Thursday, October 17, 2013

Salário de funcionário público



Eu penso que todo funcionário público precisa receber um salário baixo. Eu acho inaceitável um funcionário público receber um salário alto. Isso é claro inclui os políticos.
Se você realmente quer ganhar dinheiro, você precisa ir para escolas particulares, ou abrir sua própria escola.
Soldados do exército americano ganham uma miséria e ainda assim são mandados para a guerra e muitos morrem em combate.
Dá para comparar soldados com professores? Soldados estão literalmente dando a própria vida em troca de um salário miserável.
E isso acontece no exército americano. No exército brasileiro deve ser pior.
Muita  gente está chorando para ser um funcionário público, ganhar do governo, ter um emprego estável.
Trabalhar para uma empresa particular é muito pior. Você pode ser despedido a qualquer momento, sem explicação. Você precisa realmente trabalhar para ganhar dinheiro, enquanto muitos funcionários públicos apenas fingem estar trabalhando.
Muitas pessoas medíocres acabam se tornando funcionários públicos porque não são competentes o suficiente para trabalhar em empresas particulares. O governo e a população tolera justamente porque o salário é baixo.

------------
Soldados também são funcionários públicos que recebem salário do governo.
Muitas vezes eles ganham menos do que professores de escolas públicas.
Soldados são mandados para missões e podem voltar mortos ou feridos, sem braços ou pernas.
Nenhum professor vai para o serviço com receio de voltar morto ou ferido, sem braços ou pernas.
Quando um soldado é mandado para uma missão, ele nunca sabe se vai voltar vivo ou morto.
Será que é justo um soldado, cujo trabalho é muito mais perigoso, receber menos do que um professor de escola pública?

Eu não me refiro apenas aos soldados americanos. Isso é o mesmo para qualquer soldado de qualquer país.

Se "a maioria esmagadora dos funcionários públicos cumprem o seu dever direitinho", por que a maioria da população brasileira está insatisfeita com os serviços públicos?

-------------
Na Suécia todos os funcionários públicos recebem baixo salário, inclusive os altos funcionários do governo como o primeiro-ministro e deputados.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AESeVbCVse8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7PZcw2w1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Di9xDjElmw


"atendimento vai mal numa repartição pública podemos supor que é por causa da baixa remuneração"
Absolutamente não! Não tem nada a ver com a remuneração.
Um engraxate recebe uma miséria para atender um freguês, no entanto ele precisa atender bem o freguês, caso contrário ele não vai receber pagamento.
Em empresas privadas, ou você trabalha ou é despedido.
Se uma loja não presta bons atendimentos, a loja vai perder a freguesia e mais cedo ou mais tarde irá à falência.

Funcionários incompetentes precisam ser demitidos ou rebaixados.
Lojas ou empresas ruins precisam ir à falência.

Apenas bons funcionários podem ser recompesados.
Apenas boas empresas merecem continuar operando.

Repartições públicas em geral são ruins porque por lei não é possível demitir maus funcionários.

É por isso que escolas particulares em geral são muito melhores do que escolas públicas.
É por isso que pessoas ricas preferem mandar os filhos para escolas particulares.
Em escolas particulares professores incompetentes são demitidos.
Em escolas públicas professores incompetentes fazem protesto e reclamam de baixos salários.
Não há professores bons em escolas públicas. Professores realmente bons simplesmente mudam para escolas particulares para receber melhores salários.

Operadoras de telefonia e hospitais sofrem interferência do governo e acabam operando como se fossem repartições públicas.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

The Pinocchio's paradox is not a paradox.

What would happen if Pinocchio said "My nose grows now"?
Would the nose grow or not?

According to this Wikipedia's article, it is a paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio_paradox

But I think it is not a paradox.
When Pinocchio says "My nose grows now", he is either lying or telling the truth.
If he is lying and his nose is not growing, his nose will start growing.
If he is telling  the truth, his nose will stop growing.

Because the nose only grows AFTER  he tells a lie. If Pinocchio says "My nose grows now" and he is telling the truth, it is because of a lie he must have said before. The sentence itself "My nose grows now" doesn't make his nose grows.

But if his nose was not growing at the moment he says "My nose grows now" then it will start growing AFTER  he says it.
The sentence is a lie because it refers to that particular moment in the past when the nose was not growing.

-----------
Can the nose start to grow while he is telling the lie?

I don't think so, because there is no way to know if it is true or false if the sentence is not completed yet. Incomplete sentences cannot be assigned a value of true or false.
That is why the nose can only grow after he tells a lie, never during the sentence. The nose cannot grow while he is still in mid-sentence.

