I'm in the same boat but you can always make a little time. Even if it's a few hours on a Saturday evening. With the right woman that might be all the time she has, too.
You might not be trying the right way. Ask for a lot of numbers, go on dating sites, ask a lot of women out, and when you get them out be confident. Assume the first few won't go anywhere. Pay for the dates but keep how much you make on the down-low.
Doesn't work either. You can't win with girls. Pay no attention to them and you won't get them, pay attention and all you get is a lawsuit for stalking and a restraining order... you just can't win.
Until you get until your early 30s. If you're single, professional, and in your early 30s suddenly you get a lot more attractive to them.
Straight-jacketed methodology can be detrimental to the leaps of analysis that have been key to major advancements.
But lack of rigorous methodology can be especially counterproductive in sociological inquiries, because it's so easy to be convinced by convenient categorizations and correlations. For example, geography as an academic subject was discredited in the first half of the 20th century by a series of unfortunate theories regarding geographical determination of racial characteristics. Anthropology as a discipline narrowly missed a lot of the same problems. This idea of generational types sounds like a lot of the same thing.
You're quite vague about 'comparable things'... name one.
Of course I'm vague, this was 24 years ago. I don't remember specific book titles, but I do remember reading them, and having an educated adult-level grasp of say, history, through my entire life. After a few thousand books they kind of get blurry.
And actually my boasting days are largely behind me. The only reason we're having this conversation is that you came in saying essentially that no teenage philosopher kings existed, to which I could not help but differ. Ironically, you undermine your own argument throughout your responses by frequently talking about how we aren't the only ones who at 10 years old were reading thousand page non-fiction of the humanities. So which is it really?
No, my position has been clear throughout: no generation is somehow more intellectual or significantly more educated than the others. I never said "no philosopher kings," but simply that if you were to essentially put a 15 year old kid now against a 15 year old kid from the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. you are, on average, not going to notice that extreme a difference.
In every generation you are going to have a small yet not insignificant number of people who are smart and well-educated.
It's unfair to the current generation to somehow portray them as ignorant savages.
I get nervous about saying too much about my occupation (clearances get revoked), suffice to say I work as a contractor for the US government in a security support role. For what it's worth, it manages to support a wife and kid and a mortgage on a suburban house. That's enough for me at 26. Bigger question is will I manage to get a PhD before I'm 40...
Well good luck with that, I always felt like I'd be missing out if I didn't get a PhD by 30 (which I didn't, just a JD), though I guess it's tough with a family, and after meeting a lot of PhDs I find myself far less impressed by the title than I used to be.
Tell that to Strauss and Howe. I'm sure that their decades of scholarship will quickly wither under your unstudied personal opinion.
If you call that pseudosociology "scholarship" then perhaps you should have done a bit more reading as a child. It's pop cultural studies, not any sort of systematic research. But then again one of the degrees I got was in the social sciences so maybe I just personally have a very low tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
Speaking anecdotally again, if you can find another person who at the age of 10 read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or any comparable non-fiction of the humanities ~1200 pages or more I will buy you lunch.
At 10 I was reading comparable things. I know you and I weren't the only ones.
I would further say that you presume much to say how plentiful kids of the caliber I was are supposed to be. In the first place, I have an IQ of 144, which, depending on whose categorizations and standard deviations you use, puts me in the top 0.2%. Of course based on current US population, that still leaves ~617k people who are as intelligent or moreso than I am, but put in personal terms, I think it's meaningful that for every five hundred people I meet, statistically only one is likely to be as intelligent as I am.
(A) Don't overestimate the measuring capacity of the IQ test, and I say this as someone who tested off the charts as a child; and (B) even if you were incorrect about the distribution of IQs, your statement would only hold true if you were in a situation where you were meeting a completely random cross-section of people. Walk into an office building and your chances of meeting someone smarter than you increase significantly. Drop into a medical conference or bar association meeting or astrophysics lecture and it increases significantly again.
People, however, did look on me and despair, because I was (and by the standards of most people, still am) an arrogant bastard. When I was a teenager I was an intellectual bully, and it took years for me to develop socially enough not to rip everybody to rhetorical shreds with encyclopedic knowledge and synthetic understanding in public conversation.
In my experience people who boast about doing that aren't really able to; or at least they THINK they won the argument. I took the other track; I learned because I liked to, and not as a weapon to use against other people. When my friends need to know something about history or political science or literature they usually come to me because they know I'll be able to not only answer them, but not to be arrogant about it.
And just out of curiousity, what do you actually do as an occupation? I'm curious where this purportedly encyclopedic knowledge brought you to.
Oh yeah, but being bitten by a spider makes his arms shoot out that material to great distances and in enough quantity to last him all day, THAT's plausible?
Of course it's not plausible, but it's a hell of a lot easier to suspend your disbelief over.
