Mature "professional networking" doesn't happen at pre-determined events where you get a whole 5 minutes to say some kiss ass pre-scripted phrase and hand over a business card. Mature people who actually want to be judged based on their skills meet people and over extended periods of time and multiple conversations get to know and respect each other and, as a result of knowing the kind of person / what skills you have, they are willing to refer you for a job.
Not to mentioned that your 1 hour ass kissing networking events are biased against those who actually WORK on their skills, such as someone who works full time AND is in graduate school to further improve their skills, since they don't have the time to go to an ass kissing session - they're too busy learning and gaining skills.
While you didn't explicitly state it, many others pointed out how you can use a conference to "make connections" to get a job. The whole "networking" deal really annoys me because generally, you're not going to be having enough time talking to anyone to actually show them how knowledgeable you are - so it pretty much boils down to getting a job because you spent some time ass kissing before you apply for a position. I'm aware it's not how it works in the real world, but I think people should be hired based on their ability to do the job, not to suck up to someone.
I mis-read how the comments were nested. The original poster who mentioned Fusion said
I suspect if they went and talked to AMD they could come up with some kind of Fusion-based console
I thought you responded to him. However, the person you responded to has never heard of Fusion and thought he was talking about a hybrid PowerPC / x64 system.
It's been like a year since I read it, but they explicitly state that if they ever remove a game from the store (for whatever reason) they MIGHT give you a refund or they MIGHT give you a non-Steam copy, but that'll be determined by them at the time. The same as how they MIGHT give you a non-Steam version if Steam ever shuts down. Nowhere did they ever say "We plan to do this, but we just might not be able to" like you're claiming.
But hey, apparently living in your mom's basement means she buys all your games for you and thus you don't care about flushing that money down the toilet. Those of us who actually work and pay our own bills care about getting value for our money.
I've actually been the opposite. I despise pirating and never pirated games as a kid - I always bought them (I've had a job since I was 10). However, in the last year I've started pirating games, but only if they have DRM. Why? Because the DRM bullshit has gotten way out of hand and I refuse to pay to be punished by a company. They're not getting my money one way or another if there is DRM in the game, so there's no reason NOT to pirate it.
I still hate pirating games, but I won't buy any game with DRM. I'll stop playing games before I pay to be punished.
You're conveniently ignoring the features Steam has beyond being a sales platform:
You also forgot the features of Valve having ability to delete games without compensation and that if they go out of business, they're not obligated to provide you with non-Steam versions of your games. I for one know that I always love the feature of being robbed of my money / property!
Note: The last part was a joke. The rest wasn't, you can look it up in Steam's TOS if you don't believe me.
but i would agree that a "fusion" of amd and x64 would be nice and probably work wonders
I'm assuming you haven't kept up with AMD's tech. Fusion is the actual name of a new line of AMD processors that are a combination of CPU and GPU on one chip (hence the Fusion name). So far I've only seen one system using them (they just came out recently) and it was a laptop that not only blew away benchmark numbers, but also had incredible battery life as well. I agree with the GP, if they made an XBOX-720 with an AMD Fusion processor, they could probably have an incredible system where games could be ported to Windows in about two seconds due to having the same CPU and GPU.
Well in Windows 7 the "Games" folder auto-detects games and adds icons, so you simply open the Games folder and *bam* all of your game shortcuts. Or if you're Amish and still using XP, you can always just make a folder with all your game shortcuts yourself.
Really, using that as a benefit to using Steam is like complaining about having to put the disc in. Is it a nice bonus to not need a disk? Sure, which is why I registered my Blizzard games so I can use the no-disk downloads, but it's not something to complain about.
I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.
First, how is that any different from what I said earlier about you reading / listening to all of their conversations? Secondly, how is that NOT controlling their actions or thoughts when if they ever dare to express anything you don't like, you'll punish them for it?
Parents like you make me glad that I'm old enough that they didn't have all the surveillance technology back when I was a kid. I find it laughable that people will claim that the government has no right to spy on them, then turn around and spy on their kids constantly. Oh sweet irony.
I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.
Yes, I know, we've heard you plenty of times - your kids have no right to privacy or to make their own decisions or form their own thoughts / opinions. Hence me talking about you raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. You behave no differently than an abusive and controlling boyfriend / husband, but you think it's somehow OK because you're doing this to your kids who are under 18 (as opposed to a girlfriend / wife), and thus your property to do with as you please.
Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming.
OK, so your first statement basically admits that there's no point in your controlling behavior because your kids will do what they want anyways. Your second statement here admits that even you aren't perfect, so it's rather confusing why you still think that you have the right or omniscience to be such a controlling person. I think it's more that you're trying to seem "human" and "understanding", while still arguing that your obsession with control over your children is OK.
Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately.
Monitoring and checking up from time to time is one thing. Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues. You forget that another part of your job as a parent is to allow your children to grow and take on responsibility.
This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.
No, it's about SOME teenagers make bad decisions, so you decide to be an ass and follow the Stalin philosophy of "rule with an iron fist", which ironically, will likely cause your children to make bad decisions out of their desire to get a chance to make a decision on their own instead of simply following your orders.
Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.
How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.
It's inconsistent because 1) you've said that regardless of age, they need to be 100% controlled (which you advocated until your last comment here) and 2) you've said again and again that YOU get to control everything they do - that's not "watching" to make sure that they're ok.
Whoa whoa whoa. You go from all of your previous arguments about how "They're mine to abuse as much as I want until they're 18 because they don't have a brain until the law magically gives them one at 18!" to "Kids develop at different rates"? Funny that when I pointed out that you can teach them to be responsible at younger ages, you said that it's impossible and that they need to be treated as poorly as possible until 18. Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.
But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.
You clearly either A) have a hard time following logic or B) really don't want health and stable kids, because your actions are doing the exact opposite by raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. Even of those raised poorly, a large number of them don't get pregnant, raped, or addicted to drugs. That's simply you rationalizing your behavior.
If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?
How can you NOT understand why I would say your behavior shows you're unfit to be a parent? All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains. Did you not see all the other responses (I think around a dozen?) where people said pretty much exactly the same thing as I did, including a guy who had a step-parent just like you?
Being a controlling asshole != being a good parent. In fact, it's being a BAD parent because you don't teach your kids how to be adults since you refuse to let them make any choices that affect their life and they also miss out on learning to accept the negative consequences of their actions as a result. It's usually the kids who have psychotically controlling parents such as yourself who go to college, come face to face with reality and having to make their own choices, and then make a whole lot of BAD choices because they were never taught how to make good choices, merely ordered to "do what you're told!!!"
Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?
Actually I know plenty of 14 year olds who had more maturity than you do, as well as plenty as immature as you. If you had bothered to READ what I wrote instead of being an arrogant prick, you'd have noticed the part where I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions. You know damn well that you had the ability to take care of yourself and decide what you wanted to do when you were in high school - if you claim otherwise, then you've fallen prey to the good old "anyone younger than me is a moron and needs me to tell them what to do" narcissism that runs rampant in anyone over the age of 18.
I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.
Controlling their every action and giving them zero privacy is NOT the same as keeping them safe. Keeping them safe means TEACHING them of dangerous things from a young age (such as don't play with fire, don't run with scissors, don't meet up with random people you meet online, etc) and then after they're a teenager, you have to let them make their own decisions and if they make a stupid one, you punish them. People learn from making mistakes - it's a proven fact. Those who never get to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences end up making nothing but mistakes and refuse to accept the consequences once they're finally put in a situation where they have to make decisions. Try asking psychologists, police, and social workers about the people most likely to end up doing drugs, being alcoholics, or dating gang members - having a controlling asshole for a parent dramatically increases the odds of someone doing those things once they get a chance because they want to rebel and use their actions to scream "FUCK YOU!" to their parents.
I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption.
Bullshit. Libertarians believe that people have the right to make their own choices and get to reap the reward or suffer the consequences of said choices. Your method of parenting completely contradicts that because you want to control their every action and keep them from ever making a choice, merely do as they're ordered to.
My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions.
No, your attitude is to control those in no position to get away from you and will result in people who make bad choices in college because they want to do all the things they were forbidden from doing and get back at you. I've yet to see a child of a respo
Careful there chief - I know you just want to teach them, but as we've seen with all the bullshit "sex crimes" charges (like the guy on youtube getting arrested), I'd steer clear of that to make sure your kids don't grow up with a dad who's in prison.
Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out. Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions - and (I know this is hard for people like you and the parents working with this jackass cop to understand), the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one. You do it slowly over time, so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they're mature and responsible.
Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.
Well (driving enjoyment issues aside), we've still got a good couple of decades before we have truly good batteries for a car that don't take forever to charge. Yes, cars like the Nissan Leaf are a great first step, but a 100 mile (in optimal conditions) range is still only about 1/3 of the way to where it needs to be and they still take the better part of a day to charge. Since the realistic range on the Leaf is closer to around 75 miles, if you have a 30 mile drive to work (not uncommon in a large city), you're only giving yourself a buffer of 15 miles worth of electricity to allot for traffic, which is frankly way too close for me to take a chance on.
I'm not saying people shouldn't buy them - just that for the time being, they're limited to a certain group of people who drive very short distances. The Leaf would be a great car for my parents, one of whom drives around 15 miles each way for work and the other only around 3 miles. However, most people I know have drives to and from work long enough that if they got stuck in traffic, they'd have a good chance of running out of power before they could get home. Then there's the added benefit to the rest of society of lower gas prices as a result of decreased oil demand due to electric cars.
There was an article in The Economist a few months back about several companies that are working on what's essentially synthetic gasoline and that they are planning on producing in significant volumes within the next three years or so. I'm eager for practical alternatives to oil so that we can stop kissing OPEC's ass.
When did Watson say the guy HAD a leg? Never. It said what was his abnormality, and Watson said "leg" because his lack of a leg was his abnormality. You see HUMANS do this same thing quite often.
No, it's a "wrong answer due to incorrect wording", not because the facts of the answer were wrong. Watson had the right answer. It's like if you're doing a math problem and you get the number right but forget to put the units of measure with it - the teacher will take points off, but your math was still right.
So thought provoking commentary on how humans behave should be locked away so that the moronic masses stay zombified? Well, it's good to know which side you're on....
Slashdot Mirror
Mature "professional networking" doesn't happen at pre-determined events where you get a whole 5 minutes to say some kiss ass pre-scripted phrase and hand over a business card. Mature people who actually want to be judged based on their skills meet people and over extended periods of time and multiple conversations get to know and respect each other and, as a result of knowing the kind of person / what skills you have, they are willing to refer you for a job.
Not to mentioned that your 1 hour ass kissing networking events are biased against those who actually WORK on their skills, such as someone who works full time AND is in graduate school to further improve their skills, since they don't have the time to go to an ass kissing session - they're too busy learning and gaining skills.
While you didn't explicitly state it, many others pointed out how you can use a conference to "make connections" to get a job. The whole "networking" deal really annoys me because generally, you're not going to be having enough time talking to anyone to actually show them how knowledgeable you are - so it pretty much boils down to getting a job because you spent some time ass kissing before you apply for a position. I'm aware it's not how it works in the real world, but I think people should be hired based on their ability to do the job, not to suck up to someone.
I mis-read how the comments were nested. The original poster who mentioned Fusion said
I suspect if they went and talked to AMD they could come up with some kind of Fusion-based console
I thought you responded to him. However, the person you responded to has never heard of Fusion and thought he was talking about a hybrid PowerPC / x64 system.
It's been like a year since I read it, but they explicitly state that if they ever remove a game from the store (for whatever reason) they MIGHT give you a refund or they MIGHT give you a non-Steam copy, but that'll be determined by them at the time. The same as how they MIGHT give you a non-Steam version if Steam ever shuts down. Nowhere did they ever say "We plan to do this, but we just might not be able to" like you're claiming.
But hey, apparently living in your mom's basement means she buys all your games for you and thus you don't care about flushing that money down the toilet. Those of us who actually work and pay our own bills care about getting value for our money.
I've installed plenty of games (even old Win 95 games) and it detects them just fine.
No, the Valve TOS says that they MIGHT do that, but that there's no guarantee.
I've actually been the opposite. I despise pirating and never pirated games as a kid - I always bought them (I've had a job since I was 10). However, in the last year I've started pirating games, but only if they have DRM. Why? Because the DRM bullshit has gotten way out of hand and I refuse to pay to be punished by a company. They're not getting my money one way or another if there is DRM in the game, so there's no reason NOT to pirate it.
