Saying that "Linux has malware!" because morons misconfigure an application running on Linux, is like saying "Windows has malware!" because SQL Server was installed with a blank sa password. I mean, sure, Windows does have malware, but this is just clickbait nonsense.
But this makes the Windows lads feel much better about themselves. While it is whacked to say that an open server is a Linux malware, It allows them to say, just like in the summary "Linux has malware too". Nope. It's a badly written bit of kit.
For all of the multitudes of Windows malware, the idea of pointing a finger at an open server and saying that Linux has Malware too!" is preposterous.
So we should be talking about world hunger in a thread about Facebook?
Who's talking about world hunger?
Not sure if you know what we refer to when we mention "First World Problem".That's when some advantage you might have is turned into a problem. It's when someone gets excited because someone sends an invite only over Facebook, and someone misses it because they didn't check it. Too bad that there are no other communication options other than Facebook.
It's like being upset because you want to change the channel on your television, but you have to stand up and walk to where the remote is.
Or your Escalade is too big to fit through the drive through at Starbucks, so you have to park it and walk into the store.
Or your new swimming pool makes the back yard look small.
He's referring to the fact that many people have friends who will *only* send an invite to an event on Facebook. You'll find out a week later that you missed event X and they'll say, "didn't you see it on Facebook??!?"
I'll just keep a listing of the ads that Facbook forces upon me, and never ever buy those products again. Assuming I ever go there.
The problem is't the users, the problem is the fucking malware that you criminals insist we install on our computers as the price of viewing your shitty site.
My adblockers, script blockers, flash blockers and other protections from you are my condoms for my computer.
AC was pointing out that causing a birth defect is degrading the baby, thus if these contaminants never degrade, they can't cause birth defects.
So tell us how catalysts work. Next tell us how a compound that "never degrades" is the final and fixed form of that chemical, and can no longer be used in any process because it will never react with anything.
All chemicals can be broken down into their elemental components.
This silly definition you and your AC bud are trying to impose upon PFAs indicate you think that an indestructable substance has been produced.
Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that! The orange cheeto people are trying to enslave us but I won't let them win.
Yaeah, here's your arsenic trioxide sauce. Drinky up! I triple dog dare ya. It's a chemical, and anyone who thinks chemicals are bad is a kook.
And how can there be radiation? How can something you can't even see be bad for you?
I hope you realize you are just as silly and as unintelligent as the people you are mocking in your post.
And BPA isn't the only estrogen mimic. We are being hammered with Estrogen mimics, and with phytoestrogens from food.
Now I do suspect unless you are a total misanthrope and just enjoy people's problems, that you don't really approve of this kind of stuff.
But Bisphenol A is an example of a large scale experiment which has caused a lot of harm to humans and other creatures. We did the same with DDT, thalidomide, lead, and more. These PFA chemicals are a likely carcinogen, and since they take a heckava long time to break down, it becomes a real problem if/when that is confirmed. Aside from drinking water, there are some people, like firefighters, who are exposed to a huge amount when they use fire suppressant foam.
Another labeling/pigeonholing study. I've worked with a lot of extremely intelligent people who never sat still and were very athletic as well. I have a ridiculously low threshhold for boredom, leading to my during meetings behavior of building little things out of whatever is sitting around on the table. To the point where the boss warns some people so they don't think some autistic guy got into the meeting. But the pace of all meetings is way too slow, and I'm not good at hearing information rehashed again and again. A dear friend woman I worked with at one time was the same way. She'd sometimes start singing while someone was explaining something to her. Some thought she was being flakey and not paying attention, but she could repeat everything she was told, and offer corrections to their work.
And I play Ice Hockey as well, although as I age, hiking is becoming more prominent.
I knew some folks who were sedentary and intelligent as well. But given that I know and have worked with at least as many very intelligent people as were in the study, and that if anything, my group was heavily skewed toward the higher end of intelligence, I really have to call bullshit on this study.
