Congratulations, you got me on that one. Of course, in the Chinese culture, most successful politicans and businessmen are expected to get engineering degrees or some other hard science degree. Note that Hu Jintao hasn't been a practicing engineer for a while. But, you are right: he is an engineer. I think I'll have to write a margin of error into my future statements for Slashdot.
Oh, no, oh dear. You've got me. You applied your massively superior intellect to logging onto Fortune or Forbes.com and pulling up a list of the CEOs of the Fortune/Forbes 100/500/whatever and producing a list of names in less than two minutes, if you didn't just pull it from memory because you had nothing better to do than put me in my plce. Pish, you fool of a troll. I've encountered better trouncing from a dead kitten.
In the first place, of course I used hyperbole and exaggeration in my original post. Since the parent of MY post decided to deride all LA majors, I felt it only obvious to return the favor. As a LA major I cheerfully reserve the right to exaggerate, distort, and otherwise spin facts as I so choose. It's a hallmark of good politicians, and your post is a stunning example of why you'd get booted out of any elected or C-level office in a heartbeat (because it's intolerant, insensitive, and boorish, and you choose being right over being human - all qualities that'll get you shot in a good boardroom).
If I really felt it'd be a good expenditure of my time, I'd spend about a day looking up the thousands of successful CEOs and executives who have made fortunes without resorting to an MBA or engineering degree. And I'd point out to you the hundreds of world leaders who majored in POLI SCI. But of course, my intellect is no match for yours. And I have to work for a living, unlike yourself who apparently has the IQ of a God and a frontal cortex the size of a jet engine, so that means I can't take the time to prove you wrong and risk damaging your immense ego.
So please... just overlook my pitiful response.
I accept your point regarding the bazillion Liberal Arts degree majors. Most of them take it because they just need a four year stamp. To top it all off, most are pretty mediocre too. So you have zinged me there, sir.
To answer your question, yes, you can get a good job with Liberal Arts. Most of them are in sales, but you can. Furthermore, I'd argue that the definition of a 'good' job is highly subjective. For me, it's making enough to keep the roof over my head, food to eat, bills paid, a night out on the town, and a decent retirement program. (although I leave myself wide open to the charge that for many, this may not be enough).
ALL of the heads of state in the world today are, or can be considered Liberal Arts majors. MOST of the governments of the world are filled to the brim with liberal arts students (mostly specializing in language. Many CEO's have liberal arts degrees and NOT business degrees.
So your statement that the Liberal Arts Major is a four-year stamp for dead-end jobs is not even remotely accurate.
People who major in Liberal Arts run the world you live in, because most people who major in Engineering or other hard sciences would do an absolutely horrible job doing so. That's not where your skillsets or strengths lie. In order to run the world, you have to be able to account for other people's opinions, personalities, agendas, and desires. Most engineers/programmers/scientists I've met are very intolerant of opinions and beliefs other than their own (as often evidenced on Slashdot). They cannot deal with the political complexities required, nor would they be successful in a job that required them to do so.
Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe that if put into power, engineers and other hard scientists would probably institute forms of fascism into the government, because they would be more interested in fixing the problem than in actually running the system. And there's a vast difference between the two goals when you're considering political systems.
Let's assume the worst here: Comcast's technology enables the government to spy on its own citizens. That's 300 million potential suspects at least. THEN, the government has to hire people to observe said 300 million people. Let's assume that through massive emplacement of supercomputers and a Gi-gantoid amount of new fiber being laid down throughout the geographic United States JUST for the sole purpose of providing enough bandwidth to do this is done.
Let's say all this comes in place and there's a sizable workforce of several hundred or thousand people specifically hired to watch all of us in front of our TVs. With a implanted federal bureaucracy in place to oversee it all. Let's say this all comes to happen.
We, the American people, could shut this all down in less than forty eight hours simply by sitting nekkid in front of our cameras for prolonged periods of time. There is no way any government-no matter the philosophy-would ever foot the bill to force people to spy on millions of ugly fat naked people staring back at them.