---------
What if he says "My nose will grow as soon as I say this"?

That is an interesting question.
He is making a statement about the future. Is that statement true or false?
But it is also a statement about an instant in time.
At that precise instant, is the nose growing or not?
If it is not, then the nose will start growing.
When will the nose start growing? One minute after he tells a lie? Thirty seconds after he tells a lie? One second after he tells a lie? One millisecond after he tells a lie?

The statement is about an instant in time.
If the statement is a lie, the nose will start growing an instant LATER, not at the same instant.
Even though those 2 instants may be very close together, they are not the same instant.

But that is also a statement about the future, which I'd like to discuss when talking about the crocodile's paradox.

------------
Let's talk about the crocodile's paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_dilemma

Suppose a crocodile who has stolen a child, promises the father that his son will be returned if and only if he can correctly predict whether or not the crocodile will return the child.
What happens if the father correctly predicts the son will not be returned? Should the crocodile return the son or not?

Let's see the premises:

Premise 1: if the father predicts correctly then the crocodile will return the son.

Premise 2: The crocodile will not return the son.

Premise 3: The father predicts correctly.

From premise 1 and 3 we conclude that the crocodile will return the son, which contradicts premise 2, thus the paradox.
The paradox emerges because two contradictory premises cannot both be true at the same time.

Are all paradoxes the result of contradictory premises?

The paradox disappears if one of the contradictory premises is eliminated.
If we eliminate premise 3, we conclude that that father will fail to predict correctly, by saying  the son will be returned.
If we eliminate premise 2, we conclude that the father will correctly predict the son will returned.

Can all paradoxes be solved by just eliminating the contradictory premise?

There is also another aspect: the statement about the future.
Is it possible to make a statement about the future that is absolutely true (or false)?
In the crocodile paradox a statement like "The crocodile will not return the son" assumes an immutable and unchangeable future. Once we assume that the crocodile will not return the son, there is nothing we can do to change that.

But that is not how we talk about the future.
Predictions usually assume the form: "a certain event will happen if certain conditions are met".

For example if the doctor predicts that "the patient will die", is the doctor telling the truth or lying? Actually he is neither.
He is talking about a POSSIBLE future that may happen if certain conditions are met.

Is it possible to predict the future?
To predict the future we have to assume that the future is immutable and predictable.
But if the future is not immutable, if the future is changeable, then it becomes unpredictable.

We assume the future is changeable, because we are trying to change the future all the time.
When we try to predict the future, we are talking about a future that may happen IF WE DO NOTHING. So the question becomes: what should we do to change the future?

All statements about the future need to be conditional.
It seems impossible to make unconditional predictions.
How can anyone know for certain what is going to happen?
A statement like "the patient will die" can neither be true or false. It needs to be rephrased to "the patient will die IF the diagnosis is correct and there is no available treatment".

Is it possible to solve the time travel paradox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox
Is it possible to go back in time and prevent your own parents from meeting, thus preventing your own birth? If you were never born, where did you come from?
If a paradox can be solved by just removing the contradictory premise, which premise should be eliminated?

Is the past unchangeable?
If time travel is possible then the past must be changeable because the future is changeable and when we travel back in time THE PAST BECOMES THE FUTURE.

-------------
How to solve the liar's paradox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

If someone says "I am lying", is he really lying or telling the truth?

We have to know where the contradiction is.
For any logical argument, we have a set of premises and then draw a conclusion from the premises.
All the premises are assumed to be true and the conclusion obtained from the rules of logic, must also be true.
For any logical argument, all statements need to be true, or at least assumed to be true. It is impossible to deal with a false statement.

Let's have the following premise:
Premise: this sentence is false.

We have to assume that all premises are true. But in this case, the premise declares itself to be false. Since it cannot be both, and it is impossible to deal with a false statement, we have to invalidate the sentence.
In other words the sentence is not a truth-bearer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-bearer

That is the same conclusion shown in the link below.
http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/logic/logic1.html
"We get out of this bind by refusing to accord it the privileges of statementhood. In other words, it is not a statement. "

There are many statements which cannot be assigned a value of true or false.
For example, incomplete statements are also not truth-bearers.
Statements about the future are also not truth-bearers.