Highly Intelligent people would seem to me to cover the spectrum of physical activity and boredom as everyone else. That's based on over 30 years of personal experience.
Why do rainbows look like rainbows? You probably learned in school that water droplets act like prisms and breaks up white light into it's constituent colours - producing the rainbow.
That's a prime example of lies to children.
No, that's a prime example of explaining a simplified subset of facts to children so that they aren't overwhelmed by a deluge of information they aren't prepared to handle. There is no lie involved and ranting that there is makes you sound like conspiracy theorist whackjob.
The ability to break down knowledge into bite size chunks is not all that common. All too often the "explainer" gets sidetracked into minutia, or gets impressed with hearing themselves talk. Meanwhile the poor kids, or the person asking, gets overwhelmed, as they try to process it all. And usually they fail. Which might explain the failure of science to get through to a lot of people.
As an interesting and unrelated example of my point. Why do rainbows look like rainbows? You probably learned in school that water droplets act like prisms and breaks up white light into it's constituent colours - producing the rainbow.
You probably did an experiment where you held a prison to the sun and saw a rainbow.
That's a prime example of lies to children.
So you turn it into a huge dissertation. One doesn't teach children - or anyone for that matter - by dumping a load of information on them.
It's like the time a fellow asked me about a tuned cavity used in a local radio repeating station. Understandable, because in a world of tiny equipment these fairly large tube thingies look a little out of place....
Noob:"What's that?"
Me: "That's a tuned Cavity for our repeater system"
Noob:"What's that do?"
Me: "It provides really sharp filtration on the RF signals, and only allows ones at our frequencies to pass"
Noob:"Okay - why not an electronic circuit?
Me: "You could, but you need a lot of blocking ability at the particular frequency.. We call that Q factor. Very difficult to get with regular components."
Note that I gave a very simplified version of "Q" I think that's what you call lying.
Third guy interrupts, and starts in with a 20 minute lecture on Chebyshev filters, Ring filters, and other filter design stuff that gets the fellow asking the question's eyes to glaze over. The guy that asked me the question tuned out after about 30 seconds.
Later I went up to the guy and apologized for him getting the history of filter design for a simple question. He noted that 90 percent of what they other fellow was preaching went way over his head and was no help. I asked him if he was good on what a cavity filter was. He said, sure, it was a very sharply tuned filter, and was used because it had very sharp filtration as compared to electronic components. Go figure, eh?
I'm not the only one Coward. That's what I did, and you whooshed on it.
Can you explain your "joke" that seems to have a fairly high whoosh factor? Maybe it's more difficult to understand it for people who are not one of the voices in your head.
Keeping in mind that explaining any humor immediately kills it, here goes:
The subject matter in this particular thread is that older workers are better at adapting to new technology.
The lots of binary guy wrote:
There are 60, 70, 80 year olds that literally wrote the books on what our modern society is built on.
Okay, so far so good
fahrbot then replied: What are books?
An obvious but insightful sentence that shows how many young folk might find the concept of wood pulp non electronic books a little confusing. It works on a couple levels, as it involves an older technology, yet one that people smitten with electronic books might miss out on, yet older folks who understand both technologies might indeed be better at adapting and fixing problems.
Now we come up to my little quip that appears to have givin you a rage boner that would do the Donald proud.
With great impunity, I posted: Thanks for proving his point.
The perfidy! What that was was at base, a "me too" statement. A joke as it were, not the kind that makes one laugh, but a simple hammering home that becomes possible when someone makes an insightful and amusing posts.
And seriously dude? You cannot get that? Any voices that might be in my head are now laughing at you. Or perhaps feeling a little sorry, if you are serious, and not just some troll on the internet.
Today of course, any male adult is considered bad to be around.
I held back from mentioning this... the part how you can be a 7 year old and just go spend an afternoon with some adult male without it being any sort of problem whatsoever. These days it is so very hard to believe.
As an adult male who now tinkers on stuff in the garage, I make it a point to shut the door to avoid any sort of 'trouble'.
