What kind of plan you must be on to worry about one minute? I have the minimal AT&T plan - 120 minutes any time + some hundreds of minutes in evenings/weekends, and I seldom use more than 1/4 of those minutes; rollover alone will allow me to talk for days, I think:-) I lose more rollover minutes every month than I could have possibly wasted on voicemail. My situation is not universal, but I think it's fairly common. Maybe you use not 25% of your airtime as I do but 90% - it still doesn't matter. And if you usually get closer to 100% then you are on a wrong plan.
My point is that you should never be charged per minute - unless you don't have a prepaid plan at all (such as if you buy a SIM card with minutes on it, or something.) I guess there are people who go over the limit (or pay for all their airtime) but not that many... and if phone companies intentionally keep verbose voicemail instructions all they get in return is that instead of 20% of my prepaid airtime I use 22%, loading the network more for the same money, with overall loss to AT&T. Only the heaviest users would be inclined to upgrade the plan or pay for overtime; the majority will just waste network resources for free. Even the heavy users who upgrade their plans may end up paying less overall. So where is the benefit to the phone company?
Can you block the transmission of higher sideband frequencies by using a properly tuned crystal or one that can't possibly oscillate at those higher sideband frequencies?
Harmonics are caused by nonlinearities in the oscillator and the amplifier; they are not "oscillations" as such, but components of the spectrum formed by imperfections in transistors (or even vacuum tubes.) Harmonics can be greatly reduced in a single-frequency system by just using an LC filter (several configurations exist) and that also helps with antenna matching. Wideband systems require low-pass filters, and that is less efficient. I think a wireless microphone or a guitar would use just a single FM channel with undetectably low power. The ERP at 900 MHz could be about 1 mW (say, 0 dBm,) and the second harmonic could be *easily* suppressed down to 1 microwatt (-30 dBm). Typically RF equipment suppresses harmonics by 40 or 50 dB. Elecraft K3, for example, guarantees at least 50 dB suppression of harmonics - and that with several bands that are not that narrow.
And rightly so. Capitalism is just one of several known forms of economy, and they are pretty much all bad. The difference is minor; in capitalism you can be richer or poorer; in socialism you can be just as poor as any of your neighbors. Neither of them offers an advantage on average, even if we agree on how to measure the said advantage. Both capitalism and socialism exhibited positive and negative surges, and both have decayed into uselessness by now. Small businesses are near death, and in many markets they are dead for many years, obsoleted by box stores of Safeway and Wal-Mart kind. You just can't compete on prices with Wal-Mart. Cleaners still hang around, and burrito places, and noodle shops, but they are irrelevant to the economy; they are not in stock market indexes.
There is no democracy anywhere on the planet; what you have is just varying means to pacify the populace, complete with elections of prearranged candidates (a.k.a. sock puppets.) Countries were, and still are, ruled by the elite that does not represent anyone but themselves. Premiers and Presidents are simply their helmsmen - and you never see the captain. But indirectly you can use the golden rule to figure out who commands the ship.
Capitalism's acceptance of human greed is more honest, compared to socialism. However socialism's resistance to human greed is a better goal. Remember a ST:TNG episode where Enterprise rescued some frozen elite from capitalist past - how horrible their attitude was, how much out of place in a nearly communist society of ST they were? Humans themselves are the problem, and rearrangement of chairs on the deck of Titanic won't help. Many a philosopher posed this question, and the answers that we know (such as coming from Marx and Lenin) are not particularly helpful. Eventually, though, chances are that the people will have to change themselves or die. IMO the latter option is far more likely because human behavior, aggressive and always seeking dominance, is encoded in genes. And of course most aggressive humans climb to the top, to rule over the rest. I'm not impressed by any of that either; I'd much prefer to live in a nearly-static society where sentient beings have no aggression, mild curiosity, and no desire for power over others. Unfortunately whenever a SciFi writer depicts such a society, in the very next chapter it is all wiped out by a trigger-happy platoon of Klingon types or sold into slavery by greedy Ferengi types. Sad.
Re:Postal addresses identify houses!I
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
(1) You say when you drive 65, people pass you on "both sides". That indicates to me you're in the center lane, where you don't belong. You're only supposed to drive on the right lane unless passing.
Not exactly. Cars to the right of me are exiting the freeway. For example, this road is wide, from 4 to 6 lanes in each direction, and the rightmost lane is constantly merging and branching off. It is not a good place to be unless you are exiting; it is often wiser to leave it free for other people to merge. Also from defensive driving POV you are more constrained at the edges. Large trucks are also required to stay in that lane and drive 55 mph. There are plenty of lanes to the left of me, at least two or three. For example, here the right westbound lane simply ends and there is no good reason to be there unless you were exiting onto 880.
As you can see in that picture, only the leftmost lane is seen as reserved for passing (and the HOV lane when there is one.) Other lanes, from center and all the way to the right, are fair game - especially considering that on this particular stretch of 280 you need to choose the lane strategically, depending on where you want to go, or else you may be forced to change lane in the last moment (and those who are unfamiliar with the road have to do that.) In the photo you can see that the lane pointed by the arrow (there is some kind of a truck) is the only one that goes straight and requires no lane change. So there is a good reason to be in it if you intend to go forward for a couple of miles and then exit. As matter of fact, I will stay in this lane for half a mile, skip a merge point from 880 North (pan to the West a bit, the merge area is short, the city is planning to redo it - merging cars will thank you for not taking the rightmost lane there) and then move into the rightmost lane that is not exiting immediately. As I said, patterns of efficiency emerge after you travel on the same road a few thousand times. Police will not bother you for choosing one of center-right lanes for a long distance trip. Just don't stay in the leftmost non-HOV lane for long. In rush hour all lanes are equally full, BTW, and equally not moving.
