Nope, I simply did good work and got successive significant pay rises as a result. Never threatened to leave, never felt the need to job hunt. When I did hand my notice in, I actually left, no threats involved.
Yeah, I pretty much did the same. I was paid much more than my co-workers, because I was worth much more. But let's face it - how many people are going to do that?
I get my chops busted around here for working more than 40 hours a week, and being driven, and being willing to go the extra mile. I think I get the same endorphin buzz when solving a problem that some folks to from drugs. Maybe you do as well. But those folks outlook is much more typical than yours or mine.
That's why people like us are widely hated by many other workers. We make them look bad. It also doesn't fit into their worldview.
the point was however if richard can do it, whats stopping others? The only thing i see stopping them is the union
Who knows? Talent perhaps. Human tendency to inertia, Enoufh for shit reality programs that don't need much more than an outline.
Anyhow, I too made may way more successfully than a lot of folks in my profession. I'm pretty good, I'm aggressive, I'm self actuated, and I'm not afraid of change. And that's a really small subset of humanity.
They are stopping themselves - I don't consider that their fault, they are just typical humans.
Could you point to some examples of this so-called "jingoism" as you think it applies to the contemporary United States?
Thought you'd never ask!
France. While helping us with the war effort in Afghanistan since 2001, when they objected to war number 2 in Iraq, many of us turned on the cheese eating surrender monkeys with a vengeance.
Where do you think the foreign policy is "belligerent"?
What about examples of "extreme chauvinism" or "extreme nationalism"?
Perhaps you weren't around during the runup to the war in Iraq. If not, check some history heaven help anyone who questioned Hussein being behind the 9-11 attack.
As well, imagine Mexico building a wall on Mexican soil, and demanding the US pay for it. Yet that is okay do do in the revers? Belligerence has become a core competency of our foreign policy.
Do you think it is going too far to suggest that people that hope the United States is attacked because "it deserves it" aren't really patriotic?
Non-sequitar, and a strawman as well. Who are these American citizens who want the US attacked and defeated? I know perhaps thousands of people of all political stripes in a lot of settings. I do not know one person who want's the US to be attacked. And non US citizens are not US citizens, so patriotism isn't relevant.
By the way - your response shows you are an example of a jingoist.
Making the brain work in ways other than our nature intends will yield a crop of disabled and troubled Seals.
he same though occured to me. This is changing some chemistry in the brain. I suspect that if it works, a fair amount of recuperation will be needed afterwards at the very least.
What passes for patriotism now is merely willful ignorance. And this sort of mindless nationalism passed off as if were patriotism is nothing new.
It's called jingoism - extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (Websters)
There are plenty of patriotic Americans out there. They just don't happen to be beating their chest and braying about how patriotic they are. The chest beaters are very interesting, in a check out their motives and actions, because they might be doing something.
Always be suspicious of anyone or any group who claims they are a patriot, and for some reason people who do not act like them are not.
> First thing that came to mind was why the bloody hell don't people just contribute instead of buying and lighting a stupid blue lightbulb.
Yeah, like why did all those people waste their time posting ice-bucket challenge videos?
Exactly. Give a detailed accound of how the jackass movie themed ice bucket challenge helped anyone.
Or what about all those people wearing pink ribbons for breast cancer?
The mistake they made was the ribbons should have been yellow, that simple mistake killed thousands of women.
Stupid social humans, just be isolated robots already!!!
Actually your silly retort tends to undermine your position.
Donate to the cause you are interested in, volunteer to help people. All that getting a bucket of ice water dumped on you does is make you cold. A pink ribbon never helped anything.
They don't help the victims of ALS or breast cancer or autism feel better, they help people who can't be bothered to do anything else feel better about themselves.
> Autism Speaks is interested in having as many people declared autistic as possible.
Conspiracy, after conspiracy! Horrible.
If you aren't perfect,* you're shite!
Are you high or something? What is odd about politicized groups wanting to add more people to whatever they are politicized about. They want to show an epidemic.
Take a chill pill, a hot bath, or beat off or something, you sound like you need a break - take one.
It's up to the customer to designate a suitable landing spot for deliveries. If you can't find one on your property then you simply won't have the option to receive deliveries this way.
And went stright over your head. There will always be more to do because we can always think of more things to do. We'll be producing enough to live. So it will generally work out.
'Working out" takes many different forms. It might be that humanity enters a golden age, and people do more or less what they want to do without worrying about starving.