It was a different day and age. In truth, there are almost certainly the same percentage of males who children shouldn't be around. Which is to say very few.
Unfortunately, over time, the marginalizing of adult males, by way of reporting every incident in a country of hundreds of millions as if it was happening in our own town, the vested interest of well meaning parents trying to protect their children from anything bad in their lives at all, and the vested interest of a subset of humanity that simply hates men, it crept up on us.
And now it has gone batshit crazy. Within another Slashdot story we are hearing about how millennials are not engaging with each other. Some folks have tried to make it about money, but in fact, at least in a heterosexual context, relations have become a scary situation for the males.
And even if males resign themselves to being sperm donors for female same sex couples who want children, it doesn't end: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/... Make a donation, and you can end up on the hook for it.
But I've blathered on enough. It's a pity that what I remember as an enjoyable part of growing up has been so completely anathema in today's world. Not one of these guys was ever remotely interested in a couple of young boys that way. We would have hit the bricks in a second if we sensed that. Today? Most all normal males simply avoid young people altogether.
With few exceptions old people can't compete with young people when it comes to profitability.
Um huh, because paying a person a lot less is always the most profitable move. I've often written of my experiences with the millennials. Yes, I was paid much more than them. But I could work rings around them. Plus, I would come in early and stay late if needed. And the work only needed performed once, and was always done on time.
This is just clickbait for old people. Millennials suck, count the ways.
And what about those of us think that millenials have been terribly fucked up by adults who tried to protect them from any negativity in their lives whatsoever, and now they are adult in body, but stunted in emotional maturity? Damaged goods that might need another 10 years to learn to cope with reality in the same manner as 20 year olds once did?
Does that make me some old fart that hates kids or perhaps someone who might be observant and speaking from experience?
The millenials I worked with, with two big exceptions, were stressed out individuals that had difficulty adapting, and many just quit to move back in with mom and dad, or the grandparents in one case.
Have you spoken to old people much? they bitch and moan and have a whole list of shit they don't like.
Some do, and no doubt. A lot don't though. I tend to dismiss the grumps if they can't give up the bitching and moaning. But there are plenty out there who are very adroit. Its just that the bitchers and moaners are loud about it.
Seems the key is patience. Older people have more patience. They are as unhappy to put up with "shit" as the next guy but they have patience that comes with experience.
I wonder if there was any 'elitist attitude' then. I mean, human nature doesn't change so surely there were people talking down to noobz and scolding them with a "Go RTF AARL Handbook!".
For certain there was. As technology progressed, there was always a contingent of Hams who were pissed off by it. From spark gap to alternators to AM to Single sideband, There's always been a group taking up the rear guard, and pissed about it. The latest has been the end of Morse code testing, and now, Software defined radios are raising their ire.
There was a fellow during the 1960s - W2OY who when calling foro contacts, used to demand " No kids, no lids, no space cadets" and other inanity (A Lid is slang for a bad unskilled operator. Even have him recorded form back in the day. http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/...http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/...
Always asses somewhere.
Today, there are fellows who like to sit in the back of meetings and snicker and bitch about it when I present on Software defined Radios. But Technology moves forward, and they meet the actuarial talbes as bitter old men Female hams tend to be much more accepting of progress - haven't met one afflicted with what we call ode farte syndrome yet.
And age isn't it. I had a nige long digital Phase Shift Keying conversation with a 94 year old Ham across the country whp ohad just bought himself a new laptop that day, and was putting it on the air to check out the new mode. Meanwhile I know a few guys in their late 40's who are all pissy about the end of Morse code testing.
However, as a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s I remember walking down the street on a weekend and just about everyone was out tinkering on something in their garage. Ham Radios, go carts, hot rods, RC cars/planes, model rockets, model trains, etc. If you showed even the slightest bit of interest they'd invite you in and give you the grand tour of what they're doing and why. Sometimes they'd even send you home with books and magazines.
