Learn to conform? Is this some sort of subtle trolling that I'm not used to? Have we hit Poe's law?
This is like, milquetoast tyrany right here. Ok ok ok, here we go. Would you say that any of the captains of industry, the CEOs, the Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs of the nation simply "conformed"? Are these celebrated individuals? Do our leaders tell others to aspire to those roles?
Then no, learning to conform is not the one true way.
There's quite a bit of choice about how people want to live. And often people simply don't have the choice to conform. They simply won't fit in the same beige box that everyone else is in. And honestly? Get to know anyone in depth and you'll find that they're not so common. Tropes, trends, and commonalities to be sure, but no-one is a blank, lifeless, conforming sheep. And if they are, that's an amazingly rare social disorder that warrants some sociology study.
Now, that previous guy? Fuck him and his cigar. But I'm got my own tastes, thoughts, and passions. And as long as they don't harm anyone else, you can go fuck off in your beige box. (And embarrassing the kid is one of my duties. Gotta get that blackmail material while it's good.)
Because the vote for retroactive immunity for the telecoms happened in July, 2008. Four months before the general election. I'm sorry, but the election process takes a little while to select a candidate and while Obama's vote was a real eye-opener for me, at that point in time, the choices were between him and a war-monger getting on in the years with a complete balls-to-the-walls nutzo vice president on standby. I like McCain. Good guy. Skewed views on war from being a vet with the whole "we must not lose the war" mentality when it's not even a war. But Palin? Even a slight CHANCE of Palin? Oh god no.
We FINALLY convinced enough people that the Iraq war was a stupid bloody mistake and we wanted out. McCain wanted to "stick around a hundred years". Now, hey, with ISIS taking over things look different. Maybe another decade of troops dying daily might have made a different. Or maybe he would have invaded Iran. Or fought Russia over Georgia.
I still think it was the better of two choices. But yeah, I hear what you're saying. And this is exactly why Obama's lack of experience was a valid complaint.
To be fair, you're also mis-interpreting it. At the time a properly functioning army was quite "regular". As in... orderly, acting as one, well disciplined, didn't route, would stand in a line and get shot full of lead waiting for their leader to tell someone to drum out an order. Their weapons were standardized(ish), and their uniforms were, well, uniform. And they all shot as one in a well regulated action so the smoke didn't obscure their aim during firing and sparks didn't explode anyone's powder horns during reloading.
The problem with militia of the time was that they were quite irregular. Even called "irregulars". They had whatever weapons they had, which means when the line fires, half the shots aren't at ideal ranges. They run and save themselves rather than hold the line. Lacking strong leadership, they're more prone to that whole rape and pillage thing. They had no uniforms, so who knows who is the officers and who you're not supposed to shoot. Yeah, that's how they did it back in the day. Weird.
So, you're right in saying that a well regulated militia meant that it was a militia that was properly functioning (and more like a regular army). But a properly functioning militia was indeed well regulated using the term as we use it today. Back then the two were synonymous. The generals and higher ups like George Washington and Samuel Adams didn't have great things to say about the militia, but they were used constantly because, well, that's what we had.
Yeah, I agree you probably shouldn't just move to the coast and hope to land a job. That's crazy-talk from the stupidly over-optimistic guy telling you that hitchhiking your way there is a viable alternative. Don't listen to that guy.
But send me your resume at heckruler83@yahoo.com. I'll let you know what I think of it.
There's the up or out philosophy used by the military, financial industry, law firms, and academia. You either excel and move on to better things or you're fired. Needs a lot of people striving for the top. But it solves the peter principle. People are not allowed to simply remain incompetent in a position for too long.
He said build up a cushion. As in saving money. Shocking as this might be, a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. My last boss made $100,000, his wife more than that, in Iowa, and they still had money woes. Which strikes me as crazy, but hey, not everyone has the best financial restraint.
Seriously what could possible lock you into a single location?
Family. A lot of people get such a large benefit from their local family support group that they would be devastated if that simply went away. Ever look at how much quality daycare costs in Boulder Colorado?