I would love to see the ridiculous 65mph limit in empty regions of Indiana or Ohio raised to 75, due to the time saved.
I won't argue against higher speed limits outside of cities. But where I live cars exit and enter the road every half a mile. Many weaker cars (or trucks) can't gain enough speed on short ramps, and many ramps are curved so you can't start accelerating in advance. Merging with a large speed difference is unpleasant.
Re:Postal addresses identify houses!I
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
So if the limit's 65mph and millions of people get ticketed, change the law to 70mph.
I take roads where the limit is 65 mph and I don't see it as too slow; in fact I am often very comfortable at 55 or 60 mph if that's the traffic speed. It only makes my trip longer by a couple of minutes while I enjoy the scenery. The problem starts when everyone drives 70 or 75. What do you do then? If you drive 65, as I attempt now and then in hope of doing the right thing, then everyone starts dangerously passing you on both sides and changing lanes 1/2" in front of you or behind you. In some places it is simply illegal to drive much slower than the traffic, and I agree. However if I accelerate to the traffic speed then I become a lawbreaker, and police can randomly pick me (or someone else) and write a ticket. I do see police now and then, parked and aiming radars at the traffic.
So the problem here is that you have no safe and legal way to drive. The best solution would be to seriously enforce the speed limit, except when higher speed is warranted (like when you go by some eighteen-wheeler - you don't want to linger alongside.) If you can't do that, drop the speed limit completely. As it is now, everyone who chooses safety is a criminal, and selective enforcement of the law feels (and is) unjust. The law must be either universally applied, or not applied at all. Imagine what would be if only 1% of murders would be even recorded, and even fewer investigated? Today every murderer knows that his crime *will* be noticed and there is a good chance that he will be found. Similarly, if you want to stop speeding make sure all speeders are ticketed. Then drivers who want to drive the legal speed will be able to do so. You need to create a culture where speeding is seen as an antisocial activity, something that most people voluntarily reject. Right now we are far from that Utopia, though - people seem to believe that saving of 30 seconds over a 1-hour trip is worth near killing a few innocents or risking a ticket. I don't want to play that game.
If you choose the universal enforcement you also need to change the system of punishments. Right now a speeding ticket is a serious offense, but they are issued to 0.001% of speeders. So many believe that the risk is minimal. If you, for example, install cameras that watch every car on the road, calculate their speed and determine who speeds and who doesn't then you need to apply some liberal algorithm. You should allow temporary speed increases, for example, and if a speeding threshold is reached then the ticket will be a fine and not a life-changing event. Habitual speeders will be hit with huge repeated fines, and maybe points on the license for major speeding (100 mph in 65 zone) whereas an occasional speeder who did 70 for a couple of minutes will get a $10 bill and will be able to learn from that experience without any points on his driver's license. This of course requires total surveillance, but if you want to enforce the law you need to watch every car. The alternatives are worse (except abandoning the speed limit.)
I also didn't have a car when I was a student - because I could not afford anything beyond a bicycle. I was able to buy a small car only several years after graduation.
usually two or three of us would walk by the grocery store
Maybe you are talking about US custom where students live together in a university-provided dormitory, but when I attended a university I was comfortably living at home (30 min. by electric train.) When I had to go to a store I carried bags in my hands, and I had no helpers. It would be beyond ridiculous to use a baby stroller:-) I remember the day when I bought a washing machine, it had some small wheels underneath, and I was pushing it all the way home, almost a mile:-) The wheels were made well, they didn't wear at all.
I could be willing to sign up just to be able to have access to a truck for a few hours per month, if that often even. But the nearest city that has Zipcars is San Francisco, a good distance away from where I live.
I checked, and Enterprise offers a pickup truck for $69 per day, firm price. Zipcar, were it available, asks "from" $69 (who knows what the final price is,) and you pay yearly fee and sign-up fee. All in all, I'd say Zipcar is nevertheless competitively priced, but it doesn't seem to be any cheaper and doesn't appear to have much of an advantage over your typical car rental place. Zipcar's own price comparison has to use a contrived $25 surcharge (for being in 21-25 age - not something that I need to think about) otherwise they lose.
From what I read on their Web site, they have only one important feature that a classical rental place doesn't have: they offer hourly rentals. If you don't have a car (or your car is of wrong type for the job) and need one then Zipcar would be a good option: hourly rent of a truck for a couple of hours will cost me probably less than a daily rent. Unfortunately Zipcar is tight-lipped about their real prices on specific cars, they only advertise "from" $9.25/hr and that is probably the cheapest car they have.
Depends on distance; but I mentioned it only because gas is the only thing you need to buy for your existing car instead of bus fare. If you own a car you have to pay all the other costs anyway, and IMO it's hard to not own a car.
With regard to the shopping cart - fine, as long as you live near all stores that you typically visit. I personally don't - the nearest Safeway is about 3 miles away horizontally and about 1,300 feet vertically. Car sharing? Also fine, if you like it. To me, asking permission to go somewhere is not something I'd enjoy.
You have to consider not having any of the costs for the car you no longer own into your affordability calculation.
