> After all, what would we be saving ourselves from, but intelligence?
We would be saving ourselves unnecessary amounts of repetition. I'm not suggesting we abandon Algebra, as up to that level, there are very important things to learn. Things that do not apply to real life, however, do not offer anything to those not going into a field that uses the subject.
As for developing cognitive abilities and said undefined skills, of course. But if you know that, you should also know that new "cognitive abilities" generally do not show up after a certain age (12-15 or so), so your argument falls flat -- I'm not talking about grade school, or even middle school/junior high. I'm starting this around high-school, where they teach the same things over. Many in HS have an idea where they are headed, and they should be allowed to do that. Unfortunately, there is almost 0 specialization in HS, requiring the students to either learn on their own or work doubly hard in college to catch up to those who did.
Yes, most anyone can teach themselves, but most of those same people would not have access to any necessary science materials at home, and some would have no access to a PC (the Internet PC at the library is NOT an option for this).
Saying everyone needs to know advanced math is like saying everyone needs to know how to milk a cow. It'll strengthen your arms and milk is necessary! We have progressed as a civilization because we have people who know how to milk cattle (or can build machines, etc) so that we don't have to. We have people who know how to do very specific tasks so that the rest of us don't have to worry about that task and we can move on to conquer the next layer of specialization.
Society cannot progress comfortably while everyone is expected to be an expert at everything. How did you ever get your PC together without a deep-seated knowledge of the inner workings of a transistor, or electron even. Because someone ELSE learned that and figured out how to make it so that you DON'T have to know what he knows while still seeing the rewards of his research.
> spam the sky with signals to all the stars! Whats the harm or problem with doing that?
Power. As an AC said, it's a big-ass sky. Once you get a very short distance away from Earth, I think a radio signal has to be pretty focused to be received, or if not focused, very powerful. To send a signal 100 light years in 360x360 degrees would take immense amounts of power.
> Does a 10th grade kid who types in a formula in Mathematica or Mathlab, and then punches on the derivative button, have any clue as to what he or she just did?
When a secretary pushes "send," does she have the slightest thread of a clue what just happened? No, she usually does not, she just experts the end result to get the attention of someone and give them information. She uses EMail to pass messages because it is more convenient than the phone, pager, whatever. That's what progress is all about -- making things simpler so that we don't HAVE to know how it works.
Basic math skills are necessary to function productively, but the reason we have calculators and such is so that we don't HAVE to memorize all kinds of crap that's already been figured out.
I don't understand the double-standard of progress & education. Progress gives us tools to make our lives easier, so we can move on to things that aren't as simple. Then education systems come in, force people to learn things that they will never use or they could use a calculator/computer for and move on to things that actually matter.
There will always be scientists and mathematicians to learn this stuff and apply it to regular life. They are there so that we don't have to know what an integral is, or differentials, or limits. They apply this "complicated" knowledge to our lives and they are the ones who need it, but not me, and certainly not a 10-year old who thinks having an MBA would kick ass.
Yeah, if you have a 135 IQ maybe, but some of us mere mortals don't have the brains to figure out abstract mathematical concepts that have no observable uses. As much as you might like to think otherwise, Calculus is hard to grasp for some (many, possibly most) people. I'm not exceptionally stupid, but I aced every math class up till Calculus and then I failed it twice. It was one of the most worthless classes I ever took (3x) and has in no way helped me in life. It is ridiculous to make it a core requirement.
> Better teachers and smaller classes will do a better job in my view.
Can't argue "better teachers," that's a given, but I don't think that smaller classes are necessarily better. I don't see any valid reason that it would be, except the mystical student-teacher ratio, which I don't really believe makes that much difference anyway.
The argument goes, as I see it, that with fewer students, they get less one-on-one time with the teacher. Since kids always have to rush off to their next class, though, they don't have time to talk to the teacher 1-to-1 after. In addition, in a class of 5 (that would be a terrible idea, BTW), if one of them was confused, I would think he'd be LESS likely to speak out, as he would feel like the "dumb one" of five, instead of one of the "dumber" ones out of a hundred. Plus, with 100 people pondering the same data, it's more likely that someone shares your confusion and may speak up and ask (assuming you don't like speaking up in class, like me).
