"Top of the food chain" no longer applies to humans very well. We are more like "All encompassing lords of the food chain". If we have a problem that isn't something like a super-volcano eruption or large asteroid impact, we can engineer, fight or relocate our way out of the situation. I mean, if food wont grow in the south anymore, relocate farms to the midwest. Many humans may die from starvation or from fighting in third world countries, but the ones with the biggest guns can protect their food supply. First world countries will just find alternative sources of food. Bears and mountain lions might go extinct, but we will be eating plankton, algae, jellyfish, or a lot of corn.
The question is how much Humans are actually affecting it. The Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods independently of human beings for millions of years. We can't expect the Earth's climate to remain static for eternity. This being the case, I don't think global warming is the biggest problem we face right now. Now, that being said. CO2 levels before the industrial revolution were fairly stable, changing about +/-100 ppm every 5,000 to 20,000 years. We are at about 380 ppm now, whereas for the past 500,000 years the Earth had CO2 levels between 180-300 ppm. We are at a maximum, which is to be expected since we burn fossil fuels for energy. As long as we reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the next 150 years I think we will be ok. Keep in mind 150 years is a long time. 150 years ago most people were still riding around on horses, and electricity only existed in big cities and on telegraphs. Now we have jet aircraft, the internet, solar panels, space stations, electric cars, nuclear energy, etc. In 150 years I have no doubt we will have some more economical source of energy than coal/oil.
Nuclear would not pollute and be safer if new reactors were allowed to be built. Environmentalists are shooting themselves in the foot and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where no new evidence can ever be created to prove them wrong. If we don't use Nuclear, we need coal, natural gas and oil since, as you said, we can't rely on wind and solar. Fusion is not even a very good option yet, and its just as dangerous as nuclear in some regards. If we don't build new nuclear reactors, the old reactors will continue to produce nuclear waste, and have a higher chance of failure thus self fulfilling the retard environmentalists prophecies. I have no problem with being an educated environmentalist, but most of them are filled with lies, misinformation, propaganda and knee-jerk fanaticism when it comes to nuclear power.
Conservative in what, socially conservative? or fiscally conservative? I am a libertarian, hence socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and I think we should be using nuclear power where solar and wind are not feasible. Its been proven to be the safest and cheapest method overall. If modern reactors where allowed to be built then there would be no problems, but the same environmentalists that cry about coal and oil also cry about nuclear power and essentially shoot themselves in the foot. Coal causes too many problems just by mining it, like coal ash slurry spills and such. In the end the coal companies do not pay enough for the damage they do and it gets offloaded on tax payers. Since I believe in limited taxes and government anyway, I see this as a problem. If the coal companies became 100 percent responsible for any damage to private and public property, as well as to people health, I would have less of a problem with it. As far as global warming, I think its occurring but severely overstated as a problem. Many people are using it as a scam to sell "environmentally friendly" things or carbon credits to make a buck, and that makes them no better than the coal companies, oil companies, and PR firms you mention. With the recent push by consumers for solar panels, wind farms, hybrid cars, etc. based on high oil prices due to a weak dollar and political instability in the middle east, I think the fossil fuel burning as a primary source of energy in the US will only last a hundred or two hundred years. Everyone always forgets that there are companies researching technology like ultracapacitors, high performance solar panels, etc. that will make energy sources that don't burn fossil fuels, or burn fossil fuels more efficiently more economical for the consumer.
People already are reducing their dependance on oil and coal. Gas is expensive right now, so people find other options to get to where they need to go. Here in Colorado, solar power on rooftops and wind farms are very common. You can even buy power exclusively from wind sources if you want. Its not that much more expensive over other sources. Then there are a ton of people with hybrid cars, scooters, and mini two-seater town cars (the ones that look like oversized roller-skates). Then, here in Denver, there is an awesome city transit system with hybrid buses on some routes. I also read about a new gasoline or natural gas running turbine engine that is 3.5 times more efficient than current hybrid technology, so about 6-7 times more efficient than a standard gas burning V6 engine. This turbine engine powers a generator that stores electricity in batteries, so you are essentially running an electric car with a highly efficient electricity generator in it. These engines are about 1-2 years away from production. Things are getting better in some places, but Colorado benefits from a lot of sunshine (300 days a year in Denver) so we are a bit better off. Back east, coal power has a huge lobbyist presence and since the Fukishima disaster there is too much unjust fear over the best alternative power generation option for them. I have no doubt "big coal" is exploiting that.