Ot it might mean that the surplus population is turned into fertilizer.
Either way works the problem. Given the current folks in office, my money is on fertilizer.
Isn't blaming the EPA for ecological disasters like blaming the police when crimes are committed?
Yes it is, despite the AC below calling it a false dilemma.
The people who think that keeping our ecosystem productive and allowing for muultiple generations to make a gaddamed profit off the lands largess is some sort of evil thing want to have it all ways. They want single company to be able to do whatever the hell they please, and destroy the land for future generations, or even ten years down the road. Then they want to starve off any attempts to make for sustainable profit and enjoyment. Then the stupidly evil asses want to blame the agency when something happens. And it's funny. These same peopel want to punish a d get tougher punishments on any other crime.
I never get the answer to why one single company is entitled to destroy land that can be productive for millenia. Seems kind of commielike to me. Personally, I think they all need a drink of that orangewater.
The dirty secret of Autism Speaks and just about everything else (such as the developers of these robots) is that they advocate for exhausted parents, annoyed relatives, and the profit motive of Western medicine; they don't do anything for actual autistic people.
www.autistics.org
Autism Speaks is interested in having as many people declared autistic as possible.
The problem I have with the autism spectrum outlook is that what is on the spectrum doesn't remotely look like the same issue. And the people with Asperger's to me are not even what I would call autistic - I call them differently abled. I've worked with a few, friends with them, and am in awe of their powers. I know that sounds odd to many people, but it's true.
Is this 'hold your breath until you turn blue' day?
No, it's another pointless way for people to feel good about themselves. I saw the blue bulbs for sale at Home Depot yesterday. First thing that came to mind was why the bloody hell don't people just contribute instead of buying and lighting a stupid blue lightbulb.
Hard to imagine that anyone isn't "aware" of autism by this point.
Imagine two people born in 1800 that are discussing what kind of jobs would be available in 2000, after they're being told about the level of automation there will be. I doubt they'll get more than 1%. The fact that you or I can't imagine what people will be doing instead, doesn't mean that new jobs won't be created.
Problem is, if net new jobs are created, the robotic recolution will be considered a failure. Except for dangerous occupations, the goal of robotic replacement is not to make thnings safer or faster or better, it's to eliminate jobs.
I'd love to see them try to bring these new-fangled automobiles to my neighborhood! A wooded area with no open spaces and a lot of birds.
There is a reason we don't share roads and flying machines. In my neighborhood, the drone would have to either hva to follow the road at car height, in which case, the delivery should be by autonomous vehicle not a flying machine.
My point is, that despite your trying to turn this into a get off my lawn statement, drones are simply not a good choice for delivery method in many places. I suppose in a development that was at one time a farmer's field, with no trees, underground services, and a non-reactionary populous, a drone could work pretty well. Otherwise it is a solution that causes more problems than it cures.
Previous "revolutions" have ended up creating jobs, But unlike this one, their purpose was not to destroy jobs.
Yes, things like farm machinery and freight trains absolutely were intended to destroy jobs.
They were intended to increase productivity and make processes faster or even possible. You weren't going to get much across the country with a wagon train. That would take months, and nothing perishable could be shipped. And farmers certainly appreciated the machinery, as subsistence farming is deadly work.
And don't forget all of the file clerks, paper industry employees, and sheet metal workers at file cabinet manufacturers out of work because of computer systems. Such things have been destroying jobs for many decades, even centuries, now.
Jobs have been destroyed for a log time now. But your idea that people switched from paper to computerized storage because the purpose of that switch was specifically to get rid of jobs is pretty interesting. I'm really skeptical that anyone said "Let's get rid of sheet metal workers - we'll start using computers!"
Unlike today, when there is an active search to specifically eliminate all labor.
The solution is: enough prosperity to bring about what it always does... fewer babies being had.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
Sounds about right. My career had a lot of twists and turns in it, but all with a science core.
Which is why I always warn people that some of those courses that they don't think are relevant to their goals, may become critical. That includes math, and it includes believe it or not - art. I have used both of those in my career in ways I never would have envisioned when I was 20 years old.
I wonder if they remembered overhead phone, and cable service lines, and assuming they did, why this software didn't recognize clothes lines as an obstacle.
It seems unlikely researchers will be able to anticipate every obstacle an unmanned delivery vehicle would encounter in a simulated model.