I'm going to put a bulls-eye the size of Montana on my forehead and proclaim that I'm leaning towards ID. Why? One, because I'm feeling the need to be well roasted with some juicy flameposts. Two, because to me ID embraces evolution. Does evolution really care how we got started? It shouldn't, because it's an on-going process. I don't believe in Creationism because it's patently ridiculous. I do believe that the earth is billions of years old, and I do believe in evolution as a valid scientific theory. I also accept that ID is NOT scientific and I do not accept it as a 'scientific theory'. But where I begin to give ID credit is in examining the basic cause of life, because we still haven't figured out how life actually started. There's Abiogenesis (hopefully I spelled that right), there's asteroid seeding, and there's other ideas. We don't know, quite frankly, and the idea that life may have been tinkered with isn't that far-fetched, when considering the complexities of the universe. I reserve the right to be completely, totally, and absolutely wrong on this. I also give ID some credit because, essentially, NOTHING is absolute in this universe. We've proven that you can resurrect someone after they've well and truly died (given a narrow set of parameters, granted), so death is no longer quite certain. There are people living completely off the grid around the world who don't get to pay taxes, so that's not certain. And there's a scientific hypothesis floating around out there that there may be a central core of mass to the universe, which could cast into doubt the origins of the Big Bang (which I also believe in by the way). Then (just to REALLY annoy y'all) I look at stories of ghost sightings and UFOs. Most of the time, they're complete bunk. But there is that narrow percentage where you examine the witness, examine the story, and realize that something happened that cannot be explained with current methods. It's these random incidents and phenomena that doesn't quite jive with current scientific consensus, that makes me believe that there is something more to us, and something more to this universe than random blind chance. Whether it's aliens, flying spaghetti monsters, a higher power (For the record, I DON'T believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God, or any sort of mainstream religion's "GOD"), or SOMETHING, I don't know. But I do know that nothing is absolute in this reality, and because of that, I'm open to the thought that perhaps we have been 'guided' in our evolution. And we shouldn't be so hasty to lump ID in with Creationism, because at their heart, the two ideas are separate and distinct.
I reserve the right to be completely, totally, and utterly WRONG (been so many times, plan on being so in the future again), and to be as open-minded as I can. Let the flaming begin... (I've gone ahead and prepared a nice BBQ sauce to dunk my ass in prior to roasting)
hmmm... methinks being cut in half by a thrill-crazy alien adrenaline junkie in dreadlocks and leather because I failed to scream my request for directions to the bathroom at an appropriate ear-splitting decibel is just a really bad way to die.
I can picture this happening at multiple Star Trek cons... and still somehow we nerds manage to procreate. Sometimes I think the actors are more entertained by us, than we are by them... especially at these cons.
I grok thee, Wil Wheaton.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you got me on that one. Of course, in the Chinese culture, most successful politicans and businessmen are expected to get engineering degrees or some other hard science degree. Note that Hu Jintao hasn't been a practicing engineer for a while. But, you are right: he is an engineer. I think I'll have to write a margin of error into my future statements for Slashdot.
Oh, no, oh dear. You've got me. You applied your massively superior intellect to logging onto Fortune or Forbes.com and pulling up a list of the CEOs of the Fortune/Forbes 100/500/whatever and producing a list of names in less than two minutes, if you didn't just pull it from memory because you had nothing better to do than put me in my plce. Pish, you fool of a troll. I've encountered better trouncing from a dead kitten. In the first place, of course I used hyperbole and exaggeration in my original post. Since the parent of MY post decided to deride all LA majors, I felt it only obvious to return the favor. As a LA major I cheerfully reserve the right to exaggerate, distort, and otherwise spin facts as I so choose. It's a hallmark of good politicians, and your post is a stunning example of why you'd get booted out of any elected or C-level office in a heartbeat (because it's intolerant, insensitive, and boorish, and you choose being right over being human - all qualities that'll get you shot in a good boardroom). If I really felt it'd be a good expenditure of my time, I'd spend about a day looking up the thousands of successful CEOs and executives who have made fortunes without resorting to an MBA or engineering degree. And I'd point out to you the hundreds of world leaders who majored in POLI SCI. But of course, my intellect is no match for yours. And I have to work for a living, unlike yourself who apparently has the IQ of a God and a frontal cortex the size of a jet engine, so that means I can't take the time to prove you wrong and risk damaging your immense ego. So please... just overlook my pitiful response.
I accept your point regarding the bazillion Liberal Arts degree majors. Most of them take it because they just need a four year stamp. To top it all off, most are pretty mediocre too. So you have zinged me there, sir. To answer your question, yes, you can get a good job with Liberal Arts. Most of them are in sales, but you can. Furthermore, I'd argue that the definition of a 'good' job is highly subjective. For me, it's making enough to keep the roof over my head, food to eat, bills paid, a night out on the town, and a decent retirement program. (although I leave myself wide open to the charge that for many, this may not be enough).