I know you're just regurgitating the BS that the movie's creator spewed to silence their critics, but still, yikes.
Uhhhh....sure. Do you mind telling me who the movie's creator was so I know exactly whose BS I'm apparently regurgitating? I have better things to do than immerse myself in the inner workings of movie production.
The situation is indeed improving, but plenty of schools and organizations (and individual parents) are behind the curve and still promoting self-esteem with an "awards/praise for everything" approach. And the kids who are in high-school and college today were in on the tail end of the universal self-esteem bandwagon days, so they can still be considered products of that era.
No, they're not. Look at the posters on this thread with children actually in high school today; they unanimously agree that high school students today are in more competitive situations than they had. You're relying on a sort of water-cooler "common knowledge" that people just repeat to each other enough that it suddenly becomes accepted "truth."
You rang? Although categorically Gen Y (aka Net Gen) I was reading Aristotle's Metaphysics at 16, right after I finished a collection of Cicero's orations, letters, and commentaries. In fact I read usually over 100 books a year, albeit many of them fictional, and when I went to undergrad everything felt like a review.
Yet I'm sure when you were a kid someone probably looked at you and despaired. You make the mistake of thinking you are on some rarefied level of intellectual achievement, but the truth of the matter is there were plenty of kids like you, and that fact isn't negated just because there are a lot more who weren't. My point was in every generation you're going to have the majority of people not really going anywhere special mentally, and no matter how far you go back you're not going to find a generation of Renaissance men/women--not even in the Renaissance. This ridiculous generational generalizations are just plain wrong.
That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.
That would be way too implausible, even for the Spider-Man movies; a high school kid develops something that material scientists would take years to create in a high-tech lab if they could at all?
As other posters have noted, current social and cultural conditions in the USA not only allow hypomania to run unchecked, but in some cases actively promote it (eg. universal self-esteem campaigns).
Uhhh...huh? Where? I know in the 70s-early 90s those kinds of campaigns were common, but late 90s to the present I haven't seen much evidence of this. Are there any you can link to?
Don't extrapolate that your background is everyone else's background. I know the slashdot herd mentality is that American parents=overprotective overmedicated blah blah blah, but there is a huge chunk of the child population who get no or minimal supervision at all. I can go out at midnight on a weekday and see kids just hanging out by themselves on the street. What you all have to do is stop thinking that your whitebread middle-upper-class suburban childhood was universal, or even the norm.
Because the people who WORK on the Macs are the people who draw for a living, compose music, make videos, etc. They are the people who have the jobs Cubible Joe wish he could have
You sure about that? Having known substantial numbers of these people, they don't seem especially happy or fulfilled.
(and are obviously successful enough at it to afford apple products).
Or they have indulgent parents who supply them with money while they work their dead-end freelance graphics designer jobs. Or they're willing to splurge on computers while splitting rent with 5 other "artists" in a run-down loft in Bushwick, Brooklyn.
People did buy laserdiscs, though, and those collectors were among the first to jump on the DVD-buying bandwagon.
Actually I think a lot of the real hardcore LD people held out for a long time because after boasting for years of their format (and thus their) superiority, they just couldn't accept the fact that DVD was not only clearly superior to LD, but that it was being marketed and sold to (shudder) slack-jawed philistines who didn't spend 90% of their salary on home theater equipment.
It is not about the money necessarily. When my group folded, I was depressed for a long while. All the time I invested, kids events missed, etc., was all for waste. Sure severance was great, but still was depressed.
Every company, division, etc., will eventually go out of business. It's inevitable. The point is what's done while it's still around. Her division, if the glowing description is to be believed, help Bear Sterns carry out it's business. I mean, if she was an architect and every building she built got torn down I can understand, but she was essentially providing a temporally limited service that functioned as it was supposed to. I mean, eventually it would have to be replaced with something more cutting edge anyway.
The story of Jennifer Bayuk is tragic in that she spent a decade as CISO at Bear, Stearns, building up its security group to be one of the best in the business; only to find it vaporized when the firm collapsed and was acquired by J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp.
And all she got out of it was a lot of money, material for a book, and a great resume. Where's the problem?
Because Apple makes obscene profits selling hardware and software. And they're able to sell commodity hardware at twice the price to the easily impressed. MS wants to do that too.
Slashdot Mirror
How appropriate, you fight like a cow.
I'm in the same boat but you can always make a little time. Even if it's a few hours on a Saturday evening. With the right woman that might be all the time she has, too.
You might not be trying the right way. Ask for a lot of numbers, go on dating sites, ask a lot of women out, and when you get them out be confident. Assume the first few won't go anywhere. Pay for the dates but keep how much you make on the down-low.
Doesn't work either. You can't win with girls. Pay no attention to them and you won't get them, pay attention and all you get is a lawsuit for stalking and a restraining order... you just can't win.