Alternatively, the spouse. Changing cities is a major life change and it's best if everyone is on board. And they can have careers that anchor them to a city just as much as you want to leave it. Whose career is more important?
And lastly, friends. You know how most people get their jobs through "networking" rather than their resume or merit? Guess how many friends people typically have out of town.
Oh, but hey, you don't have any commitments or responsibilities as a 20-something tech professional and you think hopping on a greyhound to Silicon Valley is a viable choice for everyone else.
Personally I think that even if you're cash-strapped with family bonds, you can still shop around on the international/global market for a better job. The worst that happens is you decline the job for not paying enough. If you find something that warrants the move, and I mean it pays off the moving costs and counter-balances the lost roots and all that jazz, go for it.
the astronauts (male or female) are not selected at random from the general population? I mention this because if that were true, then general differences between the genders would be important to know. But it's not how selection is done.
The requirements and characteristics of astronauts are determined ahead of time, and potential candidates are selected by testing and competition. We're looking at the far tail of the population's distribution, well beyond 5-sigma, so once again, blanket statements about the general population's gender differences don't apply in this case.
THAT, is a motherfucking roundhouse to all the general pissing matches about sexism around here. It just doesn't apply here because they can select for the ideal, sex be damned.
Imagine if you played a Disney DVD, say Pinocchio, and it determined that you had some pirated material, or content that overlapped with their IP, or material that violated their EULA and so it fried your hard-drive and bricked your computer.
Whose fault is that? Disney's for protecting their IP, or the user who had the audacity of downloading some fanart?
Holy shit, you're saying the AVERAGE home price is high in LA? Where hollywood actors live? And then you compare that to the median NY price? And then take a specific (yet generalized) example in Houston?
And somehow these values lend weight to the argument that a $100K is considered poverty level. Jesus christ dude, I don't think anyone is saying that there is variance in housing prices. It's the straw-man attitude to those prices and expected income that is making you look like a douche.
But seriously, if you're going to compare areas, at least use a consistent metric.
Yeah yeah, terrible crime. oh noes "outside person". That's almost as bad as "foreigner". As in "someone from outside the country".
I get what you're saying. People have probably used it against you in anger and tried to imbue it with as much hostility as they could. And now you don't like the term. You take offense to it. But guess what? It's only an insult if you let it be. Want to know how to disarm such cultural hostility? Own it. And oh so slowly something as offensive as "geek" was can become something like how "geek" is now.
If they wanted to discourage [alcohol and cigarettes] they would either be illegal or they would stop issuing things like liqueur licenses
They tried that. It didn't' work. Turns out it just give a big fat income to organized crime. Kinda like how the cartels in Mexico are fueled by weed sales up here.
What works better is regulating it, taxing it, and dealing with the consequences. The campaign against tobacco has done fantastically well and should be a role model for how to steer culture away from self-destructive recreations. You know, to the extent that culture should be steered. But seriously, fuck those tobacco companies. Fucking death-mongers.
Also, I think it's fitting that alcohol and tobacco taxes pay for kid's activities. The more you have of one, the more you'll need help with the second. Why sports though?
If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.
It's not quite that simple. This has to do with how people learn a system and react to it. You have a population that expects a warning a certain time before a condition applies. If you fiddle with the timing of when the warning comes up, the population will eventually learn the new timing and adjust to it. In the meantime they will either be surprised at a change in either direction. But shortening the light is more like "HOLY FUCK it's already red BRAKE SLAM" as opposed to "huh, I could have made it through this light".
But it's not quite that simple. You also have people from out of town that have learned their own light timing system and have an expectation when they visit you. You can essentially treat these people as people who haven't learned the new timing yet. And this is a bad thing because whenever you have two actors working on different systems they have different expectations and they both expect the other guy to do something different. We all expect to drive on the right side of the road in the USA, and we all have a general idea of how long a yellow light is supposed to last. It should be a rock-solid standard.