While you may use public transit for most of your trips, try to go grocery shopping with nothing but your hands. Or buy some bulky package, say a few bags of potting soil at Home Depot. You can't get them home without a car. This means that you do 90% of your travel on public transit *and* you still need to own a car. Since public transit costs more than gas on most trips, you will be losing money and at the same time inconveniencing yourself. There are limited cases when you want to take public transit even if you have a car; for example you can park in Fremont and take BART to SF. But in most cases (about 10-20 miles one way) a car will be more practical.
I own a home and a car, and people keep telling me that I must also go and buy a truck because of physically large cargo that I need to get to and from home occasionally, like wood or pipes, or even an office chair. So far I resist because I dislike trucks in general and I don't want to spend money on something I rarely need. But when I do need it I have to ask other people or go through the trouble of renting a truck for a few hours.
There are definitely people who don't buy anything, don't own a home, and don't have a family. For them public transit may be fine. BTW, there are several names for those people - "students" or "homeless":-)
almost anyone who solders gets burned at least slightly with any major project.
I don't know if two PCBs with about 100 SMD parts on each are to be considered a major project, but I finished it today and haven't burned myself, not even once. The secret is simple - use tweezers. It also helps that parts are so small (even 1206) that you can't handle them otherwise.
But even when I worked with through-hole parts (K2 with all options) burning yourself is a sign of bad practice. You do not need to hold a resistor from the component side of the board (and resistors are probably the most thermally conductive components in an average design.)
And now to contribute something to the original question. I think it is terribly wr0ng to ban microcontrollers. An inexpensive chip (Atmel 8515, for example, in a DIP package) requires only power (3.3-5V) to start running. And that chip, though old by now, is *packed* with all kinds of complex hardware blocks which are all available to students. Using an MCU you minimize time wasted on soldering and maximize time wisely spent on understanding how things work. That includes analog principles if you want them, since the IC has several analog blocks (ADC, comparator, timer pins etc.) in addition to powerful digital blocks (like timers, UARTs, SPI, TWI/I2C etc.) Note that TWI requires no parts (other than wires) to connect a large number of devices together.
Most of modern electronic design is digital anyway. Those who work with analog modules have good (university) education that allows them to fully understand principles behind even a simple RC circuit. Even linear circuits will be black magic to students without proper math background. Sure, you can tell them to do this and that and the LED will blink; but will they be happy with such a canned solution, without understanding the processes that make it tick?
But with a MCU students can work at their level of competence. Digital circuits are easy to build and easy to debug. On top of that the same MCU can be programmed to do many tasks, thus making it possible to give not one assignment but many. For example, one team digitizes an analog signal and sends it over I2C, and another team receives it and restores the original analog waveform using PWM. And suddenly they understand how their cell phones work!
buy/build a strong boat and drift aimlessly around the oceans
And call yourself Captain Nemo. Otherwise you are probably offering the best solution. This civilization is not likely to homestead oceans for a long time.
It all depends on how bad things become here. Exploration of new territories is often done by people who can't take it any more at their original homeland.
I'd rather have him meet one of my more violent female friends...
Thanks, but hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'd rather be doing something safer - like sign up for the roadside bomb squad in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Your assumption that I'm female just shows how much of an ass you really are.
How could I assume if you already told me that you are a man? Quote: "I don't know about you, but I think of women as other human beings with feelings and such". I simply used the dual meaning of the word "you" to create a funny but polite response. Everything else in that sentence is collateral damage:-)
It's possible for men to be empathetic to feminist ideology
I got that already, thanks!:-)
Your blatant acceptance and preaching of stereotypes is offensive to me as a human being.
Sorry about that. But you know, a lot of stereotypes have a grain of untruth in them.
I think you are absolutely correct, and I can only comment on this small piece:
If you're beating someone it doesn't matter if you're saying "Yes, dear"
Those are opposites. He only could choose one or the other. Avoiding the fight - and filing for divorce - would have kept him out of jail. To avoid the fight he had to break himself and agree to something that his wife wanted and he didn't. He could not do that (I guess.) But what do I know about him and his wife, after all? Best to stop speculating.
It's true. Note that I don't judge this logic inferior or superior, but it's different. Not my kind of math.
Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes?
It's true. Women like clothes, men like fast cars. Is it news to anyone?
Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn.
One of my friends has this very problem, and it's his opinion (he is married.)
There will be of course need to get "many" children
That's a very common desire of most women, as far as I know. Does that surprise you?
(as if you need any)
Men not always desire children, especially before the marriage is final. News?
Are all just dripping with misogyny and stereotypical sexism?
Only if these statements are untrue.
a man may need a woman occasionally
Fact of life, whether you like it or not. Married men satisfy this need with their permanent woman (a.k.a. wife.) Unmarried men may do so with a temporary woman (a hooker) or just skip the whole routine (catholic priests, for example.)
If you wish you can create the same list from a woman's POV. In that list men would be overly aggressive, insensitive, they'd want to buy Harleys, they'd be drinking too much, they may not earn enough to sustain a family... but a woman needs a man, occasionally, and one can be always found if so desired.
So there are two sexes, and they are different. Each gender has its own list of "deficiencies" (or just differences, to keep it polite.) That's all.
Guess what: Y chromosomes don't make you more logical or fiscally responsible, ass.
But they would make you a bit more polite. Here you are, an example of a difference that I like very much!
His mistake was not saying "Yes, dear"? It had nothing to do with choosing a promiscuous russian bride, then butchering her. That's one twisted reality you live in.
