| |
Main
Date: 24 Jan 2007 22:04:27
From: Jason Spaceman
Subject: Beloki retires
|
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
J. Spaceman
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 22:02:57
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On Feb 1, 12:06 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
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.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 05:58:37
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1170309777.721507.145100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:06 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> 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.
At this point, I think we have to acknowledge that drinking is such an
unalloyed good that it should be subsidized and PSA'd.
LIVEDRUNK lives.
If you don't talk to your children about terroir, who will?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 21:06:10
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On Jan 31, 7:57 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca>
> > 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 ginal worker of the
> > >opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
> > >enhanced productivity?
>
> > Senseo pod coffee makers. No ginalized 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 ginal 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
ginal 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.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 09:19:06
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On 31 Jan 2007 21:06:10 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > 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...
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 22:59:58
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1170306370.783126.155030@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > 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?
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 07:21:41
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in
news:YOURhoward-186DDD.22595831012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
> 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
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 17:47:32
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > 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.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 11:52:36
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On 30 Jan 2007 17:47:32 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> 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
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 04:20:44
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<1170208052.031106.175840@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >
,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> 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 ket 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
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 01:36:47
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 30, 1:03 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> 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.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 23:54:35
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<1170149807.496654.258320@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:03 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> 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
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 11:56:43
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org 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
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 20:12:24
From: kleutervreter
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> 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=20
these people. We were teached things like chaos theory (Poincar=E9),=20
Lorentz transformations, the Dirac equation. Should I ask for my money=20
back or should I just get a TV?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 08:32:41
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1169957544.651908.110620@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"kleutervreter" <kleutervreter@gmail.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > 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 rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 08:15:52
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1169957544.651908.110620@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"kleutervreter" <kleutervreter@gmail.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > 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 rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 11:01:46
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
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 ?
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 23:10:42
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <45bc6846$0$7912$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > 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 rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 16:39:49
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/nice.html#hedwige
-ilan
On Jan 27, 8:41 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> ilan wrote:
> > I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
> > career.Do mathematicians have pets ?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 09:17:01
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
ilan wrote:
>> > I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
Donald Munro wrote:
>> > career.Do mathematicians have pets ?
ilan wrote:
> http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/nice.html#hedwige
Looks a bit anaemic, perhaps you should consult a vet about boosting his
red blood count.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 16:04:25
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 27, 5:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:57 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 4:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > In article <1169833564.111908.27...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think mathematics is an absolute good,
>
> > > > Dumbass -
>
> > > > 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- 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 shit that
happened 3000 years ago but can't find my keys when they are in my
hand.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 14:10:55
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 26, 8:57 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <1169833564.111908.27...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I think mathematics is an absolute good,
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > 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
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:14:40
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On 27 Jan 2007 14:10:55 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
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...
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 00:03:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<3rvrr2prdjnaq94jek0cs4rq3ie9kc123o@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2007 14:10:55 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net>
> 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
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 13:51:56
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On Jan 27, 1:39 pm, "Andy B." <watt...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote in messagenews:rcousine-A9234C.17060226012007@news.telus.net...
>
> > 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.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 19:39:20
From: Andy B.
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169934716.641950.279360@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 27, 1:39 pm, "Andy B." <watt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:rcousine-A9234C.17060226012007@news.telus.net...
>>
>> > 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 01:11:26
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <k6udnXMF55slbSbYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Andy B." <wattact@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169934716.641950.279360@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 27, 1:39 pm, "Andy B." <watt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote in
> >> messagenews:rcousine-A9234C.17060226012007@news.telus.net...
> >>
> >> > 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.
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.
> 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
ket shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.
Have you considered a better company?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 09:42:22
From: Andy B.
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-9E4ED6.17112427012007@news.telus.net...
>> 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.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 23:05:03
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <WZednZYeK6nTKyHYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Andy B." <wattact@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-9E4ED6.17112427012007@news.telus.net...