Also, if classes are taught in large groups, the student is more likely to find some people he relates to, and can study with. With the core classes (history, basic science, etc) taught in large groups, they can be covered easier and there are more periods available to teach more specialized classes instead of teaching the same class 10 times in a day, which is wasting time unnecessarily.
With 100 students giving back reviews on one specific teacher & course & period, the administrators can get a better feel for how the teacher is doing: %50 of 6 people isn't a very accurate statistic, but if %50 of 100 students have a problem, you can guess it's the teacher's fault and action needs to be taken.
I don't know much about orbits & stuff, but can two things orbit in different directions around the planet? Or do they have to follow the rotation of Earth?
> grab a calculator and prey to the cos() or sin() functions.
Yup, those functions ate a lot of my time (hint: it's "pray")
> Getting back to the IDE "master/slave" thing I am mainly just a little shocked at the level disregard I see coming from this community. It is a testiment to the amount of work that still needs to be done on the front of racism.
I have little problem with most of your statements, although I disagree with some of them. But this is absolutely ridiculous. We disregard this because it is stupid. As many others have stated, slave != black. AT ALL. OUR history of slavery is about black people, but the word itself has no race attached. What our disregard is a testament to is that we are interested in using proper/most appropriate terminology. When I think of my slave drive, I don't think of slave trade. Nor should I, because that is not what it's about.
This has zero to do with racism, and only a few think that it does. You seem like a relatively level-headed individual, but it is asinine to call me racist just because I use a certain word (other than 'n*****' of course, which has no current usage other than racist).
I'm not a bad person or even slightly racist because I don't cave to "Political Correctness."
> recognise that countries problems and at least not directly argue against their resolution. > Governmental racism ended [...] well within the current generations "window if impact" so to speak
These, I mostly agree with. The first, obviously, but the question in this case is "How do we recognize these problems?" Are we truly seeing the problem or is it just the symptoms? Really, no one can answer that, but I probably don't know enough about socioeconomics to make an argument that will hold up (nor am I any good at debating -- that's why I swear:). As for government racism, yes, I conveniently (intentionally) overlooked that even though I knew it was a pretty easy counter. I hold the belief (without much good reason) that after another generation or two, everyone around during segregation will be dead. At that point, the "blind racism" should disappear much quicker, although there will probably be remnants for another century, since some people (family lines) simply choose to be jerks/idiots. Unfortunately (hehe), we have freedom in this country, and they are free to be ignorant if they want to. Not much you can do about it, but telling them they can't think a certain way is analogous to telling them they can't sing a certain way.
> I'm a little disturb at how willing people are to totaly fly of the handle
I think that's because it IS a heated issue and most expect the other to fly off the handle. They can "beat them to the punch" and start off that way. Admitting my faults is one of my strong suits, so I will admit that I fell victim to this as well.
> Kind Regards
I apologize for being a jerk by putting words into your post that were not there, it is very nice to say things like that regularly.
I can't believe no one has replied to this. That's a GREAT idea! Your slave cylinder would become your "Break Ho" and the master cylinder, the "Pimp Pump."
Unfortunately for I.T., with terms like that, RAID wouldn't be quite so loved.
> > Isn't it a bit egotistical to assume that "slave" must refer to a black person? > It does'nt.
Correct. But in stating that, why do you have to continue with:
> American history is'nt going to change and the people living in the american present are connected to that past
That information (however true or untrue it may be) is not necessary to the topic. The topic has NOTHING to do with race or even the concept of slavery. It's descriptive and very accurate. That's why it was used.
> Unless of course the slaves rise up, kill the master take his horses and flee > It's not a good analogy unless you deny the humanity, wills and desires of the slave
Again, has no bearing, as we are talking about inanimate objects that cannot flee, nor are they "oppressed." You are inserting frivolous emotion into a debate where it does not apply. You are trying to play up emotions and angers to force people to agree with you because, IYHO, anyone who disagrees is a racist. Of course, as per your other post, any White American is a racist, so the point is moot I suppose. A slave drive has no humanity, it is not human. A slave cylinder has no wills, it is not intelligent. A slave processor has no desires, it is not alive. So Yes, IT IS A GOOD ANALOGY. Man, you're arguing with someone on your OWN SIDE (generically) -- it makes my job a lot easier.
