Eleison Zeitgeist

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Dec 17, 2002
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
Cows and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Eleison Zeitgeist

Hi there,
I've decided to cast my vote and not waste anymore time at javaranch. While I've enjoyed my time here, I do not really feel comfortable with having some of my messages (actually one message -- but IMHO, one is more than enough deleted.
Well I guess, I'll spend more time with usenet postings, slashdot, etc... or grasp other people :-)
To the ones who have the power to delete mesgs, please lock this thread. I do not want to discuss anything. Censorship of MD has been discussed @ length :-)
20 years ago

Originally posted by Daniel Curtmil Atrei:
Oh so now i m taught new words. Thank you for your formidable input in this matter Zeitgist, now my turn. These words might seem hard and non-monosyllabic, but are complex enough to be able to understand the situation at hand ( sorry if i m too cynical, just love it). Ignorance, propaganda refering to faux news, stupidity, decision. If you mix these words into a whole sentence you can have this output: ignorance and stupidity can lead us to wrong decisions. Go attack everyone who has oil whith false excuses and knowing there is no connection with al qaeda or at least no proof serious enough not to laugh at openly. Oh you might take pictures of Syria and find they have soccer fiels, then they MUST be planning an attack against a soccer field in Europe!!! I'd like you to say Spaniards are cowards in front of me, you probably wouldn't, i'd smash your arguments with impecable retoric. The problem with your saying is taht you act BEFORE you think, like one might write before thinking except taht with Irak there are much graver implications. I do not put in question your honesty and your willingness to make the world better, you look eager to help. I have no problem with those people thinking that invading Irak could make it a better place, and some of my friends did and we never insulted each other, we just think it wouldn t and that is the reason why we didn t support the war, and for the moment it seems we re right.
But on what concerns your statement that spanish people are cowards, you obviously are completely ignorant on this matter, mis informed by faux news caugh caugh haha haha channel. You might have not spent time enought in Spain to have been able to judge Spanish people, yet you stand by your insult. To say what you just said is a complete generalisation which is 1 false, 2 disgusting and as all generalisation, no base to which you can stand. We have lived trhough dictatorship, of terror and governement, and every time we ahve protested, everytime we have moved towards the achievement of our antiterrorist goal: to annihilate terrorism. All the time closer and always (except once really) in the smart way, the least violence possible against innocent people, the least racism as possible. You might not know it, but Pinochet, a criminal from chile who killed I don t know how many people, his own people was put into power by US GOVERNEMENT (not the people) help. And he was arrested by us, Spain and given back to chile who failed to judge him adequatly. People in spain protest openly about terrorism, risking their lives, they go in millions in the streets to say to the world they will fight terrorism they will protest, and you in America, where you reside I suppose, because we go out of Irak which had no connections with al Qaeda, you dare accuse us of inaction? Time to think whether you did the right action. In the mean time, stop spitting on 40 million of spaniards who are against terrorism and on 40 millions of Spaniard who think terrorism is better fought not were it is or rather was inexistant, in Irak. And in the mean time, find better arguments than saying that spanish people are cowards and French are against America such as, should spain leave so early?

Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace :-)
Obviously, I must of stuck a nerve. Even though I was only able to finish the first few lines of your diatribe, lets call it a day and agree to disagree.
20 years ago

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[qb]So the day come and you ask yourself: what is this that you *really* need?
Apparently Lionel Richie's wife needs $300,000 a month: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=498379[/QB]

Damn, ho!! that's a lot of money. Richies net worth is probably only arround 80mil (this is very generous, IMHO). Don't see how he could be worth more -- he's just a singer.

20 years ago

Originally posted by Edy Yu:
Industry: consulting
Work: J2EE architect
Location: Chicago
Salary: 100,000
Travel: 100%
First of all, the salary is lower than I expected, given the type of work and the caliber of that company. Second, the travel is way too much ...
I am in Ohio right now. Does anybody know how much more expensive to relocate to Chicago?
Thanks in advance ...

I live in chicago (Wrigleview to be precise). Apartments are priced fairly 800-1400 for a one bedroom in a safe neighborhood. Gold coast (one of the most expensive zip codes in the nation wrt to median price of condos/homes) apts will be arround 1300-1600++...
Parking is a b*tch; 150-300/ month.. free street side parting available, but IMHO, not worth it.
100K for starting slary. Crap shot; Chicago's not really know for good salaries in the IT field. If I lived somewhere else, could probably earn 15-20K more (just speculation on my part).
Restaurants also priced fairly -- obviously, there are expense restaurants and cheap restaurants; you pay for what you get, plus there is a wide range...