Logic and mathematics can only deal with truth-bearers.
But since not all statements are truth-bearers, it begs the question: is it possible to construct mathematical models that deal with non-truth-bearers? Sentences that are neither true or false?
Because there is something called three-valued logic.
Such a logic should be able to deal with the liar's sentence, without having a paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Inglourious Basterds

Let's talk about the Inglourious Basterds.
It is a movie directed by Quentin Tarantino, released in 2009.
I am not a fan of Tarantino, and this movie just doesn't help.
Even though I admit Tarantino is a good director, I have issues about the morality of his movies.

I fail to see any message or even point in the film.
What is it about, after all?
Just like Pulp Fiction, there doesn't seem to be a main plot. The film is a collection of scenes loosely connected. Each scene seems to have its own plot independent from the rest of the movie. It reminds of films like The Big Lebowski.
The film doesn't have a main plot. What is it about? It seems to revolve around a movie theater and its owner who plans to kill all main Nazi leaders during the projection of a movie in her theater.
Who is the main character? At first I thought Brad Pitt, but his character doesn't seem to have much importance in the movie.
The film seems to revolve around Christoph Waltz's character, even though he seems to be the villain.
What is the message of the film? Does it have a message? What is the point of the film?
Yes, there are some very suspenseful scenes, the initial one in the Frenchman's farm, the scene in the basement tavern, the scene where Christoph Waltz meets Brad Pitt and starts speaking Italian. Those were very suspenseful and well-made scenes that keep you at the edge of your seat.

Brad Pitt seems to be the hero, but his character can be even more cruel and vicious than the Nazis.
Christoph Waltz seems to be the villain, but his character is very intelligent, articulate and charming.

The film is not about the war. It is not about the Nazis. It is not a love story, it is not adventure, it is not horror. It seems to be more about suspense than anything else. Was there humor? I didn't laugh at any point, but the trailer seems to suggest it could be a comedy. But it is not a comedy. Like most Tarantino movies, it seems to defy any classificaton, except that it is a Tarantino movie. Some people seem to love Tarantino movies, others, like me maybe, don't understand them.
Tarantino is not a bad director, his films are not bad.
But in most of his films, the main characters seem to be assassins, killers, criminals, and in the case of this film, viciously cruel war soldiers.
And I have difficulties enjoying a movie whose characters I can't identify with.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

investment

2013.10.06
http://stocks.finance.yahoo.co.jp/stocks/chart/?code=79311095&ct=z&t=1y&q=l&l=off&z=n&p=m25&a=

投資について話しましょう。
今日はアメリカのコーポレート・ボンドを見ましょう。
2011年から価格が下がり続けています。
一体何で下落しているのか?
市場は楽観でリスクの高い物へ移行しているのか?
そしてその下落はいつまで続くのか?
近い将来は価格は下がり続けるだろう。
しかし遠い将来は傾向は変わって上昇する筈。
今日の投資信託は毎月分配金で過去一年分配金はちゃんと払われています。
しかし分配金再投資でも過去3ヶ月は下落しています。
つい最近過去最低価格を更新記録しています。
ということは現在は最安値に近くなっています。
問題はその下落が何時まで何処まで続くかである。
しばらく様子見したほうがいいかも知れないが、要注意である。
このファンドは買うチャンスかも知れません。

Friday, October 4, 2013

東京電力は福島原発の後処理をしてはいけない

時々ニュースで福島原発のことを読んでいますが、気になることがあります。
福島原発の後処理をしているのは東京電力ですが、なんで東京電力なのかよく分かりません。

東京電力は福島原発の後処理をしてはいけないと思います。
日本政府は福島原発から東京電力を外して、特殊チームを作って、福島原発の後処理をそのチームに担当させた方がいいと思います。
その特殊チームには原発の設計・建設・修理に詳しいエンジニアと大学の物理学者や専門家で構成すべきだと思います。その特殊チームの配下に始めて東京電力の社員をコンサルティングとして設置します。

何故かと言うと、東京電力は原発の運転しか出来ないからです。
タクシーやバスのドライバーさんと同じように運転は出来ても修理は出来ない。
タクシーやバスが壊れて、ドライバーさんにいくら修理を頼んでも、それは無理です。ドライバーさんは運転しかできないからです。殆どの場合はドライバーさんは車の修理に関する知識・資格・経験は無い筈です。

車のドライバーと同じように東京電力は原発の運転しか出来ない筈です。東京電力は原発の設計・建設・修理に関しての知識や経験は無い筈です。
だから福島原発の後処理を東京電力にさせるのは間違いである。

なのに福島原発のニュースを見ると、いつも東京電力の社員が記者会見を開いて報告する。

それは私は間違いだと思うし、納得できません。