I don't know if it's because I was a little kid, or if maybe 'nerd types' were more inclusive then. Greatest Gens and Boomers were always warm and inviting, and it was my own generation (X) that seemed to start with the elitist crap. Millennials often seem to be carrying that same torch. Perhaps Nerddom is diseased now.
I recall being interested in radio and electronics at a young age. In fact, I was so curious that my Grandfather used to send me old radios because I had a bad habit of taking stuff apart. He knew I wouldn't stop, so found a excellent compromise.
But there were some guys up the road from us who were into Citizen's Band and Ham Radio, and as long as we got permission from our parents, they let us sit in and talk with them about radios and electronics. Today of course, any male adult is considered bad to be around. And that's a pity. As kids, my buds and I learned a lot of technology from these guys, as well as good socializing. The same with the guy across the street who worked on motorcycles, and eventually as a kid yet, I made some money fixing electrical systems and wiring. I think with the highly structured environment we enforce upon many young people today, we are shortchanging them immensely.
And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.
Actually, it might seem that in a country where I can pick up a firearm pretty easily and do just that as I like, your freaking out about a cartoon water pistol might be seen as pretty silly.
This to me, is a case of people not picking out their battles very well. Because everything is a battle to them. I'll be marked as a troll to -1 in about 10 minutes just for daring to post that getting all upset over a tiny little cartoon character isn't really eroding your second amendment rights. But it really isn't. But my post will just become another affront and a irresistable battle that needs suppressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that "Linux has malware!" because morons misconfigure an application running on Linux, is like saying "Windows has malware!" because SQL Server was installed with a blank sa password. I mean, sure, Windows does have malware, but this is just clickbait nonsense.
But this makes the Windows lads feel much better about themselves. While it is whacked to say that an open server is a Linux malware, It allows them to say, just like in the summary "Linux has malware too". Nope. It's a badly written bit of kit.
For all of the multitudes of Windows malware, the idea of pointing a finger at an open server and saying that Linux has Malware too!" is preposterous.
You no longer have to project. May your soul find peace.
Just because it doesn't show up on your Facebook page doesn't mean it it is hidden in bureaucracy. If you have an idea for NASA, here you go:
How dare you! You've completely run over some whiner's precious beliefs!
Cor - you people and your true facts and stuff.
So we should be talking about world hunger in a thread about Facebook?
Who's talking about world hunger?
Not sure if you know what we refer to when we mention "First World Problem".That's when some advantage you might have is turned into a problem. It's when someone gets excited because someone sends an invite only over Facebook, and someone misses it because they didn't check it. Too bad that there are no other communication options other than Facebook.
It's like being upset because you want to change the channel on your television, but you have to stand up and walk to where the remote is.
Or your Escalade is too big to fit through the drive through at Starbucks, so you have to park it and walk into the store.
Or your new swimming pool makes the back yard look small.
First World problems.
He's referring to the fact that many people have friends who will *only* send an invite to an event on Facebook. You'll find out a week later that you missed event X and they'll say, "didn't you see it on Facebook??!?"
First world problem.
The problem is't the users, the problem is the fucking malware that you criminals insist we install on our computers as the price of viewing your shitty site.
My adblockers, script blockers, flash blockers and other protections from you are my condoms for my computer.
AC was pointing out that causing a birth defect is degrading the baby, thus if these contaminants never degrade, they can't cause birth defects.
So tell us how catalysts work. Next tell us how a compound that "never degrades" is the final and fixed form of that chemical, and can no longer be used in any process because it will never react with anything.
All chemicals can be broken down into their elemental components. This silly definition you and your AC bud are trying to impose upon PFAs indicate you think that an indestructable substance has been produced.
Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that! The orange cheeto people are trying to enslave us but I won't let them win.
Yaeah, here's your arsenic trioxide sauce. Drinky up! I triple dog dare ya. It's a chemical, and anyone who thinks chemicals are bad is a kook.
And how can there be radiation? How can something you can't even see be bad for you?