> Don't you think it is odd that the term "master/slave" is so accepted
No, it is not odd, it is a word. It is a descriptive word. A word, when crossing boundaries of use, does not carry connotations with it unless someone specifically makes it, such as yourself (how dare you oppress that poor word?). It doesn't matter if the word is "slave" or "blargargle," its meaning is its meaning.
Should we outlaw the use of the word "gun" because some people (a lot, really) know others who were killed by one? Changing the word does not change the problem. Should we call it a "Subservient cylinder?" That's what it is, in a manner, changing the name does not change the task it performs.
> the populace of a country that benefitted from slavery more than any other in the modern era
Total benefit, sure. You seem to insinuate, however, that the U.S. would be much further behind if we had not had slaves from the start. Of course, that means that you might have been born in Africa under much worse conditions. That is not the point. The U.S. probably would have gone further FORWARD if it had not happened, as we would have a large number of more intelligent people longer ago. So how can you claim that we have somehow gained from it? I'm not going to be a COMPLETE asshole and suggest that no one has gained, as that would be a lie. But just because a few individuals gained, it does not mean that the country as a whole (or your more ignorant assertion of white people in general) has gained a single thing.
> Don;t you think that maybe the angst against the use of this term is actually part of a larger cultural movement that maybe you would do well to research?
No.
Angst against a word is futile and misdirected. Get denied for a job because of skin color (not just claim it, have proof)? Fuck 'em up -- sue them for everything you can get. I'm all for it. But don't tell me I'm a bastard because I'm not handing out money left & right. I have barely enough for my right hand.
My initial thought as well, but they don't mean piston cylinders. Your brakes have (a) master/slave cylinder(s), as Glonoinha pointed out.. I had the same confused look as you.
> It's just that your head is in the sand, which is the most comfortable place for white people in America to keep them
Get your head out of your ass. I'm not going to be as nice as others on this one, since you seem to either take this personally or are being intentionally obtuse. I know perfectly well that slavery is brutal, unfair (couldn't think of a more powerful word), and detestable, to soy the absolute least. I know that it held back the black population about a century, which is pretty considerable in a country only around for a few hundred years.
No, I don't really do anything actively about it. I'll make sure any stupid redneck using the 'N' word as an insult knows what an ignorant fuck he is, but that's about it.
My head is not in the sand. My head is firmly on my shoulders. I don't have money to donate to the NAACP, I have no influence in hiring. What the fuck do you expect me to do? Find some random black guy who looks poor and give him all my money? It would seem that you are pretty comfortable with your head in your ass.
I had no part in U.S. (or colonial U.S.) slavery, nor did a single one of my ancestors. Why should I feel responsible about it then? I'm not going to ignorantly deny that it happened, it did. Sorry for the luck of any of your ancestors who may have been sold by his own people into slavery, or even the very few who may have been "ripped from his land." Still doesn't mean I care in any measurable way about it right now.
I DO know a bit about the history of slavery, and its modern-day impacts are quite obvious, although how they manifest themselves are arguable. However, a lot of time has passed since slavery was abolished, and there have been recessions and booms in the economy. People have gone broke and become insanely wealthy. Almost all had to work fucking hard for it. It wasn't given to them because they were white.
If you want to succeed, you can. It has nothing to do with the color of your skin. If you work hard enough at something you are skilled in, you will become successful. Yes, there is racism. It is not as widespread as some would have you think, however. I live in West Virginia. Well-known to ignorant fucks as a very racist place. It isn't. And the people who are? Yup, they're poor and blame it on black people (no idea where that conclusion comes from, they can't really handle much thought before passing out). They also work on family farms, fix cars, and certainly aren't in hiring positions. So what does it matter? Ignore them as long as they don't directly affect you, and they don't. I ignore all the fucking skinny people who make fun of me for being fat. It's a trait. As is having different skin.
