It brings an almost orgasmic pleasure to me to think of all you hipsters slaving away on an assembly line, the acrid smell of solder and flux heavy in the sweltering heat
Solder fumes shouldn't be a problem with adequate ventilation. Every decent assembly-line reflow oven has a big duct that's connected to a powered vent system leading outside. The only solder fumes should be from manual rework stations manned by humans, and in fact, there really should be zero need for humans in the soldering and electronic assembly process, as this is usually all fully automated (except sometimes for placement of larger through-hole components like connectors). The only time humans should be handling soldering equipment for a high-volume product is during the development process when some rework of prototype units may be necessary.
Well that would all be consistent with what I wrote. If things are getting warmer, then there's more energy in the oceans, meaning there's enough energy to start hurricanes earlier in the year than before and also later as well, and storms would be stronger and be able to travel farther and gain enough energy from the water to continue at higher latitudes.
This makes me wonder: back in the time of dinosaurs, when the earth was much warmer than now, did they have tons of huge hurricanes?
That isn't quite accurate I think. Engineers aren't being paid peanuts, yet. But the real wages (relative to the value of the dollar) are steadily falling. I'm a software engineer myself, and I don't see that many H1Bs; what I do see is a lot of work being farmed out to locations overseas, which is a lot cheaper for companies than hiring a bunch of H1Bs and bringing them over here, though this is mainly with larger companies that can afford to employ whole development teams over there. I also see a lot of companies where they just have a really hard time filling open spots, and it's not because there's some steady stream of cheap H1Bs (in fact most studies show them to be more expensive than citizens), it just seems to be that these companies are cheap and stupid, and would rather stumble along understaffed and try to flog their existing engineers for more unpaid overtime than to just hire more people. It's the same mentality of my last company: they made me suffer for a year with some shitty old computer with a tiny monitor, even though a faster computer (for better compile times) and a bigger monitor (to see more code on the screen) would improve my productivity, and you can buy a giant monitor these days for only $200 and a fast desktop PC for maybe $600. Penny wise and pound foolish as the old saying goes.
1. They've had robotic lawn mowers for at least a decade now. 2. Roomba 3. No, it doesn't need to be cured. If some rich people can make lots of money on it, it'll get done, but if not, it won't. 4. What's the economic incentive here? 5. economic incentive? 6. economic incentive?
Sure, those big projects could employ lots of people and improve the economy overall, but they need big investment, from a government or group of governments. With the current trend of government being sold out to the 1%ers who only will undertake a project if it'll be wildly profitable in 3-5 years and the idiots in the general population not wanting to spend tax money on such things, those projects aren't going to be done.
How will we motivate people to get advanced educations?
We won't. Society will collapse into anarchy, or governments will engage in widespread extermination programs to eliminate excess population.
WTF are you talking about? I'd be happy to be served food by a robot instead of a human. You don't even need a robot per se, you could just have a food dispenser at your table that delivers the food you ordered, at the touchscreen terminal built into the terminal, using a conveyor belt. Humans make terrible servers: they're expensive as hell (you need to pay them 10-20% over the cost of the bill), they frequently make mistakes, a lot of them are really annoying and keep interrupting your conversation stupidly asking if you want anything else when it's obvious that you don't, they're too slow and make you wait too long to bring you drinks, take your order, bring other items you ask for, etc. I'd love to see waiters replaced by robots. The only time waiters are enjoyable to be around is when they're an attractive younger woman, but that's only a minority of the time, and overall not really worth all the lunkhead 20-something males I have to put up with.
As for engineers making peanuts, if that happens no one will be an engineer, because the up-front educational costs will make it not financially worth it if there isn't a good-paying job at the end of the tunnel. Tech companies are already bitching and complaining about there not being enough engineers to hire. They're not complaining about doctors the same way, but that's because doctors generally make quite a bit more money than engineers, so there's plenty of people still interested in that profession. Pay them peanuts and there won't be very many doctors; the educational and skill requirements are just too high. When there's no doctors or engineers, then society will totally collapse, and there won't be anyone to buy all these robotically-made products.