If I was traveling 100%, I would get a small studio ~$600 and call it a day.
If you take this job, you aren't really going to see your apt for a while :-)
As a side note: In general, 100% travel would be a non-negotiable for me. I use to travel a lot, know of friends who did, all in all, was fun for a while, but gets boring fast... Actually, you could probably get away with not having a place and staying with relatives -- know of a guy who did that; he worked for a big consoluting firm (saved a ton of money).
ps. good luck :-)
[ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]
20 years ago

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:

The only asymmetry is that in a rising market you can make money without much knowledge, you just won't beat the market.

Don't really understand your logic. You say that it is as easy to make money in a down economy as in a good economy. However, you then say that in a good economy "you can make money without much knowledge" -- meaning less work?, ergo easier to make money in a good economy than a bad??
Any case, your logic is giving me a headache. Lets agree to disagree and call it a day, @ least wrt me :-)
20 years ago

Originally posted by Matt Cao:

One month is not so bad. I know someone with three years on the bench.
Good Lucks,

Whoa, if I was on the bench for close to 1 year I would be worried.. 3 years.. huhm...
20 years ago

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:

I don't think anyone said otherwise. I just commented that if you think the market is going down, you can make money by shorting. Tim and I were just debating whether making money on the short side is just as easy as on the long side.

Sorry about that Mark. I though you said that it was as easy making money in a bad market as in a good market. I guess you agree with my previous mesg that making money in a bad market sucks and basically if there is going to be an implosion of the economy, we're all fuscked :-)
20 years ago

Originally posted by Bucky Dent:
"Of course the big problem with attempting to make money even short-selling in a deflating economy is that if the currency itself devalues, your profits are just numbers without real purchasing benefits."
This is not entirely accurate. Deflation means cash is king. .

Agreed. However, IMHO, this would be analogous to eating steaking on the first days of the bad economy and eating crow on the rest (there would be no more available "good" investments deals left)..
20 years ago

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:

This reason is only a psychological one and objectively isn't accurate. You are not profiting on another persons loss; or rather, you are no more profiting on someone else's loss than with long positions.
Let's suppose there's a stock at $50. If I think it will go up to $60, I'll buy it. The owner could have made $10 but instead took the cash. He sold because either he thought it wouldn't go up, or felt the money in hand was more valuable. (More generally, he felt that his personal ROI was better with a different allocation, perhaps in a savings account, another stock, or even in buying a new dress for his wife.)
In a second case, let's consider someone buying stock off me. I think it's going to down. I want to sell it. Clearly I think there are better investment opportunities, and we'll assume for the sake of simplicity that I keep it in financial instruments (which is what most people do most of the time). What I am effectively saying by selling the stock is that there is more money to be made elsewhere and this is not a wise investment. The buying disagrees and is betting otherwise. Also note that the reason I'm selling could be personal, to alter my portfolio, perhaps to rebalance it, or change my risk exposure.
Now let's suppose there's another stock at $50. I sell it short to a guy at $49. We have the same information. He buys it for the same reason the man in the first example bought it, he thinks it will appreciate. He knows that it may not. He also knows that I don't think it will. If it appreciates, he's made money off me. It could go either way. Perhaps I am placing a fair bet. Likewise, perhaps I am doing it to alter my risk exposure, such as if I were hedging. Maybe I spotted an arbitrage opportunity.
The point I'm trying to make is that in each case, it may not really be a zero sum game. That happens to be the simplest way of looking at it.
Tim, I'm not saying you're being simple. Most people without training/experience probably do see it that way. I'm just saying that's not the only way to see it.

