I read a study somewhere that talked about how extroverts refer to more people as friends, and introverts have a stricter criteria. I personally ran into problems dating a very extroverted woman, and it ended very badly. My wife is actually more introverted than me at times, as I find it easier to be pleasant with people and chit chat small talk. I don't like doing it so much, but I just man up and do it anyway. I think people are too complex and un-trustworthy to call someone a friend unless you really know them. Ive had people that seem ok at first end up being someone I dislike later. But I suppose thats part of being introverted.
I don't know. Extroverts always seemed to be fake to me, even if they seem like they want to hang out with you. I don't see how you can be someones friend if you only hang out with them for an hour every once in awhile.
Its also really a joke when you get paid shitty wages for a lot of work and then end up being obligated to attend these events as if they cared about you at all. If they really cared about you they would give you a living wage. In my case Im a RA for a lab. We are expected to work longer than 40 hour weeks and I get paid below poverty for a single person, yet I have a wife.
What you said is not always true. I have several examples in my own life where a boss was incompetent, but either A) schmoozed their boss to the point their boss loved them (brown nosed or became fake friends with) or B) back-stabbed their own employees by blaming them for their own failures and thus was able to retain their position in spite of not really being qualified to do it, and also being a shitty human being at that.
I was referring to possums. I see a bunch of them down here in Texas and they are nasty little critters. Armadillo I would consider eating but learning about the leprosy thing certainly caused me to think twice.
The problem is that a significant portion of the money gets pooled together, so an engineer would pay more money so that a liberal arts major can talk about their feelings in a comfy chair in a literature class. Im not saying that its not a worthwhile class, but it doesn't really help out the engineering student to have a comfy chair somewhere they wont ever visit. If all of the tuition money stayed in the students particular college or department, I can see it being fair.
The real problem is that people complain about not having more STEM when they A) Do nothing about creating STEM jobs and B) make it financially harder to be a STEM major and C) Offer more lucrative jobs to less educated people (like business management).
Its more like the administrators get paid very high wages and the professors get paid more than most people. For example, at my university the President makes about 400,000 a year and basically doesn't do shit, and my adviser makes 80,000. My adviser is more educated mind you. I make 1000 a month on a research job in computer vision, We also have to sign a form saying we wont work anywhere else with a consequence of being terminated. My principal investigator makes 120,000 (public information). Why should he benefit from our work, get to put his name on our papers, and we get paid shit wages? He goes to conferences to represent our papers as if he did the work and "There isn't money for you to go". Our society in the US does not reward education, it rewards Schmoozers.
If they would pay researchers better to not patent things then they wouldn't try to patent them. For example, research assistants get paid shit. I know because I am one. You can't even support yourself on this wage. If I were to stumble across something that seemed like it would guarantee me money through contracts or licensing, I would patent it.
If you have some form of industrial facility or machining facility on hand you could do it. Keep in mind people could still put on their warm clothing and travel out to scavenge materials. Humans are pretty innovative when it comes down to starving to death. We are also totally discounting the possibility of counteracting the asteroid/comet beforehand. Gravity is a bitch, but you can always take the best path to survival as a species based on probability. What would be more probable? Surviving an asteroid impact without power to drive machines and circuitry, or surviving an asteroid impact with power to drive machines and circuitry?
Cannibalism would be rampant in such a situation. There is no denying it. Watch or preferably read "The Road" sometime. I firmly believe its accurate. Soylent Green was an awesome movie as well. Charlton Heston has a knack for these type of films.
That's why you put solar collectors in orbit and beam the power down by microwave. As a plus, you get much better efficiency (since the atmosphere isn't in the way), and you aren't ruining tons of real estate in the process (or being forced to locate a ridiculous distance from the bulk of electricity consumers, such as proposals to put solar power arrays in the Sahara desert).
This is an extremely expensive proposal. It would be much more expensive than nuclear power.