But it's not quite that simple. Even though there's a system and people learn it eventually, once it becomes a note-worthy thing and people start talking about it or worse, it becomes news, then you have the added factor of people preemptively stopping sooner or later. The benefit of having longer yellow lights is annulled if people know they're given a longer yellow light. Now you have people that haven't learned the new system, people who have learned the new system, and people who are trying to game the new system based on what they've heard.
Welcome to sociology where the factors are endless, the system is beyond our ken, and the points are billions of dollars and literal corpses.
If it makes you feel better, I'm just bitching about the fact that he's dragging non-technical details into something that could otherwise avoid a lot of stupid drama. Really we need to focus on getting our ass to mars and not wade into the mire of political fights.
And I'd say the same thing if it were suggesting an all male crew. Especially if it were an all male crew due to the history of excluding women. Why the hell would anyone reopen that old wound.
I simply have a certain living standard that I would like to uphold
And with your education, experience, and contribution to society, would you say you're entitled to that certain living standard?
Realize that you can take your statement, and substitute $10,000 or $1,000,000 and it can still hold true. It's more of a reflection of your own tastes than Silicon Valley.
I suggest all robot crew. Telepresence capabilities and careful modelling and tracking of the environment will enable pseudo-realtime exploration on Mars. This is possible now.
What the fuck are you smoking? Possible? It's HAPPENING NOW. And arguably has happened since the 70's.
Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.
He's probably modded up, in part, because people disagree with your charicature of all young people as "entitled masses". Another part of his modding could be the obvious internal conflict in your post.
While the "entitled masses" on the E/W coast might find $100K to be poverty level, somehow that's comparable to $100K in Houston makes a comfortable living. Despite the fact that $100K is a comfortable living in all locations and those with a sense of entitlement will think it not enough in all locations.
In short, you can take your agism and tribe-ism and go fuck yourself.
Sure sure, verifiable is important. But even with something to verify the information on the page, you still get those deletionists that will claim notability, and fast-track the page for deletion.
I don't give a rats fucking ass if you don't think that rat-asses are notable or not. If there are citable facts on the page, LEAVE IT BE. And let me make this clear. In your VERY NEXT BREATH you went from "it'll be a scribble-board without verifiability" to "no matter how trivial".
Who the fuck cares who trivial it is? You do. Because you have a stick up your ass about how important Wikipedia is.
And here's how search works: you type a search term into Google and the first hit you'll get is always wikipedia because it's the best and highest quality source for the topic at hand. The term "the sum of all humanities knowledge" comes to mind. But no, you're high and mighty and you just don't give a fuck about how many pokemon there are.
Hey man, you want to trim down Wikipedia of random meaningless shit nobody cares about? Try taking on football. Seriously, go hit that random wiki button a few dozen times and tell me how many miniscule sports trivia tidbits you get.
I never understood the deletionist mentality on Wikipedia. But there's a whole group of people that want to remove information from the public view.
I semi-understand the idea that this "very important" encyclopedia is "too important" for such things as a page for each character from a game I never played. And somehow by culling these frivolous thing they somehow make wikipedia higher quality on the whole? Maybe? Kinda? I don't think these people understand how search works.
There are the obvious shills and PR people that want to sweep things under the rug. These are nefarious and to be found and fought.
There are fools who think it's expensive to store this information. As if an edit-war to remove it was cheaper.
I understand people don't want articles that are just free advertising. But I doubt anyone is going to delete the page for Monanto.
But fundamentally, I just don't get their worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
Learn to conform? Is this some sort of subtle trolling that I'm not used to? Have we hit Poe's law?
This is like, milquetoast tyrany right here. Ok ok ok, here we go. Would you say that any of the captains of industry, the CEOs, the Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs of the nation simply "conformed"? Are these celebrated individuals? Do our leaders tell others to aspire to those roles?
Then no, learning to conform is not the one true way.
There's quite a bit of choice about how people want to live. And often people simply don't have the choice to conform. They simply won't fit in the same beige box that everyone else is in. And honestly? Get to know anyone in depth and you'll find that they're not so common. Tropes, trends, and commonalities to be sure, but no-one is a blank, lifeless, conforming sheep. And if they are, that's an amazingly rare social disorder that warrants some sociology study.