I still hate pirating games, but I won't buy any game with DRM. I'll stop playing games before I pay to be punished.
You're conveniently ignoring the features Steam has beyond being a sales platform:
You also forgot the features of Valve having ability to delete games without compensation and that if they go out of business, they're not obligated to provide you with non-Steam versions of your games. I for one know that I always love the feature of being robbed of my money / property!
Note: The last part was a joke. The rest wasn't, you can look it up in Steam's TOS if you don't believe me.
Not what he's talking about. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion for more information.
but i would agree that a "fusion" of amd and x64 would be nice and probably work wonders
I'm assuming you haven't kept up with AMD's tech. Fusion is the actual name of a new line of AMD processors that are a combination of CPU and GPU on one chip (hence the Fusion name). So far I've only seen one system using them (they just came out recently) and it was a laptop that not only blew away benchmark numbers, but also had incredible battery life as well. I agree with the GP, if they made an XBOX-720 with an AMD Fusion processor, they could probably have an incredible system where games could be ported to Windows in about two seconds due to having the same CPU and GPU.
Well in Windows 7 the "Games" folder auto-detects games and adds icons, so you simply open the Games folder and *bam* all of your game shortcuts. Or if you're Amish and still using XP, you can always just make a folder with all your game shortcuts yourself.
Really, using that as a benefit to using Steam is like complaining about having to put the disc in. Is it a nice bonus to not need a disk? Sure, which is why I registered my Blizzard games so I can use the no-disk downloads, but it's not something to complain about.
I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.
First, how is that any different from what I said earlier about you reading / listening to all of their conversations? Secondly, how is that NOT controlling their actions or thoughts when if they ever dare to express anything you don't like, you'll punish them for it?
Parents like you make me glad that I'm old enough that they didn't have all the surveillance technology back when I was a kid. I find it laughable that people will claim that the government has no right to spy on them, then turn around and spy on their kids constantly. Oh sweet irony.
I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.
Yes, I know, we've heard you plenty of times - your kids have no right to privacy or to make their own decisions or form their own thoughts / opinions. Hence me talking about you raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. You behave no differently than an abusive and controlling boyfriend / husband, but you think it's somehow OK because you're doing this to your kids who are under 18 (as opposed to a girlfriend / wife), and thus your property to do with as you please.
Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming.
OK, so your first statement basically admits that there's no point in your controlling behavior because your kids will do what they want anyways. Your second statement here admits that even you aren't perfect, so it's rather confusing why you still think that you have the right or omniscience to be such a controlling person. I think it's more that you're trying to seem "human" and "understanding", while still arguing that your obsession with control over your children is OK.
Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately.
Monitoring and checking up from time to time is one thing. Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues. You forget that another part of your job as a parent is to allow your children to grow and take on responsibility.
This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.
No, it's about SOME teenagers make bad decisions, so you decide to be an ass and follow the Stalin philosophy of "rule with an iron fist", which ironically, will likely cause your children to make bad decisions out of their desire to get a chance to make a decision on their own instead of simply following your orders.
Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.
How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.
It's inconsistent because 1) you've said that regardless of age, they need to be 100% controlled (which you advocated until your last comment here) and 2) you've said again and again that YOU get to control everything they do - that's not "watching" to make sure that they're ok.
Whoa whoa whoa. You go from all of your previous arguments about how "They're mine to abuse as much as I want until they're 18 because they don't have a brain until the law magically gives them one at 18!" to "Kids develop at different rates"? Funny that when I pointed out that you can teach them to be responsible at younger ages, you said that it's impossible and that they need to be treated as poorly as possible until 18. Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.
But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.
You clearly either A) have a hard time following logic or B) really don't want health and stable kids, because your actions are doing the exact opposite by raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. Even of those raised poorly, a large number of them don't get pregnant, raped, or addicted to drugs. That's simply you rationalizing your behavior.
If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?
How can you NOT understand why I would say your behavior shows you're unfit to be a parent? All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains. Did you not see all the other responses (I think around a dozen?) where people said pretty much exactly the same thing as I did, including a guy who had a step-parent just like you?
Obligatory...
http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/090/445/original/vertical-batman-triforce.jpg?1293653310
I'm a parent, not a friend.