Just doesn't make sense. It riduculus. People, even with training, don't know when it is a good time to short, when it is a good time to buy -- LEGALLY; it's all a crap shot (NOBODY has been able to convince me otherwise - wrt short term investing).
For instance, when the economy is going down, you imply it might be a good time to short; however, people in general notice this and do the exact thing - the market will correct itself (almost instanteously in this tech filled world) to the point where the payoff of buying is equal to the risk of losing money. In a world were everyone has the same information, there are no free lunches ....
Also, if there are PROVEN methods (12 steps programs; vodoo magic spells, reading tea leaves, etc) of making money in a bad market; everybody and their mother would be on this program and making a kill, ie., there would be a lot of peopld getting rich of the stock market. However, this will never be the case because you cannot "wring blood from stone" -- a bad economy is exactly that, a cold hard "stone"...
In general, I've been fascinated by people and the stock market. Everyone who I've talked to had some "great" method for picking stocks. Some have made money. Some have lost money. All in all, it has seem like a crap shoot. This was very evident during the late nineties. Almost everyone was buying stocks... now, only a few. What ever happen to those "great" methods???
I'm not saying buying stocks is a bad idea. I just think that there is a lot of risk involved. How many "smart" people know about Enron, or worldcomm? How many people know aobut the bubble? Yet, some of these people were smart -- darest say? smarter than me in facets of investments.
It only gets worst in down economy. Odds of picking a good investment is low. It's not like in a good economy where numerous companies were producing products turning profit. Heck, mid-90's when the economy was roaring, you could have used any of the soo called "great" methods and made money (it's like going to a soritiy party -- odds of getting a date high if you are a guy:-) In a down economy, its like trying to find a girl in all boys catholic school... not very good.
20 years ago

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Hi folks,
quote riginally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
If there is an "implosion of economy" for the US, it will take everyone else down. I don't see it. I.e., no matter where you put your money, it will be screwed....
Try shorting. :-)

Regardless, if the economy goes bad, I think you will have a tough time shorting, i.e., I don't think "shorting" during the depression made anyone rich. Obviously, there may be some money made right before the depression. However, to predict it correctly would be IMHO, tantamount to picking the correct numbers for todays lottery (I don't believe in investing for the short time:-) Also, this is compounded by the fact that the duration, i.e., window of opportunity, for "the right time" is significately (sic) reduced because of today's efficient market place.
Which leaves only one true way of investing (IMHO), -- long term. Hence if all long term investings are bad; Ergo, your fuscked :-)
ps. took a few BASIC econ courses in college; what I could be saying could be Totallly wrong -- oh maybe pulled out of my *ss.. personally don't know which one... :-)
20 years ago

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I am not sure what ingformation you think I was wrong about. You have expressed a bunch of opinions as if they were facts and then accused me of being wrong:
So if an election isn't going to give the results you want then the election can't be held? Is this what democracy is all about?
As to the comments about Diem, this was as I said. The South Vietnamese president was a repressive and cruel dictator. JFK supported a coup to overthrow Diem. Diem and some of his family were executed during the coup. Ironically, JFK was murdered less than one month later.
There are many good books about the history of Vietnam. I would suggest that if you are interested in this period that you visit your local library and not rely on the Wikepedia.

Hi there,
the whole tone of your agrument is very anti-american... For instance, in your original message, you stated that the US supported the murder of the South Vietnamese president. You did not state the reason why. You made it seem like the us gov was willy nilly about. The US monolith kills, YET, another president (seemingly without cause), etc...
Every other "fact" you stated comes with a very liberal view. While some are not technically false; Like your statement of "murder of president" - they are half-truths... you don't give a full account of the facts.
Another example is the "Us didn't allow elections" argument. You made it sound like the US wanted Vietnam to be two separate countries; while technically true, it's a half-truth.
Your statement: "So if an election isn't going to give the results you want then the election can't be held? Is this what democracy is all about" A rhetorical question that at its core anti-american ("you" is referred to me or the US; I'm assuming that the "you" is meant as me, and as the US government.. i.e., "americans will not allow elections if they dont get the results that they want"...
Agreed, Americans will not allow certain elections. However, the way you stated this fact makes americans look insidious. Americans are two face... they will only want their way. However, if you dig deeper into this, you would fully understand that sometimes elections are not possible.
Majority rule is not a good idea sometimes.. look at Germany inthe 40's..
Even in the US, there are safety mechanisms that save the individual from majority rule -- even individuals that own must of the wealth. The us wanted Democracy to flower in Vietname with protections guaranted for the individual...
Regardless, if Ho CHi Minh really wanted a unitfied Vietnam and he was not into communism(as you stated), why did he not just renounce Communism? The us would have let elecitons (after individual rights were guarantted)go forward - no killing... This is another side of the coin you did not discuss. After the election, there would have been one country.

Your post on February 23, 2004 05:12 AM is less biases. However, there are still some biases. For instance, you implied that the US supported Colonialism. The US did not support colonialism. The us did not fight the Viet Minh. Battle of Dien Bien Phu did not involve american troops -- only the French.. The US was involved after the french left... and that was only to try and contain communism...