Ultimately, it will come down to an equation: additional loss of packages and UAVs + UAV cost and maintenance is less than or equal to conventional human delivery services.
I wonder if they remembered overhead phone, and cable service lines, and assuming they did, why this software didn't recognize clothes lines as an obstacle.
It seems unlikely researchers will be able to anticipate every obstacle an unmanned delivery vehicle would encounter in a simulated model.
I'd love to see them try to deliver in my neighborhood. A wooded area, where the only open spaces are where the roads are, and even then, trees in the canopy and wires. and a lot of birds, some of the bigger ones don't like drones either. The only open space where a drone can fly is about along the roadways and sidewalks. Which are all designed to not be on a roadway grid. The airspace doesn't clear up until about 40 meters off the ground. And many of the affluent neighborhoods in my area are using this model.
And Amazon is going to get a hellava bill if one of their drones tears down any of my wire antennas. They're designed to be unobtrusive. My own drone can't see them. But a drone coming in contact with one of them won't be in the air much longer.
They have an opportunity to do something more useful.
Such as?
Previous "revolutions" have ended up creating jobs, But unlike this one, their purpose was not to destroy jobs.
So yes, this revolution will create some jobs, but not even at a 1 job destroyed/1 job created level, because if even that level is reached, this revolution will be a failure.
It is coming however, and nothing is going to stop it. We need to have intelligent people come together and plan for a future where most of humanity does not work for a living, yet are adequately supported.
Unfortunately, most people cannot even comprehend that. I've mentally gamed these matters out, and, I'm expecting something that looks a lot like mass slaughter. It all depends on whether we keep the old work or die paradigm, or break free of it. Whichever happens, it will be interesting.
I think school is hard. In elementary school I was always ahead. When I got transplanted I was told by most people around me that there was something wrong with me. Maybe people are teaching these girls that if they're good at math, there's something wrong with them, and them they're not learning math. I was weird so I had special problems, but in our anti-intellectual society it's normal for kids to be dissuaded from trying to be intelligent.
Treading on thin ice there. Because that's one step away from saying that girls are easier to intimdate away from math.
Engineering and science is not a field for the easily intimidated. Long hours, big responsibilities, so-so pay, some times some pretty dangerous work.
And the interesting thing is that it isn't universal, some of the ladies I worked with enjoyed all of the above as much as I do, but most women didn't.
Now what does this mean? Do we have to change the nature of science so that people who aren't interested in it now, are interested?
Because here's the problem. When I'm working a problem, I am seriously into to it, Some times the wife would have to bring in new clothes so I could take a shower and have clean clothes for the, next day. Or call me at 9:00 p.m. to ask if I was coming home for dinner. Deadline or just obsession with the project at hand, the engineers and scientists who tend toward the top share that trait. The competent women I worked with did.
I've traditionally caught shit from other slashdotters about that, but what they don't understand is that I am happiest when tackling a tough problem. If that requires a lot of work, then so be it.
Is that weird enough for everyone?
On to the math issue - I was graced with the worst possible algebra teacher She made the Ben Stein teacher in Ferris Beuller's Day Off seem exciting https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I damn near failed.
Then of all things, My Electronics teacher trained us on slide rules. Crazy ass thing was cathartic, and my mind just clicked. Something about the mechanics-mathematical aspect of the thing just allowed me to understand.
And the batteries seem to last forever! I'll just show myself out here......
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not.
I disagree. Talking to the other fellows at my college (one of the smaller Cambridge colleges), a very high proportion of them changed topics (some more than once - I think one of our maths fellows has the record at five times) during their degrees.
I'm curious - were they in wildely different fields? Or were they similar? It isn't unusual to change what you are interested in, but I'd be surprised if someone went feom CS to a Nursing field, or from being a Veternarian to a Math major.
In a free market, that sort of thing should not be possible in the first place since monopolies are either broken up or regulated to prevent them from leveraging their position for ill-gotten gain.
The paradox of the free market. Since it always destroys itself once individual players get big enough, and become intent on destroying their competition, you need regulations to keep that from happening, which means it isn't free any more.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, a real bot we got here. Just a really fucking lame one. So weak. Sad.
Nope, I simply did good work and got successive significant pay rises as a result. Never threatened to leave, never felt the need to job hunt. When I did hand my notice in, I actually left, no threats involved.
Yeah, I pretty much did the same. I was paid much more than my co-workers, because I was worth much more. But let's face it - how many people are going to do that?