I can't know all the details, of course. However if he was unhappy he should have divorced her. Instead *she* divorced him (or filed for divorce, since it wasn't finalized) and the reasons were "that their children "hardly know their father" because he was out of the country on business for most of the year" (link.) The available evidence shows that Hans was not a particularly good husband, and there were accusations of violence prior to the murder. So I think Hans was really short on concilatory statements, and that contributed to the failure of his marriage. I can't say if any flaws of the bride's character had anything to do with it, and I have no clue which is the cause and which is the effect. If a wife is not cared for she will naturally look elsewhere.
Do I need to spell out that an average woman is more different from an average man than an average man? Hint: the former is >= 0, the latter is == 0. Or maybe you are arguing that a woman is identical to a man in every aspect, making the system of equations above irrelevant?
[...] they are full of stereotypes that don't hold water, I'm married 7+ years now, relationships for geeks are just like any other relationship, "GIVE AND TAKE" you will win some arguments you will lose some, sometimes you'll be right sometimes you'll be wrong, sometimes you'll have to do "FAMILY" things, sometimes you'll have to do "GIRLY" things (read chick flicks, girl shopping).
That's exactly what I said: your_interests != her_interests. You will lose your independence; you will have to do "family" and "girly" things (like that dancing that was discussed in the thread - why would a sane male geek want to dance?) You only confirm my general statement.
that means spending time with them doing what they want, remember they chose to be with you because they wanted to "be WITH you" not just spend time with you when it's convenient to "YOU".
Not arguable either - you now have to do what some other people want you to do. You are correct.
and take it from me, you will "fight" it's inevitable people living together tend to get in each others way
You have a weird way of contradicting my statements with exactly the same statements:-) Maybe you are replying to a wrong comment? As I said, quarrels are inevitable, some are nasty, some end up deadly. Statistically speaking, spouses kill each other all the time, and police has a standard procedure to suspect husband or wife first. A few recent cases, aside from Reiser's, only prove that. The reason for such a concentration of hate is, I think, because spouses are locked into a legal relationship that they can not easily dissolve (children, money, property, laws, etc.) If you hate a hooker you will not come to her again. If you hate your wife... it's just too bad, she owns half of your wealth, and in case of divorce she will retain children and take the rest of your money as child support. [Note: this is not specific to women, men do that to women too, and in fact one of my friends just had a similar case - she got into a divorce and lost *everything*.]
However you find your mate, be prepared to work at it a little each day each week each month each year, you don't just get a partner and be happy, you work at it, you accept some loses and you don't "rub it in" when you win. [...] I married a "Mexican Irish" girl, Red hair and a stubborn temper of 2 countries.
I can only hope that your gain justifies all that pain.
I'd rather not accept/admit my faults [...] Instead, I'll try to see it from her perspective and try to verbalize that
If this works for you and your gf - great. However success of this strategy depends on willingness of the other side to listen to you. It's not something that you can unilaterally adopt.
Inserting the word "real" was uncalled for, and not supported by what I wrote.
But women, and men, are different from any given person (such as the geek who asked/.) Everyone is unique. Women are more different, which is hardly surprising - they are generically programmed for their part, just as men are for theirs. My point is simple: get into a relationship and experience all these differences firsthand. If you are not ready for that (or if you value your freedom,) stay away. My opinion, of course - but that's what/. is for. If you need Absolute Truth you'd need to get some sort of personal phone line to God.
Laugh there may be, but there is also a lesson. Enter a relationship and get a barrelful of quarrels. There is only one way to exit a fight with a woman - by accepting your fault and apologizing, regardless of who really is guilty (if there is anyone, and if there is anything to fight over - neither of that is guaranteed.)
If you are a logical person (a geek usually is) then your fate is even worse; you will learn very soon that women have their own kind of logic, best illustrated by various persons in Lewis Carroll's writings. (Note - "illustrated", not "explained." The latter can't be done.)
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail. Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!" mode. If you are a weak, meek person who gladly submits to someone's else diktat, you will do well for a while, but eventually you will be dumped as useless. You will have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to adjust to the demands of the woman. One of my friends explained it as follows: "At first it's difficult, but eventually you get used to it."
Another catch: if you want to marry a woman you will, as matter of fact, "marry" her entire family. One of my friends got seriously burned by that, not paying attention to what his GF's parents are up to (religious fanatics.) He got away with large losses.
Another catch: a woman will have interests that are far away from your interests. (I presume you will not marry a geek, they are rare and many are too independent to marry anyway.) Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes? Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn. Are you OK with that? There will be of course need to get "many" children (as if you need any) and don't you say "no" to that. Are you ready for that too?
One more comment: you will find the highest density of happiest people at the court clerk's office where final divorce papers are issued. Modern family is overrated, IMO; a man today does not really need a wife; a man may need a woman occasionally, but that's a completely different deal.
I (for example) cannot stand books of Edward Elmer Smith [...]
It could also be that his books are very, very old today. His Galactic Patrol commits genocide left and right without even stopping to think. Racism is there too (most Lensmen are human, with only a token presence of other beings.) A sadistic torture scene is part of the plot. Entire planets are exterminated. Today such a book would raise a quite a few questions, but that only shows how far the society advanced. If you read other books (and other genres) from 1920-1940 you will see a similar pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
you will be charged 3 minutes instead of 2
What kind of plan you must be on to worry about one minute? I have the minimal AT&T plan - 120 minutes any time + some hundreds of minutes in evenings/weekends, and I seldom use more than 1/4 of those minutes; rollover alone will allow me to talk for days, I think :-) I lose more rollover minutes every month than I could have possibly wasted on voicemail. My situation is not universal, but I think it's fairly common. Maybe you use not 25% of your airtime as I do but 90% - it still doesn't matter. And if you usually get closer to 100% then you are on a wrong plan.