Now, that previous guy? Fuck him and his cigar. But I'm got my own tastes, thoughts, and passions. And as long as they don't harm anyone else, you can go fuck off in your beige box. (And embarrassing the kid is one of my duties. Gotta get that blackmail material while it's good.)
Because the vote for retroactive immunity for the telecoms happened in July, 2008. Four months before the general election. I'm sorry, but the election process takes a little while to select a candidate and while Obama's vote was a real eye-opener for me, at that point in time, the choices were between him and a war-monger getting on in the years with a complete balls-to-the-walls nutzo vice president on standby. I like McCain. Good guy. Skewed views on war from being a vet with the whole "we must not lose the war" mentality when it's not even a war. But Palin? Even a slight CHANCE of Palin? Oh god no.
We FINALLY convinced enough people that the Iraq war was a stupid bloody mistake and we wanted out. McCain wanted to "stick around a hundred years". Now, hey, with ISIS taking over things look different. Maybe another decade of troops dying daily might have made a different. Or maybe he would have invaded Iran. Or fought Russia over Georgia.
I still think it was the better of two choices. But yeah, I hear what you're saying. And this is exactly why Obama's lack of experience was a valid complaint.
To be fair, you're also mis-interpreting it. At the time a properly functioning army was quite "regular". As in... orderly, acting as one, well disciplined, didn't route, would stand in a line and get shot full of lead waiting for their leader to tell someone to drum out an order. Their weapons were standardized(ish), and their uniforms were, well, uniform. And they all shot as one in a well regulated action so the smoke didn't obscure their aim during firing and sparks didn't explode anyone's powder horns during reloading.
The problem with militia of the time was that they were quite irregular. Even called "irregulars". They had whatever weapons they had, which means when the line fires, half the shots aren't at ideal ranges. They run and save themselves rather than hold the line. Lacking strong leadership, they're more prone to that whole rape and pillage thing. They had no uniforms, so who knows who is the officers and who you're not supposed to shoot. Yeah, that's how they did it back in the day. Weird.
So, you're right in saying that a well regulated militia meant that it was a militia that was properly functioning (and more like a regular army). But a properly functioning militia was indeed well regulated using the term as we use it today. Back then the two were synonymous. The generals and higher ups like George Washington and Samuel Adams didn't have great things to say about the militia, but they were used constantly because, well, that's what we had.
Yeah, I agree you probably shouldn't just move to the coast and hope to land a job. That's crazy-talk from the stupidly over-optimistic guy telling you that hitchhiking your way there is a viable alternative. Don't listen to that guy.
But send me your resume at heckruler83@yahoo.com. I'll let you know what I think of it.
There's the up or out philosophy used by the military, financial industry, law firms, and academia. You either excel and move on to better things or you're fired. Needs a lot of people striving for the top. But it solves the peter principle. People are not allowed to simply remain incompetent in a position for too long.
Huh? Why months to pack up?
He said build up a cushion. As in saving money. Shocking as this might be, a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. My last boss made $100,000, his wife more than that, in Iowa, and they still had money woes. Which strikes me as crazy, but hey, not everyone has the best financial restraint.
Seriously what could possible lock you into a single location?
Family. A lot of people get such a large benefit from their local family support group that they would be devastated if that simply went away. Ever look at how much quality daycare costs in Boulder Colorado?
Alternatively, the spouse. Changing cities is a major life change and it's best if everyone is on board. And they can have careers that anchor them to a city just as much as you want to leave it. Whose career is more important?
And lastly, friends. You know how most people get their jobs through "networking" rather than their resume or merit? Guess how many friends people typically have out of town.
Oh, but hey, you don't have any commitments or responsibilities as a 20-something tech professional and you think hopping on a greyhound to Silicon Valley is a viable choice for everyone else.