Right, but there's zero we can do about that, so we might as well not even worry about it. Well, we could develop a program to look for earth-crossing asteroids and develop a capability to alter their trajectories with automated rockets or whatever, but that would cost money that can be better spent on wars over oil control or welfare for various corporations, so forget it.
Actually, there has been a huge initiative into looking for near-Earth-asteroids. The Russians are actually set to try to deflect a major asteroid hitting somewhere in the 2030's.
As an engineer, I see this all the time with science and engineering, and it really irks me. People are constantly whining that there aren't enough scientists and engineers, that we need to beef up science/math education for kids, etc. But if you look at WHO is saying these things,
I am a graduate student that is a hair away from a MS in applied math. I decided to do electrical engineering as my major for about three years in undergrad. However, I couldn't stop taking math courses. I love the curriculum available to math majors. I am saying, we do not have enough science and engineering majors. The main reason is a lack of incentives. As an engineer or scientist you end up working for business or Wallstreet rather than developing new things that benefit society. There is no money in helping your fellow man.
If you have a hydroponics facility and a nuclear power plant powering it there will be some people that can survive it. They are already building some of these facilities in a city I can't remember. Its meant to provide fresh produce to some people in the city year round. If you built one of these facilities in a rural area and had a stockpile of various armaments to protect it I see no reason a small group of people couldn't last through the worst part of the cataclysm.
Hence my mention of "hydroponic" facilities. You can grow sugar beets, potatoes, fruit bushes, algae, etc. At the very least it would allow some people to survive like some military guys that kill people who get near it. There's even a possibility of converting materials industrially into food pellets. If you block out the sun and your society relies totally on solar power you are even worse off than if you have power generating capabilities left over. No one would survive in the first case, and a handful here and there in the second case.
Im trying to dismiss relying totally on solar power for power generation. You need alternative sources in case something happens that renders the plant non-functional. Solar is the one affected the most or rendered useless out of the others I can think of in either of the aforementioned apocalyptic events. Furthermore, theres a small push into hydroponic facilities in cities with the plants contained completely indoors. They are experimenting with growing food locally this way. I can only hope before a cataclysm happens we have more of these facilities, and diverse energy sources.
Great. I am glad you shared that with me. What a bunch of idiots. So basically they wont be happy until we unwind all of human progress for the last two hundred years and rely on water powered or wind powered mills to do mechanical work. Meanwhile, most of the world will starve to death. Id rather the human race have the ability to weather extinction events than have the Earth be like it was before.
Not if I have a green house and enough solar lamps. As is there is a push to make hydroponic facilities in cities that rely on nutrients dissolved in water, and solar lamps to grow food. It allows the city to get fresh produce grown in the city. The point is, hopefully, before either of those events happen we will have more of these facilities.
The problem with that is people will not build up coal reserves nor will they maintain coal plants nor will they maintain infrastructure if we switch to solar. Humans are really bad at planning for long term events like that. Its better to diversify your energy sources and use them all the time. Wind, geothermal, solar, nuclear, and some day fusion can replace nuclear. Id much rather rely on nuclear power in a bad event than the foresight of human beings with coal infrastructure.
They seem to always talk about solar or fusion but never do second level thought on that. When the next asteroid or comet hits or a super-volcano like Yellowstone erupts and blocks out the sun solar wont work quite so hot. There is significant probability a large asteroid or comet will hit us one day, and that one day a super-volcano will erupt. Fusion that produces energy cost-effectively has yet to be produced, and none of the Greenpeace morons are trying to help that endeavor out by becoming nuclear scientists. I doubt most of them have the capacity for it anyway since they don't bother to think beyond "stop doing ____ it hurts the ______".
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough you are partially right. Ikon isn't doing so hot these days, neither is Best Buy (compared to what they were).