My point is that you should never be charged per minute - unless you don't have a prepaid plan at all (such as if you buy a SIM card with minutes on it, or something.) I guess there are people who go over the limit (or pay for all their airtime) but not that many... and if phone companies intentionally keep verbose voicemail instructions all they get in return is that instead of 20% of my prepaid airtime I use 22%, loading the network more for the same money, with overall loss to AT&T. Only the heaviest users would be inclined to upgrade the plan or pay for overtime; the majority will just waste network resources for free. Even the heavy users who upgrade their plans may end up paying less overall. So where is the benefit to the phone company?
Can you block the transmission of higher sideband frequencies by using a properly tuned crystal or one that can't possibly oscillate at those higher sideband frequencies?
Harmonics are caused by nonlinearities in the oscillator and the amplifier; they are not "oscillations" as such, but components of the spectrum formed by imperfections in transistors (or even vacuum tubes.) Harmonics can be greatly reduced in a single-frequency system by just using an LC filter (several configurations exist) and that also helps with antenna matching. Wideband systems require low-pass filters, and that is less efficient. I think a wireless microphone or a guitar would use just a single FM channel with undetectably low power. The ERP at 900 MHz could be about 1 mW (say, 0 dBm,) and the second harmonic could be *easily* suppressed down to 1 microwatt (-30 dBm). Typically RF equipment suppresses harmonics by 40 or 50 dB. Elecraft K3, for example, guarantees at least 50 dB suppression of harmonics - and that with several bands that are not that narrow.
I am not impressed
And rightly so. Capitalism is just one of several known forms of economy, and they are pretty much all bad. The difference is minor; in capitalism you can be richer or poorer; in socialism you can be just as poor as any of your neighbors. Neither of them offers an advantage on average, even if we agree on how to measure the said advantage. Both capitalism and socialism exhibited positive and negative surges, and both have decayed into uselessness by now. Small businesses are near death, and in many markets they are dead for many years, obsoleted by box stores of Safeway and Wal-Mart kind. You just can't compete on prices with Wal-Mart. Cleaners still hang around, and burrito places, and noodle shops, but they are irrelevant to the economy; they are not in stock market indexes.
There is no democracy anywhere on the planet; what you have is just varying means to pacify the populace, complete with elections of prearranged candidates (a.k.a. sock puppets.) Countries were, and still are, ruled by the elite that does not represent anyone but themselves. Premiers and Presidents are simply their helmsmen - and you never see the captain. But indirectly you can use the golden rule to figure out who commands the ship.
Capitalism's acceptance of human greed is more honest, compared to socialism. However socialism's resistance to human greed is a better goal. Remember a ST:TNG episode where Enterprise rescued some frozen elite from capitalist past - how horrible their attitude was, how much out of place in a nearly communist society of ST they were? Humans themselves are the problem, and rearrangement of chairs on the deck of Titanic won't help. Many a philosopher posed this question, and the answers that we know (such as coming from Marx and Lenin) are not particularly helpful. Eventually, though, chances are that the people will have to change themselves or die. IMO the latter option is far more likely because human behavior, aggressive and always seeking dominance, is encoded in genes. And of course most aggressive humans climb to the top, to rule over the rest. I'm not impressed by any of that either; I'd much prefer to live in a nearly-static society where sentient beings have no aggression, mild curiosity, and no desire for power over others. Unfortunately whenever a SciFi writer depicts such a society, in the very next chapter it is all wiped out by a trigger-happy platoon of Klingon types or sold into slavery by greedy Ferengi types. Sad.
(1) You say when you drive 65, people pass you on "both sides". That indicates to me you're in the center lane, where you don't belong. You're only supposed to drive on the right lane unless passing.
Not exactly. Cars to the right of me are exiting the freeway. For example, this road is wide, from 4 to 6 lanes in each direction, and the rightmost lane is constantly merging and branching off. It is not a good place to be unless you are exiting; it is often wiser to leave it free for other people to merge. Also from defensive driving POV you are more constrained at the edges. Large trucks are also required to stay in that lane and drive 55 mph. There are plenty of lanes to the left of me, at least two or three. For example, here the right westbound lane simply ends and there is no good reason to be there unless you were exiting onto 880.
As you can see in that picture, only the leftmost lane is seen as reserved for passing (and the HOV lane when there is one.) Other lanes, from center and all the way to the right, are fair game - especially considering that on this particular stretch of 280 you need to choose the lane strategically, depending on where you want to go, or else you may be forced to change lane in the last moment (and those who are unfamiliar with the road have to do that.) In the photo you can see that the lane pointed by the arrow (there is some kind of a truck) is the only one that goes straight and requires no lane change. So there is a good reason to be in it if you intend to go forward for a couple of miles and then exit. As matter of fact, I will stay in this lane for half a mile, skip a merge point from 880 North (pan to the West a bit, the merge area is short, the city is planning to redo it - merging cars will thank you for not taking the rightmost lane there) and then move into the rightmost lane that is not exiting immediately. As I said, patterns of efficiency emerge after you travel on the same road a few thousand times. Police will not bother you for choosing one of center-right lanes for a long distance trip. Just don't stay in the leftmost non-HOV lane for long. In rush hour all lanes are equally full, BTW, and equally not moving.