I get my chops busted around here for working more than 40 hours a week, and being driven, and being willing to go the extra mile. I think I get the same endorphin buzz when solving a problem that some folks to from drugs. Maybe you do as well. But those folks outlook is much more typical than yours or mine.
That's why people like us are widely hated by many other workers. We make them look bad. It also doesn't fit into their worldview.
the point was however if richard can do it, whats stopping others? The only thing i see stopping them is the union
Who knows? Talent perhaps. Human tendency to inertia, Enoufh for shit reality programs that don't need much more than an outline.
Anyhow, I too made may way more successfully than a lot of folks in my profession. I'm pretty good, I'm aggressive, I'm self actuated, and I'm not afraid of change. And that's a really small subset of humanity.
They are stopping themselves - I don't consider that their fault, they are just typical humans.
As for jingoism, it's from a 19th century song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, some in Great Britain wanted to invade Russia.
Jingo as a word is a minced oath, which means "by Jingo" was a substitute for "by Jesus.
Here are the words:
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.
Oddly enough, the song starts out with a lie - they really wanted a war with Russia. Wonder how that would have turned out......
Could you point to some examples of this so-called "jingoism" as you think it applies to the contemporary United States?
Thought you'd never ask!
France. While helping us with the war effort in Afghanistan since 2001, when they objected to war number 2 in Iraq, many of us turned on the cheese eating surrender monkeys with a vengeance.
Where do you think the foreign policy is "belligerent"?
What about examples of "extreme chauvinism" or "extreme nationalism"?
Perhaps you weren't around during the runup to the war in Iraq. If not, check some history heaven help anyone who questioned Hussein being behind the 9-11 attack.
As well, imagine Mexico building a wall on Mexican soil, and demanding the US pay for it. Yet that is okay do do in the revers? Belligerence has become a core competency of our foreign policy.
Do you think it is going too far to suggest that people that hope the United States is attacked because "it deserves it" aren't really patriotic?
Non-sequitar, and a strawman as well. Who are these American citizens who want the US attacked and defeated? I know perhaps thousands of people of all political stripes in a lot of settings. I do not know one person who want's the US to be attacked. And non US citizens are not US citizens, so patriotism isn't relevant.
By the way - your response shows you are an example of a jingoist.
Making the brain work in ways other than our nature intends will yield a crop of disabled and troubled Seals.
he same though occured to me. This is changing some chemistry in the brain. I suspect that if it works, a fair amount of recuperation will be needed afterwards at the very least.
What passes for patriotism now is merely willful ignorance. And this sort of mindless nationalism passed off as if were patriotism is nothing new.
It's called jingoism - extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (Websters)
There are plenty of patriotic Americans out there. They just don't happen to be beating their chest and braying about how patriotic they are. The chest beaters are very interesting, in a check out their motives and actions, because they might be doing something.
Always be suspicious of anyone or any group who claims they are a patriot, and for some reason people who do not act like them are not.
> First thing that came to mind was why the bloody hell don't people just contribute instead of buying and lighting a stupid blue lightbulb.
Yeah, like why did all those people waste their time posting ice-bucket challenge videos?
Exactly. Give a detailed accound of how the jackass movie themed ice bucket challenge helped anyone.
Or what about all those people wearing pink ribbons for breast cancer?
The mistake they made was the ribbons should have been yellow, that simple mistake killed thousands of women.
Stupid social humans, just be isolated robots already!!!
Actually your silly retort tends to undermine your position.
Donate to the cause you are interested in, volunteer to help people. All that getting a bucket of ice water dumped on you does is make you cold. A pink ribbon never helped anything.
They don't help the victims of ALS or breast cancer or autism feel better, they help people who can't be bothered to do anything else feel better about themselves.
> Autism Speaks is interested in having as many people declared autistic as possible.
Conspiracy, after conspiracy! Horrible. If you aren't perfect,* you're shite!
Are you high or something? What is odd about politicized groups wanting to add more people to whatever they are politicized about. They want to show an epidemic.
Take a chill pill, a hot bath, or beat off or something, you sound like you need a break - take one.
It's up to the customer to designate a suitable landing spot for deliveries. If you can't find one on your property then you simply won't have the option to receive deliveries this way.
No kidding.
And went stright over your head. There will always be more to do because we can always think of more things to do. We'll be producing enough to live. So it will generally work out.