> Why should an anti-racists walk on eggshells because some racist prick is going to cry foul?
They shouldn't. They also shouldn't shout from all corners about how hard life is. Get over yourself, life is fucking hard for almost everyone.
> The racist elements [...] are going to fight tooth and nail to hold on to the gains they have received from exploiting other people.
And those gains would be? Oh, you can't pick one because it is baseless B.S. What is there to gain by keeping certain people poor? Other than the obvious "poor-people-vote-Democrat-which-we-don't-want," reaction, which is uncertain at best. I'm white (duh). What have I gained by holding you back? I haven't, so don't blame me for the bad attitudes of a very few, who in most cases, are not in any position to affect your life in any meaningful way.
> It's up to you to understand the issues and not just side line them because you don't think they effect you.
No, it's not. It's up to you to understand that most people have enough issues of their own to deal with before worrying that you're pissed off. You have every right to be pissed off, but you have NO right to tell me who I am, what I know, what affects me.
> doesn't even know what an integration means, she's the asshole
No, no... It means she's stupid, there's a big difference. If she was an asshole, she would still jump all over him, but she'd scream and scream, giving no chance for reply, make a bunch of shit up for the school admins, call the ACLU, all before talking to the person.
> her reaction simply means that she feels passionately about the issue. Hopefully you will agree that that isn't a bad thing.
No, That is a very bad thing. If she's so sensitive, she didn't seem to worry about the sensitivity of BigBlockMopar (although I'm sure he can handle an insult or two if necessary).
> What bugs me is the assumption that she is worthy of ridicule for not knowing calculus terms
It's not about Calculus. What is worthy of ridicule is her jumping into a conversation she has no part in, and assuming the context is of bad intent. That is pretty arrogant, unlike retaliating in kind, which was BBM's response. So he was perfectly justified for pointing out that she's a stupid bitch.
> it's perfectly okay for YOU not to know much about HER major.
Yes, it is. It's perfectly OK for her to not know anything about his major. If he would have misheard or misunderstood something in HER conversation and jumped on her about it, then yes, he'd be a major asshole (not that he isn't now; I can't say, since I've never met him - not my problem anyway). BUT he didn't.
> invited here for cup of coffee to have a "deep" conversation about integration and how multicultural I am.
If you really want to date a girl, (who isn't in CIS or Math) you don't invite her HERE./. is the last way to impress a chick. Good idea, though, re: coffee and a *ahem* DEEP *mmm* conversation.
> but it's basically because they just felt like it today
Okay, here's what you do: Get a tin cup, stand on the carner and beg for menoy until you can afford a clue. People don't get fired "because they just felt like it." Usually the company needs to cut costs or something. Those "plausible reasons" are plausible because they are THE reasons, usually. Other times a person may be fired because he's not a "team player," which is lingo for "Your manager doesn't like you and needs a reason to get rid of you.
Maybe there is too much staff, due to nepotism & stupid hires. Too much staff, so fire the ones that you didn't hire (because if you fire someone YOU hired, it might be insinuated that you made a mistake in hiring, which is impossible). That's what happened to me. I don't agree with it, but that does not mean there was no reason.
> > PHBs are way more into following trends in their own field than in actually noticing what are the needs of employees > I think this phenomena is common enough that it should have a name.
Substitute "customers" for "employees" and it's called "The Nineties."
> At some point in the distant future, perhaps we won't need to run phone wire everywhere in the office?
I spoke with some Cisco reps recently about IP phones. They also had wireless IP phones, which worked pretty darn well. So to answer your question, no, we won't. You don't have to now.
Slashdot Mirror
> After all, what would we be saving ourselves from, but intelligence?
We would be saving ourselves unnecessary amounts of repetition. I'm not suggesting we abandon Algebra, as up to that level, there are very important things to learn. Things that do not apply to real life, however, do not offer anything to those not going into a field that uses the subject.
As for developing cognitive abilities and said undefined skills, of course. But if you know that, you should also know that new "cognitive abilities" generally do not show up after a certain age (12-15 or so), so your argument falls flat -- I'm not talking about grade school, or even middle school/junior high. I'm starting this around high-school, where they teach the same things over. Many in HS have an idea where they are headed, and they should be allowed to do that. Unfortunately, there is almost 0 specialization in HS, requiring the students to either learn on their own or work doubly hard in college to catch up to those who did.