Until you get until your early 30s. If you're single, professional, and in your early 30s suddenly you get a lot more attractive to them.
Straight-jacketed methodology can be detrimental to the leaps of analysis that have been key to major advancements.
... name one.
But lack of rigorous methodology can be especially counterproductive in sociological inquiries, because it's so easy to be convinced by convenient categorizations and correlations. For example, geography as an academic subject was discredited in the first half of the 20th century by a series of unfortunate theories regarding geographical determination of racial characteristics. Anthropology as a discipline narrowly missed a lot of the same problems. This idea of generational types sounds like a lot of the same thing.
You're quite vague about 'comparable things'
Of course I'm vague, this was 24 years ago. I don't remember specific book titles, but I do remember reading them, and having an educated adult-level grasp of say, history, through my entire life. After a few thousand books they kind of get blurry.
And actually my boasting days are largely behind me. The only reason we're having this conversation is that you came in saying essentially that no teenage philosopher kings existed, to which I could not help but differ. Ironically, you undermine your own argument throughout your responses by frequently talking about how we aren't the only ones who at 10 years old were reading thousand page non-fiction of the humanities. So which is it really?
No, my position has been clear throughout: no generation is somehow more intellectual or significantly more educated than the others. I never said "no philosopher kings," but simply that if you were to essentially put a 15 year old kid now against a 15 year old kid from the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. you are, on average, not going to notice that extreme a difference. In every generation you are going to have a small yet not insignificant number of people who are smart and well-educated. It's unfair to the current generation to somehow portray them as ignorant savages.
I get nervous about saying too much about my occupation (clearances get revoked), suffice to say I work as a contractor for the US government in a security support role. For what it's worth, it manages to support a wife and kid and a mortgage on a suburban house. That's enough for me at 26. Bigger question is will I manage to get a PhD before I'm 40...
Well good luck with that, I always felt like I'd be missing out if I didn't get a PhD by 30 (which I didn't, just a JD), though I guess it's tough with a family, and after meeting a lot of PhDs I find myself far less impressed by the title than I used to be.
One look at that advertisement and I'm craving something other than an electronic cigarette.
Tasteful green chairs?
Tell that to Strauss and Howe. I'm sure that their decades of scholarship will quickly wither under your unstudied personal opinion.
If you call that pseudosociology "scholarship" then perhaps you should have done a bit more reading as a child. It's pop cultural studies, not any sort of systematic research. But then again one of the degrees I got was in the social sciences so maybe I just personally have a very low tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
Speaking anecdotally again, if you can find another person who at the age of 10 read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or any comparable non-fiction of the humanities ~1200 pages or more I will buy you lunch.
At 10 I was reading comparable things. I know you and I weren't the only ones.
I would further say that you presume much to say how plentiful kids of the caliber I was are supposed to be. In the first place, I have an IQ of 144, which, depending on whose categorizations and standard deviations you use, puts me in the top 0.2%. Of course based on current US population, that still leaves ~617k people who are as intelligent or moreso than I am, but put in personal terms, I think it's meaningful that for every five hundred people I meet, statistically only one is likely to be as intelligent as I am.
(A) Don't overestimate the measuring capacity of the IQ test, and I say this as someone who tested off the charts as a child; and (B) even if you were incorrect about the distribution of IQs, your statement would only hold true if you were in a situation where you were meeting a completely random cross-section of people. Walk into an office building and your chances of meeting someone smarter than you increase significantly. Drop into a medical conference or bar association meeting or astrophysics lecture and it increases significantly again.
People, however, did look on me and despair, because I was (and by the standards of most people, still am) an arrogant bastard. When I was a teenager I was an intellectual bully, and it took years for me to develop socially enough not to rip everybody to rhetorical shreds with encyclopedic knowledge and synthetic understanding in public conversation.
In my experience people who boast about doing that aren't really able to; or at least they THINK they won the argument. I took the other track; I learned because I liked to, and not as a weapon to use against other people. When my friends need to know something about history or political science or literature they usually come to me because they know I'll be able to not only answer them, but not to be arrogant about it.
And just out of curiousity, what do you actually do as an occupation? I'm curious where this purportedly encyclopedic knowledge brought you to.
Oh yeah, but being bitten by a spider makes his arms shoot out that material to great distances and in enough quantity to last him all day, THAT's plausible?
Of course it's not plausible, but it's a hell of a lot easier to suspend your disbelief over.
I know you're just regurgitating the BS that the movie's creator spewed to silence their critics, but still, yikes.
Uhhhh....sure. Do you mind telling me who the movie's creator was so I know exactly whose BS I'm apparently regurgitating? I have better things to do than immerse myself in the inner workings of movie production.