'Working out" takes many different forms. It might be that humanity enters a golden age, and people do more or less what they want to do without worrying about starving.
Ot it might mean that the surplus population is turned into fertilizer.
Either way works the problem. Given the current folks in office, my money is on fertilizer.
Isn't blaming the EPA for ecological disasters like blaming the police when crimes are committed?
Yes it is, despite the AC below calling it a false dilemma.
The people who think that keeping our ecosystem productive and allowing for muultiple generations to make a gaddamed profit off the lands largess is some sort of evil thing want to have it all ways. They want single company to be able to do whatever the hell they please, and destroy the land for future generations, or even ten years down the road. Then they want to starve off any attempts to make for sustainable profit and enjoyment. Then the stupidly evil asses want to blame the agency when something happens. And it's funny. These same peopel want to punish a d get tougher punishments on any other crime.
I never get the answer to why one single company is entitled to destroy land that can be productive for millenia. Seems kind of commielike to me. Personally, I think they all need a drink of that orangewater.
The dirty secret of Autism Speaks and just about everything else (such as the developers of these robots) is that they advocate for exhausted parents, annoyed relatives, and the profit motive of Western medicine; they don't do anything for actual autistic people.
www.autistics.org
Autism Speaks is interested in having as many people declared autistic as possible.
The problem I have with the autism spectrum outlook is that what is on the spectrum doesn't remotely look like the same issue. And the people with Asperger's to me are not even what I would call autistic - I call them differently abled. I've worked with a few, friends with them, and am in awe of their powers. I know that sounds odd to many people, but it's true.
Is this 'hold your breath until you turn blue' day?
No, it's another pointless way for people to feel good about themselves. I saw the blue bulbs for sale at Home Depot yesterday. First thing that came to mind was why the bloody hell don't people just contribute instead of buying and lighting a stupid blue lightbulb.
Hard to imagine that anyone isn't "aware" of autism by this point.
Such as?
Imagine two people born in 1800 that are discussing what kind of jobs would be available in 2000, after they're being told about the level of automation there will be. I doubt they'll get more than 1%. The fact that you or I can't imagine what people will be doing instead, doesn't mean that new jobs won't be created.
Problem is, if net new jobs are created, the robotic recolution will be considered a failure. Except for dangerous occupations, the goal of robotic replacement is not to make thnings safer or faster or better, it's to eliminate jobs.
I'd love to see them try to bring these new-fangled automobiles to my neighborhood! A wooded area with no open spaces and a lot of birds.
There is a reason we don't share roads and flying machines. In my neighborhood, the drone would have to either hva to follow the road at car height, in which case, the delivery should be by autonomous vehicle not a flying machine.
My point is, that despite your trying to turn this into a get off my lawn statement, drones are simply not a good choice for delivery method in many places. I suppose in a development that was at one time a farmer's field, with no trees, underground services, and a non-reactionary populous, a drone could work pretty well. Otherwise it is a solution that causes more problems than it cures.
Previous "revolutions" have ended up creating jobs, But unlike this one, their purpose was not to destroy jobs.
Yes, things like farm machinery and freight trains absolutely were intended to destroy jobs.
They were intended to increase productivity and make processes faster or even possible. You weren't going to get much across the country with a wagon train. That would take months, and nothing perishable could be shipped. And farmers certainly appreciated the machinery, as subsistence farming is deadly work.
And don't forget all of the file clerks, paper industry employees, and sheet metal workers at file cabinet manufacturers out of work because of computer systems. Such things have been destroying jobs for many decades, even centuries, now.
Jobs have been destroyed for a log time now. But your idea that people switched from paper to computerized storage because the purpose of that switch was specifically to get rid of jobs is pretty interesting. I'm really skeptical that anyone said "Let's get rid of sheet metal workers - we'll start using computers!"
Unlike today, when there is an active search to specifically eliminate all labor. The solution is: enough prosperity to bring about what it always does ... fewer babies being had.
Heh? We already don't work for a "living". Most of our jobs are for creating things far above "living".
The Sunday morning pedant show has arrived, I see.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
Sounds about right. My career had a lot of twists and turns in it, but all with a science core.
Which is why I always warn people that some of those courses that they don't think are relevant to their goals, may become critical. That includes math, and it includes believe it or not - art. I have used both of those in my career in ways I never would have envisioned when I was 20 years old.