Yes, most anyone can teach themselves, but most of those same people would not have access to any necessary science materials at home, and some would have no access to a PC (the Internet PC at the library is NOT an option for this).
Saying everyone needs to know advanced math is like saying everyone needs to know how to milk a cow. It'll strengthen your arms and milk is necessary! We have progressed as a civilization because we have people who know how to milk cattle (or can build machines, etc) so that we don't have to. We have people who know how to do very specific tasks so that the rest of us don't have to worry about that task and we can move on to conquer the next layer of specialization.
Society cannot progress comfortably while everyone is expected to be an expert at everything. How did you ever get your PC together without a deep-seated knowledge of the inner workings of a transistor, or electron even. Because someone ELSE learned that and figured out how to make it so that you DON'T have to know what he knows while still seeing the rewards of his research.
> spam the sky with signals to all the stars! Whats the harm or problem with doing that?
Power. As an AC said, it's a big-ass sky. Once you get a very short distance away from Earth, I think a radio signal has to be pretty focused to be received, or if not focused, very powerful. To send a signal 100 light years in 360x360 degrees would take immense amounts of power.
> with fewer students, they get less one-on-one time with the teacher
Of course, I misspoke -- I meant "The argument goes, as I see it, that with more students, they get less one-on-one time with the teacher"
> Does a 10th grade kid who types in a formula in Mathematica or Mathlab, and then punches on the derivative button, have any clue as to what he or she just did?
When a secretary pushes "send," does she have the slightest thread of a clue what just happened? No, she usually does not, she just experts the end result to get the attention of someone and give them information. She uses EMail to pass messages because it is more convenient than the phone, pager, whatever. That's what progress is all about -- making things simpler so that we don't HAVE to know how it works.
Basic math skills are necessary to function productively, but the reason we have calculators and such is so that we don't HAVE to memorize all kinds of crap that's already been figured out.
I don't understand the double-standard of progress & education. Progress gives us tools to make our lives easier, so we can move on to things that aren't as simple. Then education systems come in, force people to learn things that they will never use or they could use a calculator/computer for and move on to things that actually matter.
There will always be scientists and mathematicians to learn this stuff and apply it to regular life. They are there so that we don't have to know what an integral is, or differentials, or limits. They apply this "complicated" knowledge to our lives and they are the ones who need it, but not me, and certainly not a 10-year old who thinks having an MBA would kick ass.
> Calculus is not hard to grasp
Yeah, if you have a 135 IQ maybe, but some of us mere mortals don't have the brains to figure out abstract mathematical concepts that have no observable uses. As much as you might like to think otherwise, Calculus is hard to grasp for some (many, possibly most) people. I'm not exceptionally stupid, but I aced every math class up till Calculus and then I failed it twice. It was one of the most worthless classes I ever took (3x) and has in no way helped me in life. It is ridiculous to make it a core requirement.
> Better teachers and smaller classes will do a better job in my view.
Can't argue "better teachers," that's a given, but I don't think that smaller classes are necessarily better. I don't see any valid reason that it would be, except the mystical student-teacher ratio, which I don't really believe makes that much difference anyway.
The argument goes, as I see it, that with fewer students, they get less one-on-one time with the teacher. Since kids always have to rush off to their next class, though, they don't have time to talk to the teacher 1-to-1 after. In addition, in a class of 5 (that would be a terrible idea, BTW), if one of them was confused, I would think he'd be LESS likely to speak out, as he would feel like the "dumb one" of five, instead of one of the "dumber" ones out of a hundred. Plus, with 100 people pondering the same data, it's more likely that someone shares your confusion and may speak up and ask (assuming you don't like speaking up in class, like me).
Also, if classes are taught in large groups, the student is more likely to find some people he relates to, and can study with. With the core classes (history, basic science, etc) taught in large groups, they can be covered easier and there are more periods available to teach more specialized classes instead of teaching the same class 10 times in a day, which is wasting time unnecessarily.
