Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (32014)	11/10/2009 2:52:06 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Having tried to be addicted to different things at different times, I find I lack the motivation to be a Tiger Woods or Ted Kaczynski or any other world champion at anything. After some time of obsessive behaviour [aka addiction] I find it wears thin and I move onto something else. So I became a competent golfer, but was never going to move into the ranks of tournament pros. I was an ace at Prince of Persia, Freecell and a few other computer games just to show I could be if I wanted to, which it turned out I don't. Other people don't have my weakness and can focus for days, weeks, months and even years, night and day, playing Quake, updating Facebook, Twitter and all the rest flat out or doing whatever they do in cyberspace. Far be it from me to claim that my weakness and their strength somehow shows me to be better due to being less "addictive". I should have given that explanation at school for my lack of interest in homework and study - "I wish to avoid study addiction and find doing 333s a better idea". I had a history teacher who threatened to thrash me with a stick if I didn't get in the top 10 of his class - he obviously didn't subscribe to your theory that "addictions" are a scourge. Students who reported major amounts of scourging were treated favourably and the more they scourged, the better they were considered to be. Similarly in the "moderator" situation - what a boon having a wireless connection to cyberspace would have been during my years of lectures at university. I could have set up a web cam and optical character reader and voice to text converter then gone out into that 3D realm you described and spent the time there, collecting my device later with the information in easily accessible text form. Heck, cut to the chase and have the "moderator" providing the information directly to a camera and microphone instead of a room full of people. Heck, the moderator wouldn't even need to be there. With Mirasol screens, people could sit around pools, on beaches, half way up mountains, floating around oceans on boats, in remote jungle, and join a cyberspace "moderated" information exchange. There's no scourge. The big difference is that you are thinking in terms of telling other people what they should be doing, whereas I'm thinking people suffering the so-called scourge can decide for themselves. I wish I had their obsessive scourging ability. I'd get more done. This is just garden-variety rudeness: < often the prospect of a new idea is immediately challenged by someone in the group citing data from double-blind tests and opinion polls that say it can't be done even before the speaker's had an opportunity to fully disclose a new approach to achieving it. > I normally find the default setting of people is to assert that a new idea is unworkable, stupid, NIH, wrong, ridiculous, will fail etc after a fraction of a second's consideration of part of the idea. It's reasonable to look for things which might be wrong, but normally the intention is not to guardedly check for problems but to find a reason to declaim the idea a failure. When their first criticism is shown to be false, they lunge around grabbing at things to show that it's still no good. It's Luddite thinking. Also, some people have a strong need for dominance and saying things are no good is a way of dominating. Mqurice PS: Incidentally, what are 333s? I guess a 360 handbrake spin which didn't quite complete. 18 x 18 + 9 = 333.