I would love to see the ridiculous 65mph limit in empty regions of Indiana or Ohio raised to 75, due to the time saved.
I won't argue against higher speed limits outside of cities. But where I live cars exit and enter the road every half a mile. Many weaker cars (or trucks) can't gain enough speed on short ramps, and many ramps are curved so you can't start accelerating in advance. Merging with a large speed difference is unpleasant.
So if the limit's 65mph and millions of people get ticketed, change the law to 70mph.
I take roads where the limit is 65 mph and I don't see it as too slow; in fact I am often very comfortable at 55 or 60 mph if that's the traffic speed. It only makes my trip longer by a couple of minutes while I enjoy the scenery. The problem starts when everyone drives 70 or 75. What do you do then? If you drive 65, as I attempt now and then in hope of doing the right thing, then everyone starts dangerously passing you on both sides and changing lanes 1/2" in front of you or behind you. In some places it is simply illegal to drive much slower than the traffic, and I agree. However if I accelerate to the traffic speed then I become a lawbreaker, and police can randomly pick me (or someone else) and write a ticket. I do see police now and then, parked and aiming radars at the traffic.
So the problem here is that you have no safe and legal way to drive. The best solution would be to seriously enforce the speed limit, except when higher speed is warranted (like when you go by some eighteen-wheeler - you don't want to linger alongside.) If you can't do that, drop the speed limit completely. As it is now, everyone who chooses safety is a criminal, and selective enforcement of the law feels (and is) unjust. The law must be either universally applied, or not applied at all. Imagine what would be if only 1% of murders would be even recorded, and even fewer investigated? Today every murderer knows that his crime *will* be noticed and there is a good chance that he will be found. Similarly, if you want to stop speeding make sure all speeders are ticketed. Then drivers who want to drive the legal speed will be able to do so. You need to create a culture where speeding is seen as an antisocial activity, something that most people voluntarily reject. Right now we are far from that Utopia, though - people seem to believe that saving of 30 seconds over a 1-hour trip is worth near killing a few innocents or risking a ticket. I don't want to play that game.
If you choose the universal enforcement you also need to change the system of punishments. Right now a speeding ticket is a serious offense, but they are issued to 0.001% of speeders. So many believe that the risk is minimal. If you, for example, install cameras that watch every car on the road, calculate their speed and determine who speeds and who doesn't then you need to apply some liberal algorithm. You should allow temporary speed increases, for example, and if a speeding threshold is reached then the ticket will be a fine and not a life-changing event. Habitual speeders will be hit with huge repeated fines, and maybe points on the license for major speeding (100 mph in 65 zone) whereas an occasional speeder who did 70 for a couple of minutes will get a $10 bill and will be able to learn from that experience without any points on his driver's license. This of course requires total surveillance, but if you want to enforce the law you need to watch every car. The alternatives are worse (except abandoning the speed limit.)
I also didn't have a car when I was a student - because I could not afford anything beyond a bicycle. I was able to buy a small car only several years after graduation.
usually two or three of us would walk by the grocery store
Maybe you are talking about US custom where students live together in a university-provided dormitory, but when I attended a university I was comfortably living at home (30 min. by electric train.) When I had to go to a store I carried bags in my hands, and I had no helpers. It would be beyond ridiculous to use a baby stroller :-) I remember the day when I bought a washing machine, it had some small wheels underneath, and I was pushing it all the way home, almost a mile :-) The wheels were made well, they didn't wear at all.
I could be willing to sign up just to be able to have access to a truck for a few hours per month, if that often even. But the nearest city that has Zipcars is San Francisco, a good distance away from where I live.
I checked, and Enterprise offers a pickup truck for $69 per day, firm price. Zipcar, were it available, asks "from" $69 (who knows what the final price is,) and you pay yearly fee and sign-up fee. All in all, I'd say Zipcar is nevertheless competitively priced, but it doesn't seem to be any cheaper and doesn't appear to have much of an advantage over your typical car rental place. Zipcar's own price comparison has to use a contrived $25 surcharge (for being in 21-25 age - not something that I need to think about) otherwise they lose.
From what I read on their Web site, they have only one important feature that a classical rental place doesn't have: they offer hourly rentals. If you don't have a car (or your car is of wrong type for the job) and need one then Zipcar would be a good option: hourly rent of a truck for a couple of hours will cost me probably less than a daily rent. Unfortunately Zipcar is tight-lipped about their real prices on specific cars, they only advertise "from" $9.25/hr and that is probably the cheapest car they have.
Gas is only a small part of the cost of driving.
Depends on distance; but I mentioned it only because gas is the only thing you need to buy for your existing car instead of bus fare. If you own a car you have to pay all the other costs anyway, and IMO it's hard to not own a car.
With regard to the shopping cart - fine, as long as you live near all stores that you typically visit. I personally don't - the nearest Safeway is about 3 miles away horizontally and about 1,300 feet vertically. Car sharing? Also fine, if you like it. To me, asking permission to go somewhere is not something I'd enjoy.
You have to consider not having any of the costs for the car you no longer own into your affordability calculation.