While I did use only a few sources in my previous message: the open source encyclopedia - Wikepedia; and PBS. I didnt know they were such unreliable sources. If so, with your infinite knownledge, could you tell me what facts they have wrong? If they did have the facts correct, with you omnipotent knowledge of the vietnam conflict (obviously you have gone to your public library , why did you leave out important facts? It's not like you have an agenda or somethings??? RIght :-)

20 years ago

Originally posted by Aarti Shah:
I have not posted here before though have been a JavaRanch vistor for quite some time now. I would like to get some advice on a couple of different job offers that I am looking at.
I have experience in both C++ and Java. One of the offers is from a large, stable company that specializes in instrumentation software. This company is very respected and is a leader in their field. The work will be C++ based working on their product team. The other offer is from a state govt agency and involves Java, JSPs, WebLogic etc. I am having trouble deciding which one to go for. I have always worked in private sector and have no experience in working at a govt agency. However at this stage of my life (I am married and have a toddler), I am looking for a less demanding job and hence I am attracted to the state govt job. But does working for govt agencies reduce your chances of returning back to private sector or harm your career in other ways ? Also any advice regarding the choice of technologies - C++ (at the large co) vs Java (at state agency) ? I would really appreciate any advice that I could get from all of you folks !

state agency: more marketable technology - java; more stable; less stress; later on, can move to private side if you want to (@your own leisure); people are slowly moving away from c++ (IMHO, not worth the time to be C++ master)...
20 years ago

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But the U.S. was not against China or Russia, it was against communism.
You are not reading the post-WWII situation correctly. There was exactly
one communist country in the world in 1945. The US helped France retake Indochina but this had nothing to do with Ho Chi Minh being a communist. We did it to get France to join NATO.
As to the elections that were promised, the US refused to hold any type of election to determine the future course of Vietnam. I might remind you that when it appeared that the south might wish to join the north, the US supported the murder of the President of South Vietnam and the takeover by a military junta.
You are correct that the French fell back into South Vietnam after their disasterous miliatry defeat. But the point remains the same... what gave the right to the French (or the USA) to declare that South Vietnam is now a country when it never existed before? This was not the case where the UN declared two countries be created or where a treaty established two separate countries. This was an arbitrary decision by an invading power.

Vietminh was a "provisional government"; Ho Chi Minh did not have the right to make Vietnam Independent. The us helped france because the russians and the Chinese were helping Minh (not sure who did what first -- but aprox the same time; I would strongly DISagree that the US helped France, JUST so that france would join NATO)..
In any case, Vietnam should have been returned to france. There should not have been any "north" or "south" vietnam, there should have been "one" vietnam under france... The communists (Russia and China) seems to be the ones stirring the pot... and ultimately leading to the vietnam war.
"As to the elections that were promised, the US refused to hold any type of election to determine the future course of Vietnam." There were good reasons for this. The North were stealing landing and redistrubing it. Basically, if elections were held, the Vietnam would have been ONE country but under Communism -- "terrany of the majority"
The following is more information abou the President of South Vietnam -- he's wasn't a very good President. Actually, he declared himself to be president. He acted very much like a dictator.

Ho chi Min was a communist. The US did NOT push him to be a communist.

All in all, your analysis of the vietnam war/causese of is very biases (anti-american view). Either you didn't do your research, or you are talking out of your ***. I'm not quite sure which one ;-) In any case, with just an hour of research, I came up with these points...
Because of this thread, I have decided to not take so many things you say as "facts"; Initially, I was very intrigued at what you were saying. You had me thinking that the US acted very badly during the vietnam war. But with research, my respect for the US is stil intact ;-P
20 years ago

Originally posted by Natalie Kopple:

Here is America's job future for the next 10 years:
*** waiters and waitresses;
*** janitors and cleaners;
*** food preparation;
*** nursing aides, orderlies and attendants;
*** cashiers
*** customer service representatives;
*** retail salespersons;
*** registered nurses;
*** general and operational managers;
*** postsecondary teachers.

That's what I figured. After all, we all know americans are lazy fat and stupid - all they're good for are blue-collar type jobs. Hey, I guess the japanese were correct after all :-)
Well, I can't wait until the Chinese and the Indians take the mantel of innovation and technology. We all know that they're hard working and smarter than the Americans. Well, that's what they are saying... just like the Japanese 20 years ago ;-)
20 years ago

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Sorry to ask you such a rookie question, but since you are the genius around here.. what do you mean when you say "implosion of economy"?? Does it signal a depression?

If there is an "implosion of economy" for the US, it will take everyone else down. I don't see it. I.e., no matter where you put your money, it will be screwed....
20 years ago