Game ID: 4366
- Welcome to Hard Drop Forums.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages1
#3
Tetris / Turn-based tetris?
October 24, 2010, 01:58:47 PMQuote from: chopin
[!--ImageUrlBegin--][a href=\\\"http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9296/nii.png\\\" target=\\\"_new\\\"][!--ImageUrlEBegin--][img width=\\\"400\\\" class=\\\"attach\\\" src=\\\"http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9296/nii.png\\\" border=\\\'0\\\' alt=\\\"IPB Image\\\" /][!--ImageUrlEnd--][/a][!--ImageUrlEEnd--]
Memoryless is awesome. A fifth T came up too lol.
Niii!!! That sucked! =(
#4
General / Why menial labor befits 90% of the population
October 01, 2010, 08:34:39 PMQuote from: chopin
If all men are created unequal, doesn't that mean that all men are created equally?
Absolutely not. The law of non contradiction states otherwise. o.o
#5
General / Why menial labor befits 90% of the population
October 01, 2010, 02:52:07 PM
This is a very interesting read, Larry and I understand that it reflects a perverse methodology to achieve a solution and that it should not be taken personally.
The simple application of a rule which dicatates that those who do not achieve X will not have the ability to breed and will be forced into a labor force to support those who did achieve X is enough motivation to change the outcome of our current success rate in schools. The psychological impact would be profound. This is the biggest point that I would argue because that variable alone evinces that your modest proposal isn't necessarily the only or best solution.
Many of those who excel today are motivated to do so. If everyone held that same standard of motivation, then some of these more successful students would certainly fall below the cutoff line in your proposed plan. Likewise, other brilliant and gifted students who were previously unsuccessful due to their lack of motivation may show far more promising results.
It seems ironic that these otherwise successful individuals would be eliminated from the job market. The motivation for those brilliant and gifted students who previously would not have excelled only extends until the end of his schooling. After that, there is no real incentive to be productive and the motivation forced upon them becomes null and void. They can go back to their unproductive nature. For those who would have previously succeeded due to their motivation but who were later disqualified from part of the top percentile because they were not as brilliant and gifted as the others, this unsatisfying result (lack of productivity) would not necessarily hold true. One's work ethic is vital to success.
Due to this factor alone, I think the plan will fail. I find it interesting that you would not exterminate the intelligent within the masses as the irony will perpetuate. For it is those who are a part of the masses with the intelligence to realize this coupled with their own sense of motivation, who will be advocates of an opposition to this proposal. A revolution is inevitable. As the collective bottom percentile far outnumbers that of the top percentile, your thesis of meritocracy will be presented with an antithesis. The resolution must be a new synthesis which will most-likely undergo the same process in the times to come.
As for a Darwinian analysis, I think this proposal would align more closely to "artificial selection." I have my own thoughts on how this could be better achieved.
On a personal note, I fully support the statement: "all men are created unequal."
The simple application of a rule which dicatates that those who do not achieve X will not have the ability to breed and will be forced into a labor force to support those who did achieve X is enough motivation to change the outcome of our current success rate in schools. The psychological impact would be profound. This is the biggest point that I would argue because that variable alone evinces that your modest proposal isn't necessarily the only or best solution.
Many of those who excel today are motivated to do so. If everyone held that same standard of motivation, then some of these more successful students would certainly fall below the cutoff line in your proposed plan. Likewise, other brilliant and gifted students who were previously unsuccessful due to their lack of motivation may show far more promising results.
It seems ironic that these otherwise successful individuals would be eliminated from the job market. The motivation for those brilliant and gifted students who previously would not have excelled only extends until the end of his schooling. After that, there is no real incentive to be productive and the motivation forced upon them becomes null and void. They can go back to their unproductive nature. For those who would have previously succeeded due to their motivation but who were later disqualified from part of the top percentile because they were not as brilliant and gifted as the others, this unsatisfying result (lack of productivity) would not necessarily hold true. One's work ethic is vital to success.
Due to this factor alone, I think the plan will fail. I find it interesting that you would not exterminate the intelligent within the masses as the irony will perpetuate. For it is those who are a part of the masses with the intelligence to realize this coupled with their own sense of motivation, who will be advocates of an opposition to this proposal. A revolution is inevitable. As the collective bottom percentile far outnumbers that of the top percentile, your thesis of meritocracy will be presented with an antithesis. The resolution must be a new synthesis which will most-likely undergo the same process in the times to come.
As for a Darwinian analysis, I think this proposal would align more closely to "artificial selection." I have my own thoughts on how this could be better achieved.
On a personal note, I fully support the statement: "all men are created unequal."
Pages1