IANAMeterologist, but I believe the idea is that global warming => warmer waters in the oceans => more and worse hurricanes/typhoons. There's a reason hurricanes start out around the equator, in the summertime, and don't usually proceed very far north: they get their energy from the warm water and air.
I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs.
That's true, but you have to look at the context of the times. Jesus lived in a land that was under occupation by a foreign imperial power. The government that was in place didn't really do anything for the people of that area, they just took taxes and built roads and such to support their trade networks, since that's what made the empire rich. They didn't have government programs like in the modern sense, and I'm pretty sure they didn't provide an education to people in their territories either.
I'm not saying all charity is useless or anything like that, but if you really want to improve peoples' lives, there's two things that have been proven to have the biggest effect in actually eliminating poverty and helping people have better lives: the first is education, the second is health care. And both of those work a lot better when they're run by a government rather than charity services. Your family that took in homeless teens did good, but those teens would not have healthy adult lives if they had no education and were illiterate, and I'm guessing this family didn't do that for them, they just sent them to existing free government-run schools. Just keeping kids in your house for 18 years and feeding them does not turn them into healthy adults; they have to have a proper education to be an effective part of modern society, and not that many people have the ability or desire to homeschool their kids (and many who do do a terrible job of it, though lots do a great job so I'm not saying homeschooling is bad in all cases). To be a healthy adult, a child needs a good home to grow up in, and a decent education; it's really hard to achieve a decent adulthood without both. The family you speak of provided one of those when no one else would (sadly, foster care programs seem to universally suck), but the government most likely provided the other.
That's probably true, but it's really beside the point. If you're an American, living in America, buying a JDM-spec car isn't feasible; your choices of "Japanese cars" are limited to the stuff they sell at dealerships here, which are USDM-spec models. The European automakers probably do a lot of the same stuff with their cars.
Personally, my car is an Acura Integra with stiffened suspension, so that's my reference point. All other cars feel like crap to me, at least the rentals I've driven, though I did get to briefly ride in an Infiniti G35/37 a while ago that seemed to handle well, though I wasn't driving so it's hard to tell exactly.
People have been giving alms to the poor throughout the middle ages, and up until now. Government programs to help lift people out of poverty (such as by providing free education) have only been around perhaps 150 years or so. All that private charity did absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate grinding poverty, yet government provision of services (mostly education) has created a giant and prosperous middle class and a strong economy in all developed nations.
Paying your taxes (to whichever part of the government funds education) does a LOT more than giving money to some charity.
I don't really feel like commenting on myself, but you have a bit of a point, lots of people have hobbies doing things that aren't ground-breaking at all. However, they also don't spend enormous sums of money on these hobbies, it's just something to do in their spare time and generally doesn't cost much, or it's making something that you can't get for a cheap price because of the labor involved.
If you want an example of a much more useful rich-person's hobby, I saw a program a while ago about a guy who built his own submarine (or rather, had it built for him). Now, we've had submarines for ages too, but not like this one: he wanted a submarine that had a giant window in the front so it felt like you were really underwater, able to see everything, instead of feeling like you're in a tin can with no windows. It cost a couple million dollars, but he got it built, and it was pretty cool. It didn't break and speed or depth records, but there aren't many submarines in the world that offer the experience this one does; you can dive to shipwrecks and see them close-up without having to be a scuba diver (and can dive deeper than most scuba divers anyway).
Finally, judging by TFA, this doesn't look like a hobby at all, it looks like these people are being paid for this silly project by public donations. What for? It's a waste of money; these donations could be funding a far more useful project.
I hate to break it to you, but American cars have gotten a lot better at turning in the last decade or two, at least compared with the run-of-the mill Japanese cars. I've rented a bunch of different cars over the last years, and the American cars like the Chrysler 200, Ford Fusion, and Chevy Impala had handling just as good as the Mitsubishi Galant and Nissan Altima and Toyota Corolla I drove (which is to say, they were all competent for 4-door sedans but were pretty sloppy IMO).