> >> 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:
> 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 ket 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 rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 09:36:19
From: Andy B.
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-9E4ED6.17112427012007@news.telus.net...
> 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
> ket shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.
That's why I fired DaimlerChrysler two years ago.
>
> Have you considered a better company?
After two years of suffering at another bad German company, I now work for
the ket leader in my field with one of them lucrative jobs you spoke of
;^)
-Andy B.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 22:52:22
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <EvGdnV6rAuV-KSHYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Andy B." <wattact@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-9E4ED6.17112427012007@news.telus.net...
> > 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
> > ket shrinkage or bankruptcy ensue.
>
> That's why I fired DaimlerChrysler two years ago.
>
> >
> > Have you considered a better company?
>
> After two years of suffering at another bad German company, I now work for
> the ket leader in my field with one of them lucrative jobs you spoke of
> ;^)
>
> -Andy B.
The system works!
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 22:31:03
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <rcousine-9E4ED6.17112427012007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> 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
> ket 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
ket...
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 08:19:30
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 27, 1:50 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <45bb03a5$0$7943$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
> > > comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.
>
> > 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.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 17:57:18
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 26, 4:16 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1169833564.111908.27...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I think mathematics is an absolute good,
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > 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.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 09:41:00
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
> comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Benjamin Franklin
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 09:50:55
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<45bb03a5$0$7943$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The morality
> > comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.
>
> There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
> Benjamin Franklin
I think it was the Earl of Oxford.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:05:26
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:50:55 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 16:19:23
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in
news:rubrum-ADB6AD.01505627012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
> In article
> <45bb03a5$0$7943$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> > Technology/knowledge in and of itself has no moral value. The
>> > morality comes in how technology/knowledge is applied.
>>
>> There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
>> Benjamin Franklin
>
> I think it was the Earl of Oxford.
>
Benjamin Franklin was the Earl of Oxford. If he said everything it
stands to reason he was everybody as well.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 17:54:31
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 26, 4:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1169833111.872041.314...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> > > quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> > > not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
>
> > > I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> > > bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > If illegal drug use cannot be eliminated in a culture at large, how can
> > it be eliminated in sport?Sport is smaller than culture.
>
> > Consider that, in the culture at large, there are much stiffer
> > penalties (jail time) than in sport (bans from competition).The average caught pot smoker faces less sanction than the average
> caught Sudafed-using athlete. Or whatever your favourite example of an
> OTC medication that can cause a positive.
Dumbass -
That's true of ijuana, but not of other recreational drugs.
For example, here in California, the possession of even a tiny bit of
cocaine is a felony. That's WAY stiffer than getting banned from the
UCI. Felonies show up on credit reports, background checks for
employment, etc. UCI bans? You can't race. Big fucking deal.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 14:10:51
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 26, 11:02 pm, "ilan" <ila...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I actually solved an Erdos problem.
I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
career.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 09:41:35
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
ilan wrote:
> I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
> career.
Do mathematicians have pets ?
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 10:06:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<45bb03c9$0$7943$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> ilan wrote:
> > I should state that I have *never* tested positive in my mathematical
> > career.
>
> Do mathematicians have pets ?
Yes. My dog is named Cauchy. He leaves a residue at every pole.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 09:42:06
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 04:01:59
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article
<45bc5597$0$7906$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 14:02:54
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
I actually solved an Erdos problem. First, I solved it, then I found
that he had posed it in one of his books -- I would never work for him.
-ilan
On Jan 26, 5:33 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Miserable moment indeed, but he's not exactly a psychological fortress
> > > there, allowing that crash to end his career.
> > Perhaps. Do you discount the possibility that the hip fracture had
> > physical effects even after he returned to racing?I half agree here. Even Erik Dekker never seemed to quite get back
> to the same level after breaking his leg; although Dekker was older.
> Beloki did seem less mentally tough though.
>
>
>
> > > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
>
> > > Perhaps, but Erdos did a lot of drugs.