I hope you realize you are just as silly and as unintelligent as the people you are mocking in your post.
Here's a link for you to mock. http://www.nicole.org/uploaded...
Now personally, I'd be more concerned about the estrogen mimics we are consuming in increasing amounts.
http://www.environmentalhealth...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Even (get ready for this) Fox News, has reported on this: http://www.foxnews.com/health/...
And BPA isn't the only estrogen mimic. We are being hammered with Estrogen mimics, and with phytoestrogens from food.
Now I do suspect unless you are a total misanthrope and just enjoy people's problems, that you don't really approve of this kind of stuff.
But Bisphenol A is an example of a large scale experiment which has caused a lot of harm to humans and other creatures. We did the same with DDT, thalidomide, lead, and more. These PFA chemicals are a likely carcinogen, and since they take a heckava long time to break down, it becomes a real problem if/when that is confirmed. Aside from drinking water, there are some people, like firefighters, who are exposed to a huge amount when they use fire suppressant foam.
Farts? As reported by Arse Technica writer Lee Hutchinson...
And I play Ice Hockey as well, although as I age, hiking is becoming more prominent.
I knew some folks who were sedentary and intelligent as well. But given that I know and have worked with at least as many very intelligent people as were in the study, and that if anything, my group was heavily skewed toward the higher end of intelligence, I really have to call bullshit on this study.
Highly Intelligent people would seem to me to cover the spectrum of physical activity and boredom as everyone else. That's based on over 30 years of personal experience.
Why do rainbows look like rainbows? You probably learned in school that water droplets act like prisms and breaks up white light into it's constituent colours - producing the rainbow.
That's a prime example of lies to children.
No, that's a prime example of explaining a simplified subset of facts to children so that they aren't overwhelmed by a deluge of information they aren't prepared to handle. There is no lie involved and ranting that there is makes you sound like conspiracy theorist whackjob.
The ability to break down knowledge into bite size chunks is not all that common. All too often the "explainer" gets sidetracked into minutia, or gets impressed with hearing themselves talk. Meanwhile the poor kids, or the person asking, gets overwhelmed, as they try to process it all. And usually they fail. Which might explain the failure of science to get through to a lot of people.
As an interesting and unrelated example of my point. Why do rainbows look like rainbows? You probably learned in school that water droplets act like prisms and breaks up white light into it's constituent colours - producing the rainbow. You probably did an experiment where you held a prison to the sun and saw a rainbow.
That's a prime example of lies to children.
So you turn it into a huge dissertation. One doesn't teach children - or anyone for that matter - by dumping a load of information on them.
It's like the time a fellow asked me about a tuned cavity used in a local radio repeating station. Understandable, because in a world of tiny equipment these fairly large tube thingies look a little out of place....
Noob:"What's that?"
Me: "That's a tuned Cavity for our repeater system"
Noob:"What's that do?"
Me: "It provides really sharp filtration on the RF signals, and only allows ones at our frequencies to pass"
Noob:"Okay - why not an electronic circuit?
Me: "You could, but you need a lot of blocking ability at the particular frequency.. We call that Q factor. Very difficult to get with regular components."
Note that I gave a very simplified version of "Q" I think that's what you call lying.
Third guy interrupts, and starts in with a 20 minute lecture on Chebyshev filters, Ring filters, and other filter design stuff that gets the fellow asking the question's eyes to glaze over. The guy that asked me the question tuned out after about 30 seconds.
Later I went up to the guy and apologized for him getting the history of filter design for a simple question. He noted that 90 percent of what they other fellow was preaching went way over his head and was no help. I asked him if he was good on what a cavity filter was. He said, sure, it was a very sharply tuned filter, and was used because it had very sharp filtration as compared to electronic components. Go figure, eh?
You don't get it. When the guy said "what are books?", it was a joke.
You even read what I typed? Of course it was a joke. That is precisely why I typed:
Keeping in mind that explaining any humor immediately kills it, here goes:
You figure my explaining the humor was me not understanding it was a joke?