I read a study somewhere that talked about how extroverts refer to more people as friends, and introverts have a stricter criteria. I personally ran into problems dating a very extroverted woman, and it ended very badly. My wife is actually more introverted than me at times, as I find it easier to be pleasant with people and chit chat small talk. I don't like doing it so much, but I just man up and do it anyway. I think people are too complex and un-trustworthy to call someone a friend unless you really know them. Ive had people that seem ok at first end up being someone I dislike later. But I suppose thats part of being introverted.
I don't know. Extroverts always seemed to be fake to me, even if they seem like they want to hang out with you. I don't see how you can be someones friend if you only hang out with them for an hour every once in awhile.
Its also really a joke when you get paid shitty wages for a lot of work and then end up being obligated to attend these events as if they cared about you at all. If they really cared about you they would give you a living wage. In my case Im a RA for a lab. We are expected to work longer than 40 hour weeks and I get paid below poverty for a single person, yet I have a wife.
What you said is not always true. I have several examples in my own life where a boss was incompetent, but either A) schmoozed their boss to the point their boss loved them (brown nosed or became fake friends with) or B) back-stabbed their own employees by blaming them for their own failures and thus was able to retain their position in spite of not really being qualified to do it, and also being a shitty human being at that.
I was referring to possums. I see a bunch of them down here in Texas and they are nasty little critters. Armadillo I would consider eating but learning about the leprosy thing certainly caused me to think twice.
Man. They are filthy. Have you ever seen one?
Government funds tend to support graduate students with scholarships and a wage. I am supported by the Army, NIST and DoD indirectly.
Ever watch Idiocracy? Its actually a bad thing when educated, smart people have less kids. Its de-evolution.
The problem is that a significant portion of the money gets pooled together, so an engineer would pay more money so that a liberal arts major can talk about their feelings in a comfy chair in a literature class. Im not saying that its not a worthwhile class, but it doesn't really help out the engineering student to have a comfy chair somewhere they wont ever visit. If all of the tuition money stayed in the students particular college or department, I can see it being fair.
The real problem is that people complain about not having more STEM when they A) Do nothing about creating STEM jobs and B) make it financially harder to be a STEM major and C) Offer more lucrative jobs to less educated people (like business management).
I wouldn't eat those suckers. Ugh.
Its more like the administrators get paid very high wages and the professors get paid more than most people. For example, at my university the President makes about 400,000 a year and basically doesn't do shit, and my adviser makes 80,000. My adviser is more educated mind you. I make 1000 a month on a research job in computer vision, We also have to sign a form saying we wont work anywhere else with a consequence of being terminated. My principal investigator makes 120,000 (public information). Why should he benefit from our work, get to put his name on our papers, and we get paid shit wages? He goes to conferences to represent our papers as if he did the work and "There isn't money for you to go". Our society in the US does not reward education, it rewards Schmoozers.
If they would pay researchers better to not patent things then they wouldn't try to patent them. For example, research assistants get paid shit. I know because I am one. You can't even support yourself on this wage. If I were to stumble across something that seemed like it would guarantee me money through contracts or licensing, I would patent it.
If you have some form of industrial facility or machining facility on hand you could do it. Keep in mind people could still put on their warm clothing and travel out to scavenge materials. Humans are pretty innovative when it comes down to starving to death. We are also totally discounting the possibility of counteracting the asteroid/comet beforehand. Gravity is a bitch, but you can always take the best path to survival as a species based on probability. What would be more probable? Surviving an asteroid impact without power to drive machines and circuitry, or surviving an asteroid impact with power to drive machines and circuitry?
Cannibalism would be rampant in such a situation. There is no denying it. Watch or preferably read "The Road" sometime. I firmly believe its accurate. Soylent Green was an awesome movie as well. Charlton Heston has a knack for these type of films.
That's why you put solar collectors in orbit and beam the power down by microwave. As a plus, you get much better efficiency (since the atmosphere isn't in the way), and you aren't ruining tons of real estate in the process (or being forced to locate a ridiculous distance from the bulk of electricity consumers, such as proposals to put solar power arrays in the Sahara desert).