I wonder if they remembered overhead phone, and cable service lines, and assuming they did, why this software didn't recognize clothes lines as an obstacle.
It seems unlikely researchers will be able to anticipate every obstacle an unmanned delivery vehicle would encounter in a simulated model.
Ultimately, it will come down to an equation: additional loss of packages and UAVs + UAV cost and maintenance is less than or equal to conventional human delivery services.
I wonder if they remembered overhead phone, and cable service lines, and assuming they did, why this software didn't recognize clothes lines as an obstacle.
It seems unlikely researchers will be able to anticipate every obstacle an unmanned delivery vehicle would encounter in a simulated model.
I'd love to see them try to deliver in my neighborhood. A wooded area, where the only open spaces are where the roads are, and even then, trees in the canopy and wires. and a lot of birds, some of the bigger ones don't like drones either. The only open space where a drone can fly is about along the roadways and sidewalks. Which are all designed to not be on a roadway grid. The airspace doesn't clear up until about 40 meters off the ground. And many of the affluent neighborhoods in my area are using this model.
And Amazon is going to get a hellava bill if one of their drones tears down any of my wire antennas. They're designed to be unobtrusive. My own drone can't see them. But a drone coming in contact with one of them won't be in the air much longer.
Except those displaced by optimization...
They have an opportunity to do something more useful.
Such as?
Previous "revolutions" have ended up creating jobs, But unlike this one, their purpose was not to destroy jobs.
So yes, this revolution will create some jobs, but not even at a 1 job destroyed/1 job created level, because if even that level is reached, this revolution will be a failure.
It is coming however, and nothing is going to stop it. We need to have intelligent people come together and plan for a future where most of humanity does not work for a living, yet are adequately supported.
Unfortunately, most people cannot even comprehend that. I've mentally gamed these matters out, and, I'm expecting something that looks a lot like mass slaughter. It all depends on whether we keep the old work or die paradigm, or break free of it. Whichever happens, it will be interesting.
Which bit is hard?
I think school is hard. In elementary school I was always ahead. When I got transplanted I was told by most people around me that there was something wrong with me. Maybe people are teaching these girls that if they're good at math, there's something wrong with them, and them they're not learning math. I was weird so I had special problems, but in our anti-intellectual society it's normal for kids to be dissuaded from trying to be intelligent.
Treading on thin ice there. Because that's one step away from saying that girls are easier to intimdate away from math. Engineering and science is not a field for the easily intimidated. Long hours, big responsibilities, so-so pay, some times some pretty dangerous work.
And the interesting thing is that it isn't universal, some of the ladies I worked with enjoyed all of the above as much as I do, but most women didn't.
Now what does this mean? Do we have to change the nature of science so that people who aren't interested in it now, are interested?
Because here's the problem. When I'm working a problem, I am seriously into to it, Some times the wife would have to bring in new clothes so I could take a shower and have clean clothes for the, next day. Or call me at 9:00 p.m. to ask if I was coming home for dinner. Deadline or just obsession with the project at hand, the engineers and scientists who tend toward the top share that trait. The competent women I worked with did.
I've traditionally caught shit from other slashdotters about that, but what they don't understand is that I am happiest when tackling a tough problem. If that requires a lot of work, then so be it.
Is that weird enough for everyone?
On to the math issue - I was graced with the worst possible algebra teacher She made the Ben Stein teacher in Ferris Beuller's Day Off seem exciting https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I damn near failed. Then of all things, My Electronics teacher trained us on slide rules. Crazy ass thing was cathartic, and my mind just clicked. Something about the mechanics-mathematical aspect of the thing just allowed me to understand.
And the batteries seem to last forever! I'll just show myself out here......
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not.
I disagree. Talking to the other fellows at my college (one of the smaller Cambridge colleges), a very high proportion of them changed topics (some more than once - I think one of our maths fellows has the record at five times) during their degrees.
I'm curious - were they in wildely different fields? Or were they similar? It isn't unusual to change what you are interested in, but I'd be surprised if someone went feom CS to a Nursing field, or from being a Veternarian to a Math major.
In a free market, that sort of thing should not be possible in the first place since monopolies are either broken up or regulated to prevent them from leveraging their position for ill-gotten gain.
The paradox of the free market. Since it always destroys itself once individual players get big enough, and become intent on destroying their competition, you need regulations to keep that from happening, which means it isn't free any more.
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
Aaaaannnnnd SuperKendall disappears!