With 100 students giving back reviews on one specific teacher & course & period, the administrators can get a better feel for how the teacher is doing: %50 of 6 people isn't a very accurate statistic, but if %50 of 100 students have a problem, you can guess it's the teacher's fault and action needs to be taken.
> If they're on the opposite direction
I don't know much about orbits & stuff, but can two things orbit in different directions around the planet? Or do they have to follow the rotation of Earth?
> grab a calculator and prey to the cos() or sin() functions.
Yup, those functions ate a lot of my time (hint: it's "pray")
> This also has been confirmed by specialists from RosAviaKosmos (the company that built IIS =)
As someone else pounted out, Microsoft built IIS. RAK built the ISS, thankfully.
> Does (UTC == GMT) resolve to true or false?
:)
Don't be so closed-minded about time: The answer is both!
Half the year it is the same, half it is different. Think of it like Daylight Savings Time.
> I thought it was just sexist, xenophobic ranting.
AKA, Troll. Yes, it was.
> how does one pronounce "kucinich"?
Koo - sinn - itch
> Getting back to the IDE "master/slave" thing I am mainly just a little shocked at the level disregard I see coming from this community. It is a testiment to the amount of work that still needs to be done on the front of racism.
I have little problem with most of your statements, although I disagree with some of them. But this is absolutely ridiculous. We disregard this because it is stupid. As many others have stated, slave != black. AT ALL. OUR history of slavery is about black people, but the word itself has no race attached. What our disregard is a testament to is that we are interested in using proper/most appropriate terminology. When I think of my slave drive, I don't think of slave trade. Nor should I, because that is not what it's about.
This has zero to do with racism, and only a few think that it does. You seem like a relatively level-headed individual, but it is asinine to call me racist just because I use a certain word (other than 'n*****' of course, which has no current usage other than racist).
I'm not a bad person or even slightly racist because I don't cave to "Political Correctness."
> recognise that countries problems and at least not directly argue against their resolution.
:).
> Governmental racism ended [...] well within the current generations "window if impact" so to speak
These, I mostly agree with. The first, obviously, but the question in this case is "How do we recognize these problems?" Are we truly seeing the problem or is it just the symptoms? Really, no one can answer that, but I probably don't know enough about socioeconomics to make an argument that will hold up (nor am I any good at debating -- that's why I swear
As for government racism, yes, I conveniently (intentionally) overlooked that even though I knew it was a pretty easy counter. I hold the belief (without much good reason) that after another generation or two, everyone around during segregation will be dead. At that point, the "blind racism" should disappear much quicker, although there will probably be remnants for another century, since some people (family lines) simply choose to be jerks/idiots.
Unfortunately (hehe), we have freedom in this country, and they are free to be ignorant if they want to. Not much you can do about it, but telling them they can't think a certain way is analogous to telling them they can't sing a certain way.
> I'm a little disturb at how willing people are to totaly fly of the handle
I think that's because it IS a heated issue and most expect the other to fly off the handle. They can "beat them to the punch" and start off that way. Admitting my faults is one of my strong suits, so I will admit that I fell victim to this as well.
> Kind Regards
I apologize for being a jerk by putting words into your post that were not there, it is very nice to say things like that regularly.
> they'd be rolling on the floor laughing so hard
...they'd be choking on their laughter. It's Vader's newest form of evil suffocation.
> How about the Snoop Doggy Dog version:
I can't believe no one has replied to this. That's a GREAT idea! Your slave cylinder would become your "Break Ho" and the master cylinder, the "Pimp Pump."
Unfortunately for I.T., with terms like that, RAID wouldn't be quite so loved.
> > Isn't it a bit egotistical to assume that "slave" must refer to a black person?
> It does'nt.
Correct. But in stating that, why do you have to continue with:
> American history is'nt going to change and the people living in the american present are connected to that past
That information (however true or untrue it may be) is not necessary to the topic. The topic has NOTHING to do with race or even the concept of slavery. It's descriptive and very accurate. That's why it was used.