Personally I think that even if you're cash-strapped with family bonds, you can still shop around on the international/global market for a better job. The worst that happens is you decline the job for not paying enough. If you find something that warrants the move, and I mean it pays off the moving costs and counter-balances the lost roots and all that jazz, go for it.
the astronauts (male or female) are not selected at random from the general population? I mention this because if that were true, then general differences between the genders would be important to know. But it's not how selection is done.
The requirements and characteristics of astronauts are determined ahead of time, and potential candidates are selected by testing and competition.
We're looking at the far tail of the population's distribution, well beyond 5-sigma, so once again, blanket statements about the general population's gender differences don't apply in this case.
THAT, is a motherfucking roundhouse to all the general pissing matches about sexism around here. It just doesn't apply here because they can select for the ideal, sex be damned.
Well said, coward.
Imagine if you played a Disney DVD, say Pinocchio, and it determined that you had some pirated material, or content that overlapped with their IP, or material that violated their EULA and so it fried your hard-drive and bricked your computer.
Whose fault is that? Disney's for protecting their IP, or the user who had the audacity of downloading some fanart?
Holy shit, you're saying the AVERAGE home price is high in LA? Where hollywood actors live? And then you compare that to the median NY price? And then take a specific (yet generalized) example in Houston?
And somehow these values lend weight to the argument that a $100K is considered poverty level. Jesus christ dude, I don't think anyone is saying that there is variance in housing prices. It's the straw-man attitude to those prices and expected income that is making you look like a douche.
But seriously, if you're going to compare areas, at least use a consistent metric.
Yeah yeah, terrible crime. oh noes "outside person". That's almost as bad as "foreigner". As in "someone from outside the country".
I get what you're saying. People have probably used it against you in anger and tried to imbue it with as much hostility as they could. And now you don't like the term. You take offense to it. But guess what? It's only an insult if you let it be. Want to know how to disarm such cultural hostility? Own it. And oh so slowly something as offensive as "geek" was can become something like how "geek" is now.
In short, ease up cracker.
If they wanted to discourage [alcohol and cigarettes] they would either be illegal or they would stop issuing things like liqueur licenses
They tried that. It didn't' work. Turns out it just give a big fat income to organized crime. Kinda like how the cartels in Mexico are fueled by weed sales up here.
What works better is regulating it, taxing it, and dealing with the consequences. The campaign against tobacco has done fantastically well and should be a role model for how to steer culture away from self-destructive recreations. You know, to the extent that culture should be steered. But seriously, fuck those tobacco companies. Fucking death-mongers.
Also, I think it's fitting that alcohol and tobacco taxes pay for kid's activities. The more you have of one, the more you'll need help with the second. Why sports though?
If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.
It's not quite that simple. This has to do with how people learn a system and react to it.
You have a population that expects a warning a certain time before a condition applies. If you fiddle with the timing of when the warning comes up, the population will eventually learn the new timing and adjust to it. In the meantime they will either be surprised at a change in either direction. But shortening the light is more like "HOLY FUCK it's already red BRAKE SLAM" as opposed to "huh, I could have made it through this light".
But it's not quite that simple. You also have people from out of town that have learned their own light timing system and have an expectation when they visit you. You can essentially treat these people as people who haven't learned the new timing yet. And this is a bad thing because whenever you have two actors working on different systems they have different expectations and they both expect the other guy to do something different. We all expect to drive on the right side of the road in the USA, and we all have a general idea of how long a yellow light is supposed to last. It should be a rock-solid standard.
But it's not quite that simple. Even though there's a system and people learn it eventually, once it becomes a note-worthy thing and people start talking about it or worse, it becomes news, then you have the added factor of people preemptively stopping sooner or later. The benefit of having longer yellow lights is annulled if people know they're given a longer yellow light. Now you have people that haven't learned the new system, people who have learned the new system, and people who are trying to game the new system based on what they've heard.
Welcome to sociology where the factors are endless, the system is beyond our ken, and the points are billions of dollars and literal corpses.
I'd prefer if they didn't change the timing.
If it makes you feel better, I'm just bitching about the fact that he's dragging non-technical details into something that could otherwise avoid a lot of stupid drama. Really we need to focus on getting our ass to mars and not wade into the mire of political fights.