The integrated GPU on the processor die won't make it impossible to buy a and install a aftermarket graphics card. In fact, you could just use the integrated GPU for other things, like super fast matrix computations. A video game could in effect use the Fusion processor by allocating matrix computations to the GPU and scalar computations to the CPU, then leave an aftermarket graphics card only for rendering. A programmer would have to write the program to take advantage of this, but its possible.
Zuckerberg is a pseudo-intelligent assbag that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has no qualms about stealing peoples ideas. Hes an unethical dill-bag jerk and has minimal principals. He represents the worst stereotype of a "Jew" that anti-Semitic people believe in. Im not one of them, but I would think as a Jewish person he would want to NOT be this way. I understand he now is an atheist or whatever, but god damn he is an asshole. "Im CEO Bitch" on his business cards says it all.
Yeah. I read that there are about 600,000-800,000 jobs available in skilled labor, transportation, and manufacturing that can't be filled because people are going to college for fluff degrees instead of to a trade school where they belong. Its a lot of fun to go for four years and party while you pursue a business degree (marketing, communications, management), but most business degrees are the most watered down. I have a friend that got his MBA and never went to class. You still get pretty good STEM degrees usually, though math is getting more lenient due to people bitching about not being able to pass calculus. Now they grade on a curve at most schools, which is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard of for a math class that is that easy. People turn their brains off when math problems appear, but I know from experience they can do them if they would just try and stop being lazy.
I don't pull any numbers out of the air. A simple google search will get you them. Furthermore, averages by definition are a generalization. I made no claim otherwise and it should be obvious its a generalization anyway. The average wage in America is 45,000 a year. Does this mean that there aren't people making millions a year or people making nothing? No. Its obvious a BS in Electrical Engineering will make you more money than a BA in Fine Arts. However, there is such a thing as a standard deviation which will show you the range you can expect for any percentage of the population you wish. Though I didn't factor that in, it doesn't matter. A welder will make more than a BA in Fine Arts in their life, this is blatantly obvious, do I honestly need to write a statistical study on slashdot to appease anal retentive people like you? My point still stands. You will make more money with a degree than without, unless you specialize in specific trades or get lucky. Hard work plays a role too, but it doesn't matter as much as the former. There are plenty of people that work harder than any CEO, and they still get paid 10 dollars an hour.
Yeah, like I said. I did 2 years at a community college then 3 at a university. The university was a public in-state university and about 5 hours drive from my parents house. I sort of screwed around for a two years dabbling in computer engineering and computer science at the university as a dual major but ended up dropping it. Even with that my total student loans are under 40k. It actually got much worse when I went to grad school for a MS. I upped to total to about 120k. Now, Im shooting for a PhD so Im sure it will be even more. Im hoping I can get paid about 80-90k a year, which is about standard, when I finish so I can afford to pay off the loans in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, I would have not gone for a PhD if there were jobs available in industry that could give me equivalent experience, but sadly for a person my age (27) there are not many. I wanted a PhD eventually anyway, but the economy sort of forced my hand early. Now Im working as a Tech Support guy for a forex trading firm while in school, which is almost entirely unrelated to my major and my career choice.
It cost me 40k for a BS in Applied Math with a programming focus. Im pretty sure no-one spends 200k on school unless they are at Ivy League, and then they should be working harder because they are guaranteed a very lucrative job if they keep their grades up.
The average wage of a person with a BS will still let them make around 800,000 more than a person with a high school diploma in their lifetime. The problem is, you need to be able to get a job and most people in my age group (22-28) cannot get jobs. We're the hardest hit in this economy. Its pretty much a "How can I get experience if no one will hire me without experience" situation right now since the people taking our jobs are older individuals with experience and similar qualifications.
That is why they need to separate Software Engineering from Computer Science and place them into different colleges. I.e. CS is in with Math and Physics, and SE is in with all the engineering disciplines. Computer Science is supposed to be about theories of computation, computer architecture, and mathematics. Engineering should be a minor part of it, with electives for those interested. The same thing happens in Mathematics. We can take engineering math courses or even full fledged engineering courses if it suites us. It changes when you go to get a MS or PhD, then you are expected to focus on a branch of mathematics, however most branches in applied mathematics overlap significantly with practical applications if you get involved.