>
> > > From:
> > >http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/drugs_and_math.html
>
> > > Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his
> > > drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop
> > > taking amphetamines for a month. Erdos accepted the challenge, and went
> > > cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500
> > > off as a business expense--Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an
> > > addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and
> > > stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an
> > > ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly
> > > resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it.
> > Oh, I know all about that. I got the quote from this Slate article:
>
> >http://www.slate.com/id/2118315
>
> > Which quotes the same anecdote.
>
> > I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> > quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> > not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
>
> > I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> > bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
>
> > I have never taken any drug in the amphetamine family. I've never
> > inhaled. The strongest thing I've ever taken is Rum. Sweeet rum...my
> > last drink was a week or so ago. It's all a blur to me, now.Dumbass,
>
> I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. Erdos was a great
> mathematician,
> but if he had quit speed and math (first of all, he probably could have
> kept doing math if he broke the addiction) someone else would
> eventually have come along and solved the same problems. So it's
> not like the speed is necessary to bring math into the world. It just
> made it happen a few years sooner.
>
> Suppose there was a drug that made you more efficient at work,
> so you could take off an hour earlier and ride your bike or go home
> and torment your cat. And it didn't really have any side effects.
> Would you take it? (It's called coffee, but let's pretend it's a black
> ket pill instead.) Suppose the guy in the next office was taking
> it and instead of knocking off at 4 pm, he worked a little longer and
> got more done, and you worried that you'd look bad and lose your
> job if you couldn't keep up. (Let's pretend the job was worth
> keeping.)
> Would you take it then?
>
> Suppose you were a mathematician and you knew that some person
> (not Erdos, who didn't take permanent jobs) was working an extra
> hour or two a day and was more productive, so he'd beat you in
> any job hunt. Would you work a little harder? Lots of people do that.
> What if you knew he was working the same amount but getting more
> done because he was getting speed from Paul Erdos on the side?
> Would you feel compelled to ask Erdos for some spare greenies
> so you didn't have to leave the field?
>
> The Erdos story is about a person whose drug use enables him
> to achieve worldly success (within the very limited unworldly world
> of math) in a competitive field. If it had been anyone other than
> Erdos,
> who didn't seek a normal job, it would inevitably mean that his
> success came at someone else's expense.
>
> The same incentives that spur doping are the ones that explain
> why Americans work too many hours and have the shortest
> vacations in the developed world. [gwhite-bait] It's all Mises and
> Schumpeter's fault. I'm not arguing in favor of doping. I'd like a
> longer vacation, too. Or even to take the one I supposedly have.
>
> Ben
> RBR Self-Medicator
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 09:46:04
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
>
> I think mathematics is an absolute good,
Dumbass -
That's not completely true. Knowledge and technology can be used for
good, evil or neither.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 00:16:38
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article <1169833564.111908.27300@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I think mathematics is an absolute good,
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> 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. If
this an axiomatic (or nearly so) statement about the value of knowledge,
then so be it, but I think the causative value of knowledge in helping
us live longer, more prosperous lives with many more distracting Usenet
newsgroups than our forefathers had access to is incontrovertible, and
greatly overwhelms the ill effects brought on by technology.
To jump to a nice reductive comparison, smallpox vaccinations have
lengthened many more lives than a-bombs have cut short.
I am of course much more vexed by specific applications of technology.
For example, it's clear that box-cutter knives and ammonia fertilizer
are far too dangerous to be left in the hands of just anyone. And those
sharpie ker pens, too: kids use them for graffiti tagging.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 09:38:31
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
>
> I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
>
> I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
<snip >
Dumbass -
If illegal drug use cannot be eliminated in a culture at large, how can
it be eliminated in sport?
Consider that, in the culture at large, there are much stiffer
penalties (jail time) than in sport (bans from competition).