> Unless of course the slaves rise up, kill the master take his horses and flee
> It's not a good analogy unless you deny the humanity, wills and desires of the slave
Again, has no bearing, as we are talking about inanimate objects that cannot flee, nor are they "oppressed." You are inserting frivolous emotion into a debate where it does not apply. You are trying to play up emotions and angers to force people to agree with you because, IYHO, anyone who disagrees is a racist. Of course, as per your other post, any White American is a racist, so the point is moot I suppose. A slave drive has no humanity, it is not human. A slave cylinder has no wills, it is not intelligent. A slave processor has no desires, it is not alive. So Yes, IT IS A GOOD ANALOGY. Man, you're arguing with someone on your OWN SIDE (generically) -- it makes my job a lot easier.
> Don't you think it is odd that the term "master/slave" is so accepted
No, it is not odd, it is a word. It is a descriptive word. A word, when crossing boundaries of use, does not carry connotations with it unless someone specifically makes it, such as yourself (how dare you oppress that poor word?). It doesn't matter if the word is "slave" or "blargargle," its meaning is its meaning.
Should we outlaw the use of the word "gun" because some people (a lot, really) know others who were killed by one? Changing the word does not change the problem. Should we call it a "Subservient cylinder?" That's what it is, in a manner, changing the name does not change the task it performs.
> the populace of a country that benefitted from slavery more than any other in the modern era
Total benefit, sure. You seem to insinuate, however, that the U.S. would be much further behind if we had not had slaves from the start. Of course, that means that you might have been born in Africa under much worse conditions. That is not the point. The U.S. probably would have gone further FORWARD if it had not happened, as we would have a large number of more intelligent people longer ago. So how can you claim that we have somehow gained from it? I'm not going to be a COMPLETE asshole and suggest that no one has gained, as that would be a lie. But just because a few individuals gained, it does not mean that the country as a whole (or your more ignorant assertion of white people in general) has gained a single thing.
> Don;t you think that maybe the angst against the use of this term is actually part of a larger cultural movement that maybe you would do well to research?
No.
Angst against a word is futile and misdirected. Get denied for a job because of skin color (not just claim it, have proof)? Fuck 'em up -- sue them for everything you can get. I'm all for it. But don't tell me I'm a bastard because I'm not handing out money left & right. I have barely enough for my right hand.
> What's so offensive about cylinders
My initial thought as well, but they don't mean piston cylinders. Your brakes have (a) master/slave cylinder(s), as Glonoinha pointed out..
I had the same confused look as you.
> It's just that your head is in the sand, which is the most comfortable place for white people in America to keep them
Get your head out of your ass. I'm not going to be as nice as others on this one, since you seem to either take this personally or are being intentionally obtuse. I know perfectly well that slavery is brutal, unfair (couldn't think of a more powerful word), and detestable, to soy the absolute least. I know that it held back the black population about a century, which is pretty considerable in a country only around for a few hundred years.
No, I don't really do anything actively about it. I'll make sure any stupid redneck using the 'N' word as an insult knows what an ignorant fuck he is, but that's about it.
My head is not in the sand. My head is firmly on my shoulders. I don't have money to donate to the NAACP, I have no influence in hiring. What the fuck do you expect me to do? Find some random black guy who looks poor and give him all my money? It would seem that you are pretty comfortable with your head in your ass.
I had no part in U.S. (or colonial U.S.) slavery, nor did a single one of my ancestors. Why should I feel responsible about it then? I'm not going to ignorantly deny that it happened, it did. Sorry for the luck of any of your ancestors who may have been sold by his own people into slavery, or even the very few who may have been "ripped from his land." Still doesn't mean I care in any measurable way about it right now.
I DO know a bit about the history of slavery, and its modern-day impacts are quite obvious, although how they manifest themselves are arguable. However, a lot of time has passed since slavery was abolished, and there have been recessions and booms in the economy. People have gone broke and become insanely wealthy. Almost all had to work fucking hard for it. It wasn't given to them because they were white.