It has an approximately 200m accuracy
Wow, I didn't know it was that inaccurate.
and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.
If the US implements selective availability of GPS, they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.
On a more serious note, this guy needs to be sued into bankruptcy.
Or, you could, you know, show compassion for someone who is clearly mentally disturbed.
The situation is indeed improving, but plenty of schools and organizations (and individual parents) are behind the curve and still promoting self-esteem with an "awards/praise for everything" approach. And the kids who are in high-school and college today were in on the tail end of the universal self-esteem bandwagon days, so they can still be considered products of that era.
No, they're not. Look at the posters on this thread with children actually in high school today; they unanimously agree that high school students today are in more competitive situations than they had. You're relying on a sort of water-cooler "common knowledge" that people just repeat to each other enough that it suddenly becomes accepted "truth."
You rang? Although categorically Gen Y (aka Net Gen) I was reading Aristotle's Metaphysics at 16, right after I finished a collection of Cicero's orations, letters, and commentaries. In fact I read usually over 100 books a year, albeit many of them fictional, and when I went to undergrad everything felt like a review.
Yet I'm sure when you were a kid someone probably looked at you and despaired. You make the mistake of thinking you are on some rarefied level of intellectual achievement, but the truth of the matter is there were plenty of kids like you, and that fact isn't negated just because there are a lot more who weren't. My point was in every generation you're going to have the majority of people not really going anywhere special mentally, and no matter how far you go back you're not going to find a generation of Renaissance men/women--not even in the Renaissance. This ridiculous generational generalizations are just plain wrong.
I regard them as "ignorant" because they don't know basic facts of geography, history, or culture
As opposed to the philosopher-kings who were teens of other decades?
That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.
That would be way too implausible, even for the Spider-Man movies; a high school kid develops something that material scientists would take years to create in a high-tech lab if they could at all?
As other posters have noted, current social and cultural conditions in the USA not only allow hypomania to run unchecked, but in some cases actively promote it (eg. universal self-esteem campaigns).
Uhhh...huh? Where? I know in the 70s-early 90s those kinds of campaigns were common, but late 90s to the present I haven't seen much evidence of this. Are there any you can link to?
Don't extrapolate that your background is everyone else's background. I know the slashdot herd mentality is that American parents=overprotective overmedicated blah blah blah, but there is a huge chunk of the child population who get no or minimal supervision at all. I can go out at midnight on a weekday and see kids just hanging out by themselves on the street. What you all have to do is stop thinking that your whitebread middle-upper-class suburban childhood was universal, or even the norm.
Because the original set of sequels did so much damage to the original (awesome) films,
Highlander wasn't a very good movie by any reasonable standard. The best you could say was it was a moderately watchable B-movie.
Because the people who WORK on the Macs are the people who draw for a living, compose music, make videos, etc. They are the people who have the jobs Cubible Joe wish he could have
You sure about that? Having known substantial numbers of these people, they don't seem especially happy or fulfilled.
(and are obviously successful enough at it to afford apple products).
Or they have indulgent parents who supply them with money while they work their dead-end freelance graphics designer jobs. Or they're willing to splurge on computers while splitting rent with 5 other "artists" in a run-down loft in Bushwick, Brooklyn.
i.e. a big city like Fargo
Ha. Big city?
People did buy laserdiscs, though, and those collectors were among the first to jump on the DVD-buying bandwagon.
Actually I think a lot of the real hardcore LD people held out for a long time because after boasting for years of their format (and thus their) superiority, they just couldn't accept the fact that DVD was not only clearly superior to LD, but that it was being marketed and sold to (shudder) slack-jawed philistines who didn't spend 90% of their salary on home theater equipment.
I am seriously dating myself here.
As you're on slashdot, I doubt anyone else would. Drum roll, please.
It is not about the money necessarily. When my group folded, I was depressed for a long while. All the time I invested, kids events missed, etc., was all for waste. Sure severance was great, but still was depressed.
Every company, division, etc., will eventually go out of business. It's inevitable. The point is what's done while it's still around. Her division, if the glowing description is to be believed, help Bear Sterns carry out it's business. I mean, if she was an architect and every building she built got torn down I can understand, but she was essentially providing a temporally limited service that functioned as it was supposed to. I mean, eventually it would have to be replaced with something more cutting edge anyway.
The story of Jennifer Bayuk is tragic in that she spent a decade as CISO at Bear, Stearns, building up its security group to be one of the best in the business; only to find it vaporized when the firm collapsed and was acquired by J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp.
And all she got out of it was a lot of money, material for a book, and a great resume. Where's the problem?
why does Microsoft care what Apple does?
Because Apple makes obscene profits selling hardware and software. And they're able to sell commodity hardware at twice the price to the easily impressed. MS wants to do that too.
boolean algebra is just a subset of set theory
Bah-dum-dum.