ALL of the heads of state in the world today are, or can be considered Liberal Arts majors. MOST of the governments of the world are filled to the brim with liberal arts students (mostly specializing in language. Many CEO's have liberal arts degrees and NOT business degrees. So your statement that the Liberal Arts Major is a four-year stamp for dead-end jobs is not even remotely accurate. People who major in Liberal Arts run the world you live in, because most people who major in Engineering or other hard sciences would do an absolutely horrible job doing so. That's not where your skillsets or strengths lie. In order to run the world, you have to be able to account for other people's opinions, personalities, agendas, and desires. Most engineers/programmers/scientists I've met are very intolerant of opinions and beliefs other than their own (as often evidenced on Slashdot). They cannot deal with the political complexities required, nor would they be successful in a job that required them to do so. Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe that if put into power, engineers and other hard scientists would probably institute forms of fascism into the government, because they would be more interested in fixing the problem than in actually running the system. And there's a vast difference between the two goals when you're considering political systems.
Let's assume the worst here: Comcast's technology enables the government to spy on its own citizens. That's 300 million potential suspects at least. THEN, the government has to hire people to observe said 300 million people. Let's assume that through massive emplacement of supercomputers and a Gi-gantoid amount of new fiber being laid down throughout the geographic United States JUST for the sole purpose of providing enough bandwidth to do this is done. Let's say all this comes in place and there's a sizable workforce of several hundred or thousand people specifically hired to watch all of us in front of our TVs. With a implanted federal bureaucracy in place to oversee it all. Let's say this all comes to happen. We, the American people, could shut this all down in less than forty eight hours simply by sitting nekkid in front of our cameras for prolonged periods of time. There is no way any government-no matter the philosophy-would ever foot the bill to force people to spy on millions of ugly fat naked people staring back at them.
I'm going to put a bulls-eye the size of Montana on my forehead and proclaim that I'm leaning towards ID. Why? One, because I'm feeling the need to be well roasted with some juicy flameposts. Two, because to me ID embraces evolution. Does evolution really care how we got started? It shouldn't, because it's an on-going process.
I don't believe in Creationism because it's patently ridiculous. I do believe that the earth is billions of years old, and I do believe in evolution as a valid scientific theory. I also accept that ID is NOT scientific and I do not accept it as a 'scientific theory'.
But where I begin to give ID credit is in examining the basic cause of life, because we still haven't figured out how life actually started. There's Abiogenesis (hopefully I spelled that right), there's asteroid seeding, and there's other ideas. We don't know, quite frankly, and the idea that life may have been tinkered with isn't that far-fetched, when considering the complexities of the universe. I reserve the right to be completely, totally, and absolutely wrong on this.
I also give ID some credit because, essentially, NOTHING is absolute in this universe. We've proven that you can resurrect someone after they've well and truly died (given a narrow set of parameters, granted), so death is no longer quite certain. There are people living completely off the grid around the world who don't get to pay taxes, so that's not certain. And there's a scientific hypothesis floating around out there that there may be a central core of mass to the universe, which could cast into doubt the origins of the Big Bang (which I also believe in by the way). Then (just to REALLY annoy y'all) I look at stories of ghost sightings and UFOs. Most of the time, they're complete bunk. But there is that narrow percentage where you examine the witness, examine the story, and realize that something happened that cannot be explained with current methods. It's these random incidents and phenomena that doesn't quite jive with current scientific consensus, that makes me believe that there is something more to us, and something more to this universe than random blind chance.
Whether it's aliens, flying spaghetti monsters, a higher power (For the record, I DON'T believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God, or any sort of mainstream religion's "GOD"), or SOMETHING, I don't know. But I do know that nothing is absolute in this reality, and because of that, I'm open to the thought that perhaps we have been 'guided' in our evolution. And we shouldn't be so hasty to lump ID in with Creationism, because at their heart, the two ideas are separate and distinct.
I reserve the right to be completely, totally, and utterly WRONG (been so many times, plan on being so in the future again), and to be as open-minded as I can. Let the flaming begin... (I've gone ahead and prepared a nice BBQ sauce to dunk my ass in prior to roasting)
>Perhaps not a pope, but the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith did. Donum Vitae, Feb 22, 1987.
Yeah, and before they were known as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, they were known as the Inquisition. 'Nuff said.
hmmm... methinks being cut in half by a thrill-crazy alien adrenaline junkie in dreadlocks and leather because I failed to scream my request for directions to the bathroom at an appropriate ear-splitting decibel is just a really bad way to die. I can picture this happening at multiple Star Trek cons... and still somehow we nerds manage to procreate. Sometimes I think the actors are more entertained by us, than we are by them... especially at these cons. I grok thee, Wil Wheaton.