church officials wanted to implement a holiday for Jesus' birthday. Even though Jesus was almost certainly not born in the winter time, they made the holiday on December 25. Why would they choose this date? It is supposedly because the Christian officials saw an opportunity for "Christmas" to replace the already popular holidays on(or around) this date. This is my understanding of the history of December holidays.
My point is that even though "Christmas" overtook the other popular holidays already being celebrated, it is still nonetheless "Christmas"- a Christian holiday which means "Christ's Mass."
Is it proper for non-Christians to celebrate "Christmas", based on the facts I just presented to you?
I would side for "yes, its proper", because the Christians tried to cunningly gain popularity by creating this holiday on an already celebrated day, and possibly more importantly they wanted to destroy the prior holiday by doing this. So the idea now for non-Christians could be to throw the Christians despictable action right back in their face, and say "Im celebrating Christmas and theres nothing you can do about it. You brought it on yourselves."
But I could also side for "no, its not proper." Like I said already, "Christmas" is still nonetheless a Christian holiday. How can you feel fully non-guilty celebrating "Christ's Mass", because you will have to use some mental effort to evade this fact. The alternatives would be to somehow create a new holiday(for everyone to celebrate, not just non-Christians or atheists). This would be extremely difficult for it to catch on though since Christmas is so widely accepted already, even by non-Christians. So would it be worth the effort to figure out a way to make a new tradition during December, and move away from the "Christmas" tradition?