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 00:18:44
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article <1169833111.872041.314480@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> > quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> > not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
> >
> > I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> > bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> If illegal drug use cannot be eliminated in a culture at large, how can
> it be eliminated in sport?
Sport is smaller than culture.
> Consider that, in the culture at large, there are much stiffer
> penalties (jail time) than in sport (bans from competition).
The average caught pot smoker faces less sanction than the average
caught Sudafed-using athlete. Or whatever your favourite example of an
OTC medication that can cause a positive.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 20:33:41
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 25, 8:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Miserable moment indeed, but he's not exactly a psychological fortress
> > there, allowing that crash to end his career.
> Perhaps. Do you discount the possibility that the hip fracture had
> physical effects even after he returned to racing?
I half agree here. Even Erik Dekker never seemed to quite get back
to the same level after breaking his leg; although Dekker was older.
Beloki did seem less mentally tough though.
> > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
>
> > Perhaps, but Erdos did a lot of drugs.
>
> > From:
> >http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/drugs_and_math.html
>
> > Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his
> > drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop
> > taking amphetamines for a month. Erdos accepted the challenge, and went
> > cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500
> > off as a business expense--Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an
> > addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and
> > stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an
> > ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly
> > resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it.
> Oh, I know all about that. I got the quote from this Slate article:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2118315
>
> Which quotes the same anecdote.
>
> I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
>
> I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
>
> I have never taken any drug in the amphetamine family. I've never
> inhaled. The strongest thing I've ever taken is Rum. Sweeet rum...my
> last drink was a week or so ago. It's all a blur to me, now.
Dumbass,
I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. Erdos was a great
mathematician,
but if he had quit speed and math (first of all, he probably could have
kept doing math if he broke the addiction) someone else would
eventually have come along and solved the same problems. So it's
not like the speed is necessary to bring math into the world. It just
made it happen a few years sooner.
Suppose there was a drug that made you more efficient at work,
so you could take off an hour earlier and ride your bike or go home
and torment your cat. And it didn't really have any side effects.
Would you take it? (It's called coffee, but let's pretend it's a black
ket pill instead.) Suppose the guy in the next office was taking
it and instead of knocking off at 4 pm, he worked a little longer and
got more done, and you worried that you'd look bad and lose your
job if you couldn't keep up. (Let's pretend the job was worth
keeping.)
Would you take it then?
Suppose you were a mathematician and you knew that some person
(not Erdos, who didn't take permanent jobs) was working an extra
hour or two a day and was more productive, so he'd beat you in
any job hunt. Would you work a little harder? Lots of people do that.
What if you knew he was working the same amount but getting more
done because he was getting speed from Paul Erdos on the side?
Would you feel compelled to ask Erdos for some spare greenies
so you didn't have to leave the field?
The Erdos story is about a person whose drug use enables him
to achieve worldly success (within the very limited unworldly world
of math) in a competitive field. If it had been anyone other than
Erdos,
who didn't seek a normal job, it would inevitably mean that his
success came at someone else's expense.
The same incentives that spur doping are the ones that explain
why Americans work too many hours and have the shortest
vacations in the developed world. [gwhite-bait] It's all Mises and
Schumpeter's fault. I'm not arguing in favor of doping. I'd like a
longer vacation, too. Or even to take the one I supposedly have.
Ben
RBR Self-Medicator
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1169786021.559234.6970@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:20 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Beloki]
> > > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
> >
> > > Perhaps, but Erdos did a lot of drugs.
> >
> > > From:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/drugs_and_math.html
> >
> > > Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his
> > > drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop
> > > taking amphetamines for a month.
> > Oh, I know all about that. I got the quote from this Slate article:
> >
http://www.slate.com/id/2118315
> >
> > Which quotes the same anecdote.
> >
> > I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
> > quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
> > not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
> >
> > I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
> > bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
> Dumbass,
>
> I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. Erdos was a great
> mathematician,
> but if he had quit speed and math (first of all, he probably could have
> kept doing math if he broke the addiction) someone else would
> eventually have come along and solved the same problems. So it's
> not like the speed is necessary to bring math into the world. It just
> made it happen a few years sooner.