If you want to succeed, you can. It has nothing to do with the color of your skin. If you work hard enough at something you are skilled in, you will become successful. Yes, there is racism. It is not as widespread as some would have you think, however. I live in West Virginia. Well-known to ignorant fucks as a very racist place. It isn't. And the people who are? Yup, they're poor and blame it on black people (no idea where that conclusion comes from, they can't really handle much thought before passing out). They also work on family farms, fix cars, and certainly aren't in hiring positions. So what does it matter? Ignore them as long as they don't directly affect you, and they don't. I ignore all the fucking skinny people who make fun of me for being fat. It's a trait. As is having different skin.
> Why should an anti-racists walk on eggshells because some racist prick is going to cry foul?
They shouldn't. They also shouldn't shout from all corners about how hard life is. Get over yourself, life is fucking hard for almost everyone.
> The racist elements [...] are going to fight tooth and nail to hold on to the gains they have received from exploiting other people.
And those gains would be? Oh, you can't pick one because it is baseless B.S. What is there to gain by keeping certain people poor? Other than the obvious "poor-people-vote-Democrat-which-we-don't-want," reaction, which is uncertain at best. I'm white (duh). What have I gained by holding you back? I haven't, so don't blame me for the bad attitudes of a very few, who in most cases, are not in any position to affect your life in any meaningful way.
> It's up to you to understand the issues and not just side line them because you don't think they effect you.
No, it's not. It's up to you to understand that most people have enough issues of their own to deal with before worrying that you're pissed off. You have every right to be pissed off, but you have NO right to tell me who I am, what I know, what affects me.
> You may not concider your self a racist, bu
> doesn't even know what an integration means, she's the asshole
No, no... It means she's stupid, there's a big difference. If she was an asshole, she would still jump all over him, but she'd scream and scream, giving no chance for reply, make a bunch of shit up for the school admins, call the ACLU, all before talking to the person.
> modern (BLEACH!) art?
What is bleach art? Wouldn't everything just come out as a Polar Bear in a blizzard on a white canvas?
> her reaction simply means that she feels passionately about the issue. Hopefully you will agree that that isn't a bad thing.
No, That is a very bad thing. If she's so sensitive, she didn't seem to worry about the sensitivity of BigBlockMopar (although I'm sure he can handle an insult or two if necessary).
> What bugs me is the assumption that she is worthy of ridicule for not knowing calculus terms
It's not about Calculus. What is worthy of ridicule is her jumping into a conversation she has no part in, and assuming the context is of bad intent. That is pretty arrogant, unlike retaliating in kind, which was BBM's response. So he was perfectly justified for pointing out that she's a stupid bitch.
> it's perfectly okay for YOU not to know much about HER major.
Yes, it is. It's perfectly OK for her to not know anything about his major. If he would have misheard or misunderstood something in HER conversation and jumped on her about it, then yes, he'd be a major asshole (not that he isn't now; I can't say, since I've never met him - not my problem anyway). BUT he didn't.
> invited here for cup of coffee to have a "deep" conversation about integration and how multicultural I am.
/. is the last way to impress a chick. Good idea, though, re: coffee and a *ahem* DEEP *mmm* conversation.
If you really want to date a girl, (who isn't in CIS or Math) you don't invite her HERE.
> but it's basically because they just felt like it today
Okay, here's what you do: Get a tin cup, stand on the carner and beg for menoy until you can afford a clue. People don't get fired "because they just felt like it." Usually the company needs to cut costs or something. Those "plausible reasons" are plausible because they are THE reasons, usually. Other times a person may be fired because he's not a "team player," which is lingo for "Your manager doesn't like you and needs a reason to get rid of you.
Maybe there is too much staff, due to nepotism & stupid hires. Too much staff, so fire the ones that you didn't hire (because if you fire someone YOU hired, it might be insinuated that you made a mistake in hiring, which is impossible). That's what happened to me. I don't agree with it, but that does not mean there was no reason.
> > PHBs are way more into following trends in their own field than in actually noticing what are the needs of employees
> I think this phenomena is common enough that it should have a name.
Substitute "customers" for "employees" and it's called "The Nineties."
> At some point in the distant future, perhaps we won't need to run phone wire everywhere in the office?
I spoke with some Cisco reps recently about IP phones. They also had wireless IP phones, which worked pretty darn well. So to answer your question, no, we won't. You don't have to now.