With a bachelors degree you make about 1.9 times as much as someone with a high school diploma. The average salary is about 64,000 vs. 37,000. So if you figure you have 150k in debt after getting a BA or BS, you can live off the 37,000 and pay 27,000 a year to your loan. You pay it off between 7-10 years. Then over the rest of your life you will make between 837,000 - 918,000 more than a person with a high school diploma. Now, most people aren't stupid enough to spend 150k on only a Bachelors. It cost me about 40k to get my BS in Applied Math but I spent two years at a community college. You still have to factor in the recession and unemployment rate being the highest among the younger generation, but it still seems like it pays off to me.
Except that statistically, a bachelors degree will earn you more money in your lifetime. You earn even more with a graduate or professional degree. Its changing recently due to the recession, and now tons of college graduates my age are basically screwed. We are the worst affected by this recession right now as far as unemployment goes (ages 22-28). I looked for a job for 9 months already and I have a MS in Applied Math with a 3.7 GPA and two years programming experience using clusters in a research role. I have since lowered the bar and I have some sales and tech support jobs looking at me. Go figure. Now I either accept a job to survive and then get looked at funny next time I try to get a research or engineering job or I hold out for one and remain poor. I would think with my education I could at least get put on a research or engineering team and get paid somewhere around 15 an hour. I made 14 as a research assistant before my term was up. The US politicians and wealthy class really piss me off for screwing our economy over so badly so I can't even apply my knowledge to anything worthwhile.
Language changes. I have no doubt there will be people 200-400 years from now that will read our English and rant and rave about how awesome it is. Maybe they will appreciate its more informal and rational formatting, or maybe they will be writing in mathematical language. I can't even read Shakespeare without having to sit and think on every page for about an hour, maybe they will have the same problem and mistake it for "beauty".
Who woulda thunk a Harvard dropout would have no problems keeping track of where apostrophes go. I can't imagine proper use of the English language was something that he only recently developed...
I was actually rooting for that scum bag businessman Ceglia. Whatever, I still hate Zuckerbergs guts. Hes a big asshole that doesn't deserve his position in life. He came from money, had opportunities handed to him, acts like an asshole with his "Im CEO Bitch" business cards, isn't even as intelligent as that shitty movie makes him out to be, and stole the idea for his website from some other Harvard assholes. Hes as bad as those dickheads at Zynga that steal everyone's ideas and charge people for imaginary items. Funny how they are in cahoots. I don't even have a problem with Jewish people or any race for that matter, but Zuckerberg comes across as the biggest stereotype for the idea of what a "Jew" is by antisemitic people everywhere.
Be careful, qualifications aren't everything. I have worked in an academic field for awhile as a researcher PhD student, and have noticed that some people of the Principal Investigator status are more politicians and administrators than scientists anymore. They don't understand your work, but try to tell you how you should execute it because they start to live through you. They still have valuable ideas and input from experience, but have no real understanding of the challenges nor the value of the work you are doing. Their ego swells a bit at this status, and even though they may be a nice person they fail to their own human nature and sort of act superior to you, even though they are supposed to be your intellectual mentor and equal. In fact, even when they are wrong they are not as capable of admitting to themselves they are wrong because of their credentials. Whereas a person without a PhD and tenureship will be the first to admit they are wrong because of their "learning in process" status. All of what I mention is probably not as common in Wikipedia, but all the same. I make an argument to you against your bias towards a person needing qualifications. A Bachelors student could be inspired and do just as good of a job as a Masters student in an article. I remember one time I completed a mathematical proof in Dynamics as a Sophomore that blew my Professor away due to its simplicity in linear algebra terms and outside-the-box thinking. Now I don't really impress anyone unless I am methodical and document everything.
Its not really free. Its like 80 bucks a year for your own crappy hosting or you have to sell your privacy to a website like Myspace or Facebook or Google. You can't just plug something you made out of sticks and leather ties into a magical portal and get access to fairy land without paying the big boss demon lord TeleKom for their portal making magic.