And I'd say the same thing if it were suggesting an all male crew. Especially if it were an all male crew due to the history of excluding women. Why the hell would anyone reopen that old wound.
I simply have a certain living standard that I would like to uphold
And with your education, experience, and contribution to society, would you say you're entitled to that certain living standard?
Realize that you can take your statement, and substitute $10,000 or $1,000,000 and it can still hold true. It's more of a reflection of your own tastes than Silicon Valley.
I suggest all robot crew. Telepresence capabilities and careful modelling and tracking of the environment will enable pseudo-realtime exploration on Mars. This is possible now.
What the fuck are you smoking? Possible? It's HAPPENING NOW. And arguably has happened since the 70's.
Why not work towards brain-in-a-jar technology?
Or how about, you know, robots?
No, this is the point I'm trying to make:
1) Find idea criteria.
2) Select people that best fit criteria.
3) OH LOOK, they're all female.
The part where you go out of your way to target women is where you forcefully insert sexism into a hole it doesn't belong in.
Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.
He's probably modded up, in part, because people disagree with your charicature of all young people as "entitled masses". Another part of his modding could be the obvious internal conflict in your post.
While the "entitled masses" on the E/W coast might find $100K to be poverty level, somehow that's comparable to $100K in Houston makes a comfortable living. Despite the fact that $100K is a comfortable living in all locations and those with a sense of entitlement will think it not enough in all locations.
In short, you can take your agism and tribe-ism and go fuck yourself.
Sure sure, verifiable is important. But even with something to verify the information on the page, you still get those deletionists that will claim notability, and fast-track the page for deletion.
I don't give a rats fucking ass if you don't think that rat-asses are notable or not. If there are citable facts on the page, LEAVE IT BE. And let me make this clear. In your VERY NEXT BREATH you went from "it'll be a scribble-board without verifiability" to "no matter how trivial".
Who the fuck cares who trivial it is? You do. Because you have a stick up your ass about how important Wikipedia is.
And here's how search works: you type a search term into Google and the first hit you'll get is always wikipedia because it's the best and highest quality source for the topic at hand. The term "the sum of all humanities knowledge" comes to mind. But no, you're high and mighty and you just don't give a fuck about how many pokemon there are.
Hey man, you want to trim down Wikipedia of random meaningless shit nobody cares about? Try taking on football. Seriously, go hit that random wiki button a few dozen times and tell me how many miniscule sports trivia tidbits you get.
Anyone looking for a $150K range senior developer/CTO with a specialization in TCP/IP routing and filtering technologies?
. . . In Davenport Iowa?
If you have ties to the area, and have the skill and experience for a high paying job, there aren't a whole lot of options available to you.
On the flip side, getting highly skilled professionals to move out to the middle of cornsville is also a little tough.
We're going to the beach! And that caravan of SWAT vans in the way can just go fuck themselves.
Yeah, I saw it too. Came here to reference it. Is it this one? Roujin Z?
Jail is where they throw you while you're under arrest.
Prison is where they send you after you're convicted.
Some sentences are served out in jails if they're small/short enough. Drunks get thrown in jail.
I never understood the deletionist mentality on Wikipedia. But there's a whole group of people that want to remove information from the public view.
I semi-understand the idea that this "very important" encyclopedia is "too important" for such things as a page for each character from a game I never played. And somehow by culling these frivolous thing they somehow make wikipedia higher quality on the whole? Maybe? Kinda? I don't think these people understand how search works.
There are the obvious shills and PR people that want to sweep things under the rug. These are nefarious and to be found and fought.
There are fools who think it's expensive to store this information. As if an edit-war to remove it was cheaper.
I understand people don't want articles that are just free advertising. But I doubt anyone is going to delete the page for Monanto.
But fundamentally, I just don't get their worldview.
That's one of the more reasonable proposals for how the federal government could help bootstrap a space-faring civilization.
So, it'd pay out on launch failures, deaths, and shield them from lawsuits in case everything goes tits up?