This is an extremely expensive proposal. It would be much more expensive than nuclear power.
Right, but there's zero we can do about that, so we might as well not even worry about it. Well, we could develop a program to look for earth-crossing asteroids and develop a capability to alter their trajectories with automated rockets or whatever, but that would cost money that can be better spent on wars over oil control or welfare for various corporations, so forget it.
Actually, there has been a huge initiative into looking for near-Earth-asteroids. The Russians are actually set to try to deflect a major asteroid hitting somewhere in the 2030's.
As an engineer, I see this all the time with science and engineering, and it really irks me. People are constantly whining that there aren't enough scientists and engineers, that we need to beef up science/math education for kids, etc. But if you look at WHO is saying these things,
I am a graduate student that is a hair away from a MS in applied math. I decided to do electrical engineering as my major for about three years in undergrad. However, I couldn't stop taking math courses. I love the curriculum available to math majors. I am saying, we do not have enough science and engineering majors. The main reason is a lack of incentives. As an engineer or scientist you end up working for business or Wallstreet rather than developing new things that benefit society. There is no money in helping your fellow man.
If you have a hydroponics facility and a nuclear power plant powering it there will be some people that can survive it. They are already building some of these facilities in a city I can't remember. Its meant to provide fresh produce to some people in the city year round. If you built one of these facilities in a rural area and had a stockpile of various armaments to protect it I see no reason a small group of people couldn't last through the worst part of the cataclysm.
You need to read the OP and its response. I also didn't mention solar energy. Solar lamps are powered by any electrical energy.
Hence my mention of "hydroponic" facilities. You can grow sugar beets, potatoes, fruit bushes, algae, etc. At the very least it would allow some people to survive like some military guys that kill people who get near it. There's even a possibility of converting materials industrially into food pellets. If you block out the sun and your society relies totally on solar power you are even worse off than if you have power generating capabilities left over. No one would survive in the first case, and a handful here and there in the second case.
Im trying to dismiss relying totally on solar power for power generation. You need alternative sources in case something happens that renders the plant non-functional. Solar is the one affected the most or rendered useless out of the others I can think of in either of the aforementioned apocalyptic events. Furthermore, theres a small push into hydroponic facilities in cities with the plants contained completely indoors. They are experimenting with growing food locally this way. I can only hope before a cataclysm happens we have more of these facilities, and diverse energy sources.
Great. I am glad you shared that with me. What a bunch of idiots. So basically they wont be happy until we unwind all of human progress for the last two hundred years and rely on water powered or wind powered mills to do mechanical work. Meanwhile, most of the world will starve to death. Id rather the human race have the ability to weather extinction events than have the Earth be like it was before.
Not if I have a green house and enough solar lamps. As is there is a push to make hydroponic facilities in cities that rely on nutrients dissolved in water, and solar lamps to grow food. It allows the city to get fresh produce grown in the city. The point is, hopefully, before either of those events happen we will have more of these facilities.
The problem with that is people will not build up coal reserves nor will they maintain coal plants nor will they maintain infrastructure if we switch to solar. Humans are really bad at planning for long term events like that. Its better to diversify your energy sources and use them all the time. Wind, geothermal, solar, nuclear, and some day fusion can replace nuclear. Id much rather rely on nuclear power in a bad event than the foresight of human beings with coal infrastructure.
They seem to always talk about solar or fusion but never do second level thought on that. When the next asteroid or comet hits or a super-volcano like Yellowstone erupts and blocks out the sun solar wont work quite so hot. There is significant probability a large asteroid or comet will hit us one day, and that one day a super-volcano will erupt. Fusion that produces energy cost-effectively has yet to be produced, and none of the Greenpeace morons are trying to help that endeavor out by becoming nuclear scientists. I doubt most of them have the capacity for it anyway since they don't bother to think beyond "stop doing ____ it hurts the ______".