Slashdot Mirror
"Top of the food chain" no longer applies to humans very well. We are more like "All encompassing lords of the food chain". If we have a problem that isn't something like a super-volcano eruption or large asteroid impact, we can engineer, fight or relocate our way out of the situation. I mean, if food wont grow in the south anymore, relocate farms to the midwest. Many humans may die from starvation or from fighting in third world countries, but the ones with the biggest guns can protect their food supply. First world countries will just find alternative sources of food. Bears and mountain lions might go extinct, but we will be eating plankton, algae, jellyfish, or a lot of corn.
The question is how much Humans are actually affecting it. The Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods independently of human beings for millions of years. We can't expect the Earth's climate to remain static for eternity. This being the case, I don't think global warming is the biggest problem we face right now. Now, that being said. CO2 levels before the industrial revolution were fairly stable, changing about +/-100 ppm every 5,000 to 20,000 years. We are at about 380 ppm now, whereas for the past 500,000 years the Earth had CO2 levels between 180-300 ppm. We are at a maximum, which is to be expected since we burn fossil fuels for energy. As long as we reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the next 150 years I think we will be ok. Keep in mind 150 years is a long time. 150 years ago most people were still riding around on horses, and electricity only existed in big cities and on telegraphs. Now we have jet aircraft, the internet, solar panels, space stations, electric cars, nuclear energy, etc. In 150 years I have no doubt we will have some more economical source of energy than coal/oil.
Nuclear would not pollute and be safer if new reactors were allowed to be built. Environmentalists are shooting themselves in the foot and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where no new evidence can ever be created to prove them wrong. If we don't use Nuclear, we need coal, natural gas and oil since, as you said, we can't rely on wind and solar. Fusion is not even a very good option yet, and its just as dangerous as nuclear in some regards. If we don't build new nuclear reactors, the old reactors will continue to produce nuclear waste, and have a higher chance of failure thus self fulfilling the retard environmentalists prophecies. I have no problem with being an educated environmentalist, but most of them are filled with lies, misinformation, propaganda and knee-jerk fanaticism when it comes to nuclear power.
Conservative in what, socially conservative? or fiscally conservative? I am a libertarian, hence socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and I think we should be using nuclear power where solar and wind are not feasible. Its been proven to be the safest and cheapest method overall. If modern reactors where allowed to be built then there would be no problems, but the same environmentalists that cry about coal and oil also cry about nuclear power and essentially shoot themselves in the foot. Coal causes too many problems just by mining it, like coal ash slurry spills and such. In the end the coal companies do not pay enough for the damage they do and it gets offloaded on tax payers. Since I believe in limited taxes and government anyway, I see this as a problem. If the coal companies became 100 percent responsible for any damage to private and public property, as well as to people health, I would have less of a problem with it. As far as global warming, I think its occurring but severely overstated as a problem. Many people are using it as a scam to sell "environmentally friendly" things or carbon credits to make a buck, and that makes them no better than the coal companies, oil companies, and PR firms you mention. With the recent push by consumers for solar panels, wind farms, hybrid cars, etc. based on high oil prices due to a weak dollar and political instability in the middle east, I think the fossil fuel burning as a primary source of energy in the US will only last a hundred or two hundred years. Everyone always forgets that there are companies researching technology like ultracapacitors, high performance solar panels, etc. that will make energy sources that don't burn fossil fuels, or burn fossil fuels more efficiently more economical for the consumer.
People already are reducing their dependance on oil and coal. Gas is expensive right now, so people find other options to get to where they need to go. Here in Colorado, solar power on rooftops and wind farms are very common. You can even buy power exclusively from wind sources if you want. Its not that much more expensive over other sources. Then there are a ton of people with hybrid cars, scooters, and mini two-seater town cars (the ones that look like oversized roller-skates). Then, here in Denver, there is an awesome city transit system with hybrid buses on some routes. I also read about a new gasoline or natural gas running turbine engine that is 3.5 times more efficient than current hybrid technology, so about 6-7 times more efficient than a standard gas burning V6 engine. This turbine engine powers a generator that stores electricity in batteries, so you are essentially running an electric car with a highly efficient electricity generator in it. These engines are about 1-2 years away from production. Things are getting better in some places, but Colorado benefits from a lot of sunshine (300 days a year in Denver) so we are a bit better off. Back east, coal power has a huge lobbyist presence and since the Fukishima disaster there is too much unjust fear over the best alternative power generation option for them. I have no doubt "big coal" is exploiting that.