While you may use public transit for most of your trips, try to go grocery shopping with nothing but your hands. Or buy some bulky package, say a few bags of potting soil at Home Depot. You can't get them home without a car. This means that you do 90% of your travel on public transit *and* you still need to own a car. Since public transit costs more than gas on most trips, you will be losing money and at the same time inconveniencing yourself. There are limited cases when you want to take public transit even if you have a car; for example you can park in Fremont and take BART to SF. But in most cases (about 10-20 miles one way) a car will be more practical.
I own a home and a car, and people keep telling me that I must also go and buy a truck because of physically large cargo that I need to get to and from home occasionally, like wood or pipes, or even an office chair. So far I resist because I dislike trucks in general and I don't want to spend money on something I rarely need. But when I do need it I have to ask other people or go through the trouble of renting a truck for a few hours.
There are definitely people who don't buy anything, don't own a home, and don't have a family. For them public transit may be fine. BTW, there are several names for those people - "students" or "homeless" :-)
almost anyone who solders gets burned at least slightly with any major project.
I don't know if two PCBs with about 100 SMD parts on each are to be considered a major project, but I finished it today and haven't burned myself, not even once. The secret is simple - use tweezers. It also helps that parts are so small (even 1206) that you can't handle them otherwise.
But even when I worked with through-hole parts (K2 with all options) burning yourself is a sign of bad practice. You do not need to hold a resistor from the component side of the board (and resistors are probably the most thermally conductive components in an average design.)
And now to contribute something to the original question. I think it is terribly wr0ng to ban microcontrollers. An inexpensive chip (Atmel 8515, for example, in a DIP package) requires only power (3.3-5V) to start running. And that chip, though old by now, is *packed* with all kinds of complex hardware blocks which are all available to students. Using an MCU you minimize time wasted on soldering and maximize time wisely spent on understanding how things work. That includes analog principles if you want them, since the IC has several analog blocks (ADC, comparator, timer pins etc.) in addition to powerful digital blocks (like timers, UARTs, SPI, TWI/I2C etc.) Note that TWI requires no parts (other than wires) to connect a large number of devices together.
Most of modern electronic design is digital anyway. Those who work with analog modules have good (university) education that allows them to fully understand principles behind even a simple RC circuit. Even linear circuits will be black magic to students without proper math background. Sure, you can tell them to do this and that and the LED will blink; but will they be happy with such a canned solution, without understanding the processes that make it tick?
But with a MCU students can work at their level of competence. Digital circuits are easy to build and easy to debug. On top of that the same MCU can be programmed to do many tasks, thus making it possible to give not one assignment but many. For example, one team digitizes an analog signal and sends it over I2C, and another team receives it and restores the original analog waveform using PWM. And suddenly they understand how their cell phones work!
Besides, by using the word "we" you are talking about people collectively, and must therefore be a communist.
Who could have known that the Constitution of the United States was written by communists! (link)
buy/build a strong boat and drift aimlessly around the oceans
And call yourself Captain Nemo. Otherwise you are probably offering the best solution. This civilization is not likely to homestead oceans for a long time.
Would you want to live on titan?
It all depends on how bad things become here. Exploration of new territories is often done by people who can't take it any more at their original homeland.
Interesting, thanks!
I'd rather have him meet one of my more violent female friends...
Thanks, but hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'd rather be doing something safer - like sign up for the roadside bomb squad in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Your assumption that I'm female just shows how much of an ass you really are.
How could I assume if you already told me that you are a man? Quote: "I don't know about you, but I think of women as other human beings with feelings and such". I simply used the dual meaning of the word "you" to create a funny but polite response. Everything else in that sentence is collateral damage :-)
It's possible for men to be empathetic to feminist ideology
I got that already, thanks! :-)
Your blatant acceptance and preaching of stereotypes is offensive to me as a human being.
Sorry about that. But you know, a lot of stereotypes have a grain of untruth in them.
I think you are absolutely correct, and I can only comment on this small piece:
If you're beating someone it doesn't matter if you're saying "Yes, dear"
Those are opposites. He only could choose one or the other. Avoiding the fight - and filing for divorce - would have kept him out of jail. To avoid the fight he had to break himself and agree to something that his wife wanted and he didn't. He could not do that (I guess.) But what do I know about him and his wife, after all? Best to stop speculating.
women have their own kind of logic
It's true. Note that I don't judge this logic inferior or superior, but it's different. Not my kind of math.
Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes?
It's true. Women like clothes, men like fast cars. Is it news to anyone?
Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn.
One of my friends has this very problem, and it's his opinion (he is married.)
There will be of course need to get "many" children
That's a very common desire of most women, as far as I know. Does that surprise you?
(as if you need any)
Men not always desire children, especially before the marriage is final. News?
Are all just dripping with misogyny and stereotypical sexism?
Only if these statements are untrue.
a man may need a woman occasionally
Fact of life, whether you like it or not. Married men satisfy this need with their permanent woman (a.k.a. wife.) Unmarried men may do so with a temporary woman (a hooker) or just skip the whole routine (catholic priests, for example.)
If you wish you can create the same list from a woman's POV. In that list men would be overly aggressive, insensitive, they'd want to buy Harleys, they'd be drinking too much, they may not earn enough to sustain a family... but a woman needs a man, occasionally, and one can be always found if so desired.
So there are two sexes, and they are different. Each gender has its own list of "deficiencies" (or just differences, to keep it polite.) That's all.
Guess what: Y chromosomes don't make you more logical or fiscally responsible, ass.
But they would make you a bit more polite. Here you are, an example of a difference that I like very much!