Peace out, troll entity.
Seems you need to learn what a "joke" is
I'm not the only one Coward. That's what I did, and you whooshed on it.
Can you explain your "joke" that seems to have a fairly high whoosh factor? Maybe it's more difficult to understand it for people who are not one of the voices in your head.
Keeping in mind that explaining any humor immediately kills it, here goes: The subject matter in this particular thread is that older workers are better at adapting to new technology.
The lots of binary guy wrote:
There are 60, 70, 80 year olds that literally wrote the books on what our modern society is built on.
Okay, so far so good
fahrbot then replied: What are books?
An obvious but insightful sentence that shows how many young folk might find the concept of wood pulp non electronic books a little confusing. It works on a couple levels, as it involves an older technology, yet one that people smitten with electronic books might miss out on, yet older folks who understand both technologies might indeed be better at adapting and fixing problems.
Now we come up to my little quip that appears to have givin you a rage boner that would do the Donald proud.
With great impunity, I posted: Thanks for proving his point.
The perfidy! What that was was at base, a "me too" statement. A joke as it were, not the kind that makes one laugh, but a simple hammering home that becomes possible when someone makes an insightful and amusing posts.
And seriously dude? You cannot get that? Any voices that might be in my head are now laughing at you. Or perhaps feeling a little sorry, if you are serious, and not just some troll on the internet.
Today of course, any male adult is considered bad to be around.
I held back from mentioning this... the part how you can be a 7 year old and just go spend an afternoon with some adult male without it being any sort of problem whatsoever. These days it is so very hard to believe.
As an adult male who now tinkers on stuff in the garage, I make it a point to shut the door to avoid any sort of 'trouble'.
It was a different day and age. In truth, there are almost certainly the same percentage of males who children shouldn't be around. Which is to say very few.
Unfortunately, over time, the marginalizing of adult males, by way of reporting every incident in a country of hundreds of millions as if it was happening in our own town, the vested interest of well meaning parents trying to protect their children from anything bad in their lives at all, and the vested interest of a subset of humanity that simply hates men, it crept up on us.
And now it has gone batshit crazy. Within another Slashdot story we are hearing about how millennials are not engaging with each other. Some folks have tried to make it about money, but in fact, at least in a heterosexual context, relations have become a scary situation for the males.
And even if males resign themselves to being sperm donors for female same sex couples who want children, it doesn't end: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/... Make a donation, and you can end up on the hook for it.
http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/...
https://www.theguardian.com/mo...
But I've blathered on enough. It's a pity that what I remember as an enjoyable part of growing up has been so completely anathema in today's world. Not one of these guys was ever remotely interested in a couple of young boys that way. We would have hit the bricks in a second if we sensed that. Today? Most all normal males simply avoid young people altogether.
What? You have a special pigsty to fart in? - Americans think of everything, I'm impressed.
You really need to try harder. The only thing worse than being witty is not being witty.
It was a joke. I'm 53 and have actually read many books - some more than once. :-)
I know it was, I was making a joke to your joke. Tough crowd here tonight!
Seems you need to learn what a "joke" is
I'm not the only one Coward. That's what I did, and you whooshed on it.
With few exceptions old people can't compete with young people when it comes to profitability.
Um huh, because paying a person a lot less is always the most profitable move. I've often written of my experiences with the millennials. Yes, I was paid much more than them. But I could work rings around them. Plus, I would come in early and stay late if needed. And the work only needed performed once, and was always done on time.
This is just clickbait for old people. Millennials suck, count the ways.
And what about those of us think that millenials have been terribly fucked up by adults who tried to protect them from any negativity in their lives whatsoever, and now they are adult in body, but stunted in emotional maturity? Damaged goods that might need another 10 years to learn to cope with reality in the same manner as 20 year olds once did?
Does that make me some old fart that hates kids or perhaps someone who might be observant and speaking from experience?