The integrated GPU on the processor die won't make it impossible to buy a and install a aftermarket graphics card. In fact, you could just use the integrated GPU for other things, like super fast matrix computations. A video game could in effect use the Fusion processor by allocating matrix computations to the GPU and scalar computations to the CPU, then leave an aftermarket graphics card only for rendering. A programmer would have to write the program to take advantage of this, but its possible.
It was in a Godzilla movie. The intro is Bambi eating some grass before getting stomped.
I thought Godzilla stepped on him.
Im an atheist too. When I say "God damn" its a throwback to my religious upbringing.
Zuckerberg is a pseudo-intelligent assbag that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has no qualms about stealing peoples ideas. Hes an unethical dill-bag jerk and has minimal principals. He represents the worst stereotype of a "Jew" that anti-Semitic people believe in. Im not one of them, but I would think as a Jewish person he would want to NOT be this way. I understand he now is an atheist or whatever, but god damn he is an asshole. "Im CEO Bitch" on his business cards says it all.
Yeah. I read that there are about 600,000-800,000 jobs available in skilled labor, transportation, and manufacturing that can't be filled because people are going to college for fluff degrees instead of to a trade school where they belong. Its a lot of fun to go for four years and party while you pursue a business degree (marketing, communications, management), but most business degrees are the most watered down. I have a friend that got his MBA and never went to class. You still get pretty good STEM degrees usually, though math is getting more lenient due to people bitching about not being able to pass calculus. Now they grade on a curve at most schools, which is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard of for a math class that is that easy. People turn their brains off when math problems appear, but I know from experience they can do them if they would just try and stop being lazy.
I don't pull any numbers out of the air. A simple google search will get you them. Furthermore, averages by definition are a generalization. I made no claim otherwise and it should be obvious its a generalization anyway. The average wage in America is 45,000 a year. Does this mean that there aren't people making millions a year or people making nothing? No. Its obvious a BS in Electrical Engineering will make you more money than a BA in Fine Arts. However, there is such a thing as a standard deviation which will show you the range you can expect for any percentage of the population you wish. Though I didn't factor that in, it doesn't matter. A welder will make more than a BA in Fine Arts in their life, this is blatantly obvious, do I honestly need to write a statistical study on slashdot to appease anal retentive people like you? My point still stands. You will make more money with a degree than without, unless you specialize in specific trades or get lucky. Hard work plays a role too, but it doesn't matter as much as the former. There are plenty of people that work harder than any CEO, and they still get paid 10 dollars an hour.
Yeah, like I said. I did 2 years at a community college then 3 at a university. The university was a public in-state university and about 5 hours drive from my parents house. I sort of screwed around for a two years dabbling in computer engineering and computer science at the university as a dual major but ended up dropping it. Even with that my total student loans are under 40k. It actually got much worse when I went to grad school for a MS. I upped to total to about 120k. Now, Im shooting for a PhD so Im sure it will be even more. Im hoping I can get paid about 80-90k a year, which is about standard, when I finish so I can afford to pay off the loans in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, I would have not gone for a PhD if there were jobs available in industry that could give me equivalent experience, but sadly for a person my age (27) there are not many. I wanted a PhD eventually anyway, but the economy sort of forced my hand early. Now Im working as a Tech Support guy for a forex trading firm while in school, which is almost entirely unrelated to my major and my career choice.
Yes, it does, but I am speaking of averages nation-wide.
You are right. However, even adjusted for taxes you still come out ahead.
It cost me 40k for a BS in Applied Math with a programming focus. Im pretty sure no-one spends 200k on school unless they are at Ivy League, and then they should be working harder because they are guaranteed a very lucrative job if they keep their grades up.
The average wage of a person with a BS will still let them make around 800,000 more than a person with a high school diploma in their lifetime. The problem is, you need to be able to get a job and most people in my age group (22-28) cannot get jobs. We're the hardest hit in this economy. Its pretty much a "How can I get experience if no one will hire me without experience" situation right now since the people taking our jobs are older individuals with experience and similar qualifications.