His mistake was not saying "Yes, dear"? It had nothing to do with choosing a promiscuous russian bride, then butchering her. That's one twisted reality you live in.
I can't know all the details, of course. However if he was unhappy he should have divorced her. Instead *she* divorced him (or filed for divorce, since it wasn't finalized) and the reasons were "that their children "hardly know their father" because he was out of the country on business for most of the year" (link.) The available evidence shows that Hans was not a particularly good husband, and there were accusations of violence prior to the murder. So I think Hans was really short on concilatory statements, and that contributed to the failure of his marriage. I can't say if any flaws of the bride's character had anything to do with it, and I have no clue which is the cause and which is the effect. If a wife is not cared for she will naturally look elsewhere.
Careful, your sexism is showing...
Do I need to spell out that an average woman is more different from an average man than an average man? Hint: the former is >= 0, the latter is == 0. Or maybe you are arguing that a woman is identical to a man in every aspect, making the system of equations above irrelevant?
[...] they are full of stereotypes that don't hold water, I'm married 7+ years now, relationships for geeks are just like any other relationship, "GIVE AND TAKE" you will win some arguments you will lose some, sometimes you'll be right sometimes you'll be wrong, sometimes you'll have to do "FAMILY" things, sometimes you'll have to do "GIRLY" things (read chick flicks, girl shopping).
That's exactly what I said: your_interests != her_interests. You will lose your independence; you will have to do "family" and "girly" things (like that dancing that was discussed in the thread - why would a sane male geek want to dance?) You only confirm my general statement.
that means spending time with them doing what they want, remember they chose to be with you because they wanted to "be WITH you" not just spend time with you when it's convenient to "YOU".
Not arguable either - you now have to do what some other people want you to do. You are correct.
and take it from me, you will "fight" it's inevitable people living together tend to get in each others way
You have a weird way of contradicting my statements with exactly the same statements :-) Maybe you are replying to a wrong comment? As I said, quarrels are inevitable, some are nasty, some end up deadly. Statistically speaking, spouses kill each other all the time, and police has a standard procedure to suspect husband or wife first. A few recent cases, aside from Reiser's, only prove that. The reason for such a concentration of hate is, I think, because spouses are locked into a legal relationship that they can not easily dissolve (children, money, property, laws, etc.) If you hate a hooker you will not come to her again. If you hate your wife ... it's just too bad, she owns half of your wealth, and in case of divorce she will retain children and take the rest of your money as child support. [Note: this is not specific to women, men do that to women too, and in fact one of my friends just had a similar case - she got into a divorce and lost *everything*.]
However you find your mate, be prepared to work at it a little each day each week each month each year, you don't just get a partner and be happy, you work at it, you accept some loses and you don't "rub it in" when you win. [...] I married a "Mexican Irish" girl, Red hair and a stubborn temper of 2 countries.
I can only hope that your gain justifies all that pain.
I'd rather not accept/admit my faults [...] Instead, I'll try to see it from her perspective and try to verbalize that
If this works for you and your gf - great. However success of this strategy depends on willingness of the other side to listen to you. It's not something that you can unilaterally adopt.
Women are not real people like men are.
Inserting the word "real" was uncalled for, and not supported by what I wrote.
But women, and men, are different from any given person (such as the geek who asked /.) Everyone is unique. Women are more different, which is hardly surprising - they are generically programmed for their part, just as men are for theirs. My point is simple: get into a relationship and experience all these differences firsthand. If you are not ready for that (or if you value your freedom,) stay away. My opinion, of course - but that's what /. is for. If you need Absolute Truth you'd need to get some sort of personal phone line to God.
Thanks for the laugh.
Laugh there may be, but there is also a lesson. Enter a relationship and get a barrelful of quarrels. There is only one way to exit a fight with a woman - by accepting your fault and apologizing, regardless of who really is guilty (if there is anyone, and if there is anything to fight over - neither of that is guaranteed.)
If you are a logical person (a geek usually is) then your fate is even worse; you will learn very soon that women have their own kind of logic, best illustrated by various persons in Lewis Carroll's writings. (Note - "illustrated", not "explained." The latter can't be done.)
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail. Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!" mode. If you are a weak, meek person who gladly submits to someone's else diktat, you will do well for a while, but eventually you will be dumped as useless. You will have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to adjust to the demands of the woman. One of my friends explained it as follows: "At first it's difficult, but eventually you get used to it."
Another catch: if you want to marry a woman you will, as matter of fact, "marry" her entire family. One of my friends got seriously burned by that, not paying attention to what his GF's parents are up to (religious fanatics.) He got away with large losses.
Another catch: a woman will have interests that are far away from your interests. (I presume you will not marry a geek, they are rare and many are too independent to marry anyway.) Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes? Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn. Are you OK with that? There will be of course need to get "many" children (as if you need any) and don't you say "no" to that. Are you ready for that too?
One more comment: you will find the highest density of happiest people at the court clerk's office where final divorce papers are issued. Modern family is overrated, IMO; a man today does not really need a wife; a man may need a woman occasionally, but that's a completely different deal.
I (for example) cannot stand books of Edward Elmer Smith [...]
It could also be that his books are very, very old today. His Galactic Patrol commits genocide left and right without even stopping to think. Racism is there too (most Lensmen are human, with only a token presence of other beings.) A sadistic torture scene is part of the plot. Entire planets are exterminated. Today such a book would raise a quite a few questions, but that only shows how far the society advanced. If you read other books (and other genres) from 1920-1940 you will see a similar pattern.