I have to agree, this project is a total waste of time. It's really nothing more than sticking an aircraft engine in a car. We have lots of places that can go faster than 1000 mph; we've been building mach 2+ planes for decades now. The SR-71 could go Mach 3 IIRC, and that was built in the late 50s or early 60s. There's no point in making a "car" that goes that fast, when you can only do it at the Bonneville Salt Flats, and it has zero practical application. It's not like we can make passenger cars go any faster safely. Even if we went to all-driverless robotic cars, they're not going to drive that much faster than people-driven cars, and lots of cars today can go 150mph easily, there's no technical challenge there. Just go buy a BMW or a Ferrari or a Lamborghini and you're done.
So they've done a successful test of a turbine engine. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? We've been building jet engines this powerful (and more) for decades now. Any modern fighter jet has an engine at least this powerful. You want a powerful jet engine? Go buy one from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce. They make tons of them. It's nothing special. Oh, it's a rocket engine? Whoopee, we've been building rocket engines much more powerful than this for decades too. And why on earth would you build a rocket engine for an earth-bound vehicle, where oxygen in the atmosphere is plentiful?
If they wanted to do something interesting and useful, they'd build an electric vehicle, or some kind of automated people transport, something that shows where technology is headed.
Frankly, I think your version is inferior. If you are going to have a dedicated popup/wizard page for DNT, why have you check "No" by default? Just provide 2 separate buttons: "Yes" and "No".
Yes, it is inferior. I was just thinking you'd default to "No" to keep these other companies from bitching and complaining too much.
Also, the wording you use has double negatives. "Do you want to enable Do Not Track" is a cognitive disaster. You don't present users with the option to "enable something not to happen".
You're probably right. Maybe they should just make it ask "Do you want to be tracked by advertisers on the web?" and have it check "Yes" by default, and force users to click "OK" to set that. Anyone who just clicks "OK" deserves no privacy.
The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default. So by making it default, they're breaking the standard. I'm all for not-tracking, but if everyone's agreed to a certain standard and that it must be implemented a certain way, then they should follow that or else try to get it changed (good luck).
Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.
I live in Arizona. It's not much better than Mississippi. And I don't think most of the Southern and midwest states are much better.
One in three is fat and most wait until they're 30? You must live someplace like northern California to say that. That place is **not** typical for the country.
Back to the drawing board? Hardly... Windows 7 is as close an OS to Vista as XP was to W2K. Some minor UI tweaks, less offensive UAC,
To regular users, the UI is the OS (along with highly annoying things that pop up like UAC). If you significantly tweak the UI, you've by definition "gone back to the drawing board" in the eyes of a normal user.
There are, after all, several full-fledged desktop environments available for Fedora and Ubuntu and all their kin. If fewer people are using Gnome Shell and more are using LXDE, there will be a shift in feature requests and bug reports and new applets developed, and resources will shift around.
In theory, sure, but in practice I don't see it, because Fedora and Ubuntu are going full steam ahead with Gnome3 and Unity. Also, Unity is Mark's baby, so he's not going to give that up no matter what. And Red Hat employs a bunch of Gnome developers, so they're highly invested in it as well, and it's unlikely they're going to dump Gnome and switch to something else just because the users have switched. And finally, users usually use what's popular and well-supported, even if it's not their favorite. That's why so many people use Windows after all. People have been bitching and complaining about Windows for 20+ years now, but they keep using it because it's "the standard", and it's well-supported by their hardware and especially their software.
because Koreans are freaking idiots with zero common sense and even less logic.
Um, how long has it been since you've been to America? You do realize this is the home of Focus on the Family, the Creationist Museum, etc., don't you?
Of course, things depend a lot on exactly where in the USA you're moving to, which I don't think you've revealed here. If you're trying to avoid total idiocy, you'll probably want to stay on the coasts.
Also, if you're single, surely the prospects are better in Korea; all the women here are obese and have kids when they're teenagers.
Yep, that too. Honestly, why is the poster wanting to come back to the US anyway? Just about everything is worse here than in SK, except maybe the constant worry about the NK starting another war, but considering how fast SK has improved that doesn't seem to have held anyone there back.