That is why they need to separate Software Engineering from Computer Science and place them into different colleges. I.e. CS is in with Math and Physics, and SE is in with all the engineering disciplines. Computer Science is supposed to be about theories of computation, computer architecture, and mathematics. Engineering should be a minor part of it, with electives for those interested. The same thing happens in Mathematics. We can take engineering math courses or even full fledged engineering courses if it suites us. It changes when you go to get a MS or PhD, then you are expected to focus on a branch of mathematics, however most branches in applied mathematics overlap significantly with practical applications if you get involved.
With a bachelors degree you make about 1.9 times as much as someone with a high school diploma. The average salary is about 64,000 vs. 37,000. So if you figure you have 150k in debt after getting a BA or BS, you can live off the 37,000 and pay 27,000 a year to your loan. You pay it off between 7-10 years. Then over the rest of your life you will make between 837,000 - 918,000 more than a person with a high school diploma. Now, most people aren't stupid enough to spend 150k on only a Bachelors. It cost me about 40k to get my BS in Applied Math but I spent two years at a community college. You still have to factor in the recession and unemployment rate being the highest among the younger generation, but it still seems like it pays off to me.
Except that statistically, a bachelors degree will earn you more money in your lifetime. You earn even more with a graduate or professional degree. Its changing recently due to the recession, and now tons of college graduates my age are basically screwed. We are the worst affected by this recession right now as far as unemployment goes (ages 22-28). I looked for a job for 9 months already and I have a MS in Applied Math with a 3.7 GPA and two years programming experience using clusters in a research role. I have since lowered the bar and I have some sales and tech support jobs looking at me. Go figure. Now I either accept a job to survive and then get looked at funny next time I try to get a research or engineering job or I hold out for one and remain poor. I would think with my education I could at least get put on a research or engineering team and get paid somewhere around 15 an hour. I made 14 as a research assistant before my term was up. The US politicians and wealthy class really piss me off for screwing our economy over so badly so I can't even apply my knowledge to anything worthwhile.
Language changes. I have no doubt there will be people 200-400 years from now that will read our English and rant and rave about how awesome it is. Maybe they will appreciate its more informal and rational formatting, or maybe they will be writing in mathematical language. I can't even read Shakespeare without having to sit and think on every page for about an hour, maybe they will have the same problem and mistake it for "beauty".
Who woulda thunk a Harvard dropout would have no problems keeping track of where apostrophes go. I can't imagine proper use of the English language was something that he only recently developed...
There, fixed that for you.
I was actually rooting for that scum bag businessman Ceglia. Whatever, I still hate Zuckerbergs guts. Hes a big asshole that doesn't deserve his position in life. He came from money, had opportunities handed to him, acts like an asshole with his "Im CEO Bitch" business cards, isn't even as intelligent as that shitty movie makes him out to be, and stole the idea for his website from some other Harvard assholes. Hes as bad as those dickheads at Zynga that steal everyone's ideas and charge people for imaginary items. Funny how they are in cahoots. I don't even have a problem with Jewish people or any race for that matter, but Zuckerberg comes across as the biggest stereotype for the idea of what a "Jew" is by antisemitic people everywhere.
Be careful, qualifications aren't everything. I have worked in an academic field for awhile as a researcher PhD student, and have noticed that some people of the Principal Investigator status are more politicians and administrators than scientists anymore. They don't understand your work, but try to tell you how you should execute it because they start to live through you. They still have valuable ideas and input from experience, but have no real understanding of the challenges nor the value of the work you are doing. Their ego swells a bit at this status, and even though they may be a nice person they fail to their own human nature and sort of act superior to you, even though they are supposed to be your intellectual mentor and equal. In fact, even when they are wrong they are not as capable of admitting to themselves they are wrong because of their credentials. Whereas a person without a PhD and tenureship will be the first to admit they are wrong because of their "learning in process" status. All of what I mention is probably not as common in Wikipedia, but all the same. I make an argument to you against your bias towards a person needing qualifications. A Bachelors student could be inspired and do just as good of a job as a Masters student in an article. I remember one time I completed a mathematical proof in Dynamics as a Sophomore that blew my Professor away due to its simplicity in linear algebra terms and outside-the-box thinking. Now I don't really impress anyone unless I am methodical and document everything.
Its not really free. Its like 80 bucks a year for your own crappy hosting or you have to sell your privacy to a website like Myspace or Facebook or Google. You can't just plug something you made out of sticks and leather ties into a magical portal and get access to fairy land without paying the big boss demon lord TeleKom for their portal making magic.