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
Erdos was the Merckx of math, but also the Cal Ripken. Ramanujan died
young. Erdos was productive for years beyond what is normal in the field.
> Suppose there was a drug that made you more efficient at work,
> so you could take off an hour earlier and ride your bike or go home
> and torment your cat. And it didn't really have any side effects.
> Would you take it? (It's called coffee, but let's pretend it's a black
> ket pill instead.) Suppose the guy in the next office was taking
> it and instead of knocking off at 4 pm, he worked a little longer and
> got more done, and you worried that you'd look bad and lose your
> job if you couldn't keep up. (Let's pretend the job was worth
> keeping.)
> Would you take it then?
My cat is dead, and thank you for bringing up that painful memory.
I torment my dog now. :)
Let's look at the societal benefit. Assuming I'm not some useless
parasite in a useless parasitic organization (spammer, mafia accountant,
gangbanger, sociologist, etc.) then my contribution and productivity are
a net benefit to society. Society will be a little bit happier and
healthier if my department or organization or sector is a little more
productive.
> Suppose you were a mathematician and you knew that some person
> (not Erdos, who didn't take permanent jobs) was working an extra
> hour or two a day and was more productive, so he'd beat you in
> any job hunt. Would you work a little harder? Lots of people do that.
> What if you knew he was working the same amount but getting more
> done because he was getting speed from Paul Erdos on the side?
> Would you feel compelled to ask Erdos for some spare greenies
> so you didn't have to leave the field?
Isn't a better question whether I am good enough to stay a
mathematician? Comparative advantage is real.
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.
If there were just a few million people in the world who were all just a
few notches dumber or lazier, I would have a top-level IT admin job. Or
be a programmer. Or whatever.
Is it fair that some people drink coffee?
A certain class of thinkers spend a lot of time worrying about those
"left behind" (not "Left Behind") in the economic sense, and chat
knowingly about capitalism moving towards greater meritocracy but also a
more "winner take all" system (this happens for several reasons).
Coffee (and maybe Adderall) can alter who actually makes it to the inner
circle, but note that if you assume only the best X people will be able
to get a particular job, and some Joe vaults into that job pool by
virtue of magic-pill use, then the net effect is that the job pool
becomes, in total, more productive than if it was entirely drug-free.
> The Erdos story is about a person whose drug use enables him
> to achieve worldly success (within the very limited unworldly world
> of math) in a competitive field. If it had been anyone other than
> Erdos,
> who didn't seek a normal job, it would inevitably mean that his
> success came at someone else's expense.
Even so, I have to believe that while Erdos very much managed to create
his own version of a career and a life outside of the tenure track, he
seemingly did so in a way that allowed him to maximally focus his
attention on mathematics.
It also points out that Erdos probably advanced the field of mathematics
quite considerably. One might point out that while Erdos may or may not
have taken someone's job, he also greatly advanced the field of
mathematics, which is presumably the absolute goal of math.
Moreover, he was the network effect ne plus ultra. He collaborated so
much that he probably made other mathematicians more productive than
they would have been without Erdos.
Furthermore, he probably was the site-effect-free little black pill: if
you were a top mathematician who was not collaborating with Erdos, you
were almost certainly at a competitive disadvantage to the ones who
were. I imagine there was some non-trivial competition for the attention
of Erdos.
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 ginal worker of the
opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
enhanced productivity?
> The same incentives that spur doping are the ones that explain
> why Americans work too many hours and have the shortest
> vacations in the developed world. [gwhite-bait] It's all Mises and
> Schumpeter's fault. I'm not arguing in favor of doping. I'd like a
> longer vacation, too. Or even to take the one I supposedly have.
I wouldn't know about that. I get paid enough to support my modest
drinking and cycling problems, plus I get five weeks of vacation a year.