The millenials I worked with, with two big exceptions, were stressed out individuals that had difficulty adapting, and many just quit to move back in with mom and dad, or the grandparents in one case.
Have you spoken to old people much? they bitch and moan and have a whole list of shit they don't like.
Some do, and no doubt. A lot don't though. I tend to dismiss the grumps if they can't give up the bitching and moaning. But there are plenty out there who are very adroit. Its just that the bitchers and moaners are loud about it.
Seems the key is patience. Older people have more patience. They are as unhappy to put up with "shit" as the next guy but they have patience that comes with experience.
That's pretty plausible
"
I wonder if there was any 'elitist attitude' then. I mean, human nature doesn't change so surely there were people talking down to noobz and scolding them with a "Go RTF AARL Handbook!".
For certain there was. As technology progressed, there was always a contingent of Hams who were pissed off by it. From spark gap to alternators to AM to Single sideband, There's always been a group taking up the rear guard, and pissed about it. The latest has been the end of Morse code testing, and now, Software defined radios are raising their ire.
There was a fellow during the 1960s - W2OY who when calling foro contacts, used to demand " No kids, no lids, no space cadets" and other inanity (A Lid is slang for a bad unskilled operator. Even have him recorded form back in the day. http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/... http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/...
Always asses somewhere.
Today, there are fellows who like to sit in the back of meetings and snicker and bitch about it when I present on Software defined Radios. But Technology moves forward, and they meet the actuarial talbes as bitter old men Female hams tend to be much more accepting of progress - haven't met one afflicted with what we call ode farte syndrome yet.
And age isn't it. I had a nige long digital Phase Shift Keying conversation with a 94 year old Ham across the country whp ohad just bought himself a new laptop that day, and was putting it on the air to check out the new mode. Meanwhile I know a few guys in their late 40's who are all pissy about the end of Morse code testing.
However, as a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s I remember walking down the street on a weekend and just about everyone was out tinkering on something in their garage. Ham Radios, go carts, hot rods, RC cars/planes, model rockets, model trains, etc. If you showed even the slightest bit of interest they'd invite you in and give you the grand tour of what they're doing and why. Sometimes they'd even send you home with books and magazines.
I don't know if it's because I was a little kid, or if maybe 'nerd types' were more inclusive then. Greatest Gens and Boomers were always warm and inviting, and it was my own generation (X) that seemed to start with the elitist crap. Millennials often seem to be carrying that same torch. Perhaps Nerddom is diseased now.
I recall being interested in radio and electronics at a young age. In fact, I was so curious that my Grandfather used to send me old radios because I had a bad habit of taking stuff apart. He knew I wouldn't stop, so found a excellent compromise.
But there were some guys up the road from us who were into Citizen's Band and Ham Radio, and as long as we got permission from our parents, they let us sit in and talk with them about radios and electronics. Today of course, any male adult is considered bad to be around. And that's a pity. As kids, my buds and I learned a lot of technology from these guys, as well as good socializing. The same with the guy across the street who worked on motorcycles, and eventually as a kid yet, I made some money fixing electrical systems and wiring. I think with the highly structured environment we enforce upon many young people today, we are shortchanging them immensely.
There are 60, 70, 80 year olds that literally wrote the books on what our modern society is built on.
What are "books"?
Thanks for proving his point.
Apple's lawyers, you godamn partisan idiot.
And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.
Actually, it might seem that in a country where I can pick up a firearm pretty easily and do just that as I like, your freaking out about a cartoon water pistol might be seen as pretty silly.
This to me, is a case of people not picking out their battles very well. Because everything is a battle to them. I'll be marked as a troll to -1 in about 10 minutes just for daring to post that getting all upset over a tiny little cartoon character isn't really eroding your second amendment rights. But it really isn't. But my post will just become another affront and a irresistable battle that needs suppressed.
"We must take away your rights because I don't like them!"
The cry of the SJW!
Your rights are subordinate to weakling's feelings!
So explain how an emoji is taking away your rights.