Being a controlling asshole != being a good parent. In fact, it's being a BAD parent because you don't teach your kids how to be adults since you refuse to let them make any choices that affect their life and they also miss out on learning to accept the negative consequences of their actions as a result. It's usually the kids who have psychotically controlling parents such as yourself who go to college, come face to face with reality and having to make their own choices, and then make a whole lot of BAD choices because they were never taught how to make good choices, merely ordered to "do what you're told!!!"
Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?
Actually I know plenty of 14 year olds who had more maturity than you do, as well as plenty as immature as you. If you had bothered to READ what I wrote instead of being an arrogant prick, you'd have noticed the part where I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions. You know damn well that you had the ability to take care of yourself and decide what you wanted to do when you were in high school - if you claim otherwise, then you've fallen prey to the good old "anyone younger than me is a moron and needs me to tell them what to do" narcissism that runs rampant in anyone over the age of 18.
I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.
Controlling their every action and giving them zero privacy is NOT the same as keeping them safe. Keeping them safe means TEACHING them of dangerous things from a young age (such as don't play with fire, don't run with scissors, don't meet up with random people you meet online, etc) and then after they're a teenager, you have to let them make their own decisions and if they make a stupid one, you punish them. People learn from making mistakes - it's a proven fact. Those who never get to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences end up making nothing but mistakes and refuse to accept the consequences once they're finally put in a situation where they have to make decisions. Try asking psychologists, police, and social workers about the people most likely to end up doing drugs, being alcoholics, or dating gang members - having a controlling asshole for a parent dramatically increases the odds of someone doing those things once they get a chance because they want to rebel and use their actions to scream "FUCK YOU!" to their parents.
I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption.
Bullshit. Libertarians believe that people have the right to make their own choices and get to reap the reward or suffer the consequences of said choices. Your method of parenting completely contradicts that because you want to control their every action and keep them from ever making a choice, merely do as they're ordered to.
My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions.
No, your attitude is to control those in no position to get away from you and will result in people who make bad choices in college because they want to do all the things they were forbidden from doing and get back at you. I've yet to see a child of a respo
I fully intend to have them on my lap
Careful there chief - I know you just want to teach them, but as we've seen with all the bullshit "sex crimes" charges (like the guy on youtube getting arrested), I'd steer clear of that to make sure your kids don't grow up with a dad who's in prison.
Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out. Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions - and (I know this is hard for people like you and the parents working with this jackass cop to understand), the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one. You do it slowly over time, so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they're mature and responsible.
Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.
Well (driving enjoyment issues aside), we've still got a good couple of decades before we have truly good batteries for a car that don't take forever to charge. Yes, cars like the Nissan Leaf are a great first step, but a 100 mile (in optimal conditions) range is still only about 1/3 of the way to where it needs to be and they still take the better part of a day to charge. Since the realistic range on the Leaf is closer to around 75 miles, if you have a 30 mile drive to work (not uncommon in a large city), you're only giving yourself a buffer of 15 miles worth of electricity to allot for traffic, which is frankly way too close for me to take a chance on.
I'm not saying people shouldn't buy them - just that for the time being, they're limited to a certain group of people who drive very short distances. The Leaf would be a great car for my parents, one of whom drives around 15 miles each way for work and the other only around 3 miles. However, most people I know have drives to and from work long enough that if they got stuck in traffic, they'd have a good chance of running out of power before they could get home. Then there's the added benefit to the rest of society of lower gas prices as a result of decreased oil demand due to electric cars.
There was an article in The Economist a few months back about several companies that are working on what's essentially synthetic gasoline and that they are planning on producing in significant volumes within the next three years or so. I'm eager for practical alternatives to oil so that we can stop kissing OPEC's ass.
When did Watson say the guy HAD a leg? Never. It said what was his abnormality, and Watson said "leg" because his lack of a leg was his abnormality. You see HUMANS do this same thing quite often.
No, it's a "wrong answer due to incorrect wording", not because the facts of the answer were wrong. Watson had the right answer. It's like if you're doing a math problem and you get the number right but forget to put the units of measure with it - the teacher will take points off, but your math was still right.
So thought provoking commentary on how humans behave should be locked away so that the moronic masses stay zombified? Well, it's good to know which side you're on....