Obserious: coffee is the difference between me staying awake or sleeping
through afternoon meetings. I'm not saying it saved my job, but it sure
saved my reputation as a person able to stay awake through meetings.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:18:58
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
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 ginal worker of the
>opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
>enhanced productivity?
Senseo pod coffee makers. No ginalized coffee drinkers. The law
will be passed soon, probably first in Massachusetts.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 02:57:55
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article <1h0sr2p9dbgocjhosuarqgi4e832eoshh7@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:03 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> 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 ginal worker of the
> >opportunity to drink that same coffee, and thus reap the rewards of
> >enhanced productivity?
>
> Senseo pod coffee makers. No ginalized 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 ginal coffee.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 09:16:18
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:57:55 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
>some pretty ginal 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...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 10:58:54
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
In article
<2at3s2hjrluvea2bnm7u5vcm0i908nvljt@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:57:55 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Are you sure? The story I hear is that those pod makers tend to produce
> >some pretty ginal 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
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 16:39:06
From: Andy B.
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-A9234C.17060226012007@news.telus.net...
> 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 09:43:04
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Erdos tests positive (was: Re: Beloki retires)
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Obserious: coffee is the difference between me staying awake or sleeping
> through afternoon meetings. I'm not saying it saved my job, but it sure
> saved my reputation as a person able to stay awake through meetings.
Perhaps if you dropped the LIVEDRUNK lifestyle...
Anyway if you want to get promoted you should take a diet pill and a
sudafed with a Red Bull before your afternoon meeting.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 22:47:20
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
On Jan 24, 9:19 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1c7gr2ht86tsib0chmheq9qu28k7s6b...@4ax.com>,
> Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.shtmlThat 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.
Dumbass -
Miserable moment indeed, but he's not exactly a psychological fortress
there, allowing that crash to end his career.
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Perhaps, but Erdos did a lot of drugs.
From:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/drugs_and_math.html
Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his
drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop
taking amphetamines for a month. Erdos accepted the challenge, and went
cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500
off as a business expense--Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an
addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and
stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an
ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly
resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it.
<snip ><end>
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 03:20:28
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article <1169707640.635305.302450@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:19 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <1c7gr2ht86tsib0chmheq9qu28k7s6b...@4ax.com>,
> > Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.shtmlThat 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.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Miserable moment indeed, but he's not exactly a psychological fortress
> there, allowing that crash to end his career.
Perhaps. Do you discount the possibility that the hip fracture had
physical effects even after he returned to racing?
> > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
>
>
> Perhaps, but Erdos did a lot of drugs.
>
> From:
> http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/drugs_and_math.html
>
> Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his
> drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop
> taking amphetamines for a month. Erdos accepted the challenge, and went
> cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500
> off as a business expense--Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an
> addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and
> stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an
> ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly
> resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it.
Oh, I know all about that. I got the quote from this Slate article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2118315
Which quotes the same anecdote.
I think mathematics is an absolute good, and increasing the amount or
quality of knowledge in the field is a laudable goal. Faster racing does
not have similar benefits. I doubt it's even more entertaining.
I have virtually no ambiguity about drug use in sport: I think it's a
bad idea, and I support the principle that it should be eliminated.
I have never taken any drug in the amphetamine family. I've never
inhaled. The strongest thing I've ever taken is Rum. Sweeet rum...my
last drink was a week or so ago. It's all a blur to me, now.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 05:19:58
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article <1c7gr2ht86tsib0chmheq9qu28k7s6bsl7@4ax.com >,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org > wrote:
> 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.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca 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
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 01:09:02
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <1c7gr2ht86tsib0chmheq9qu28k7s6bsl7@4ax.com>,
> Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> 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!
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:43:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Beloki retires
|
In article <rcousine-557085.21195224012007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1c7gr2ht86tsib0chmheq9qu28k7s6bsl7@4ax.com>,
> Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
He was never the same after the crash. Too bad, he was a good racer.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
|