Slashdot Mirror
It brings an almost orgasmic pleasure to me to think of all you hipsters slaving away on an assembly line, the acrid smell of solder and flux heavy in the sweltering heat
Solder fumes shouldn't be a problem with adequate ventilation. Every decent assembly-line reflow oven has a big duct that's connected to a powered vent system leading outside. The only solder fumes should be from manual rework stations manned by humans, and in fact, there really should be zero need for humans in the soldering and electronic assembly process, as this is usually all fully automated (except sometimes for placement of larger through-hole components like connectors). The only time humans should be handling soldering equipment for a high-volume product is during the development process when some rework of prototype units may be necessary.
They have the money, but can they keep their company creative? Microsoft couldn't.
You're implying that Microsoft was creative at one time. I don't believe that to be true.
Well that would all be consistent with what I wrote. If things are getting warmer, then there's more energy in the oceans, meaning there's enough energy to start hurricanes earlier in the year than before and also later as well, and storms would be stronger and be able to travel farther and gain enough energy from the water to continue at higher latitudes.
This makes me wonder: back in the time of dinosaurs, when the earth was much warmer than now, did they have tons of huge hurricanes?
Actually, don't you mean the Apache people? I thought it was a patch for Apache to ignore DNT on requests from people with IE10 user agents.
In this case, if this is what the standard says, I'd have to agree. WTF is wrong with the Firefox people?
That isn't quite accurate I think. Engineers aren't being paid peanuts, yet. But the real wages (relative to the value of the dollar) are steadily falling. I'm a software engineer myself, and I don't see that many H1Bs; what I do see is a lot of work being farmed out to locations overseas, which is a lot cheaper for companies than hiring a bunch of H1Bs and bringing them over here, though this is mainly with larger companies that can afford to employ whole development teams over there. I also see a lot of companies where they just have a really hard time filling open spots, and it's not because there's some steady stream of cheap H1Bs (in fact most studies show them to be more expensive than citizens), it just seems to be that these companies are cheap and stupid, and would rather stumble along understaffed and try to flog their existing engineers for more unpaid overtime than to just hire more people. It's the same mentality of my last company: they made me suffer for a year with some shitty old computer with a tiny monitor, even though a faster computer (for better compile times) and a bigger monitor (to see more code on the screen) would improve my productivity, and you can buy a giant monitor these days for only $200 and a fast desktop PC for maybe $600. Penny wise and pound foolish as the old saying goes.
1. They've had robotic lawn mowers for at least a decade now.
2. Roomba
3. No, it doesn't need to be cured. If some rich people can make lots of money on it, it'll get done, but if not, it won't.
4. What's the economic incentive here?
5. economic incentive?
6. economic incentive?
Sure, those big projects could employ lots of people and improve the economy overall, but they need big investment, from a government or group of governments. With the current trend of government being sold out to the 1%ers who only will undertake a project if it'll be wildly profitable in 3-5 years and the idiots in the general population not wanting to spend tax money on such things, those projects aren't going to be done.
How will we motivate people to get advanced educations?
We won't. Society will collapse into anarchy, or governments will engage in widespread extermination programs to eliminate excess population.
WTF are you talking about? I'd be happy to be served food by a robot instead of a human. You don't even need a robot per se, you could just have a food dispenser at your table that delivers the food you ordered, at the touchscreen terminal built into the terminal, using a conveyor belt. Humans make terrible servers: they're expensive as hell (you need to pay them 10-20% over the cost of the bill), they frequently make mistakes, a lot of them are really annoying and keep interrupting your conversation stupidly asking if you want anything else when it's obvious that you don't, they're too slow and make you wait too long to bring you drinks, take your order, bring other items you ask for, etc. I'd love to see waiters replaced by robots. The only time waiters are enjoyable to be around is when they're an attractive younger woman, but that's only a minority of the time, and overall not really worth all the lunkhead 20-something males I have to put up with.
As for engineers making peanuts, if that happens no one will be an engineer, because the up-front educational costs will make it not financially worth it if there isn't a good-paying job at the end of the tunnel. Tech companies are already bitching and complaining about there not being enough engineers to hire. They're not complaining about doctors the same way, but that's because doctors generally make quite a bit more money than engineers, so there's plenty of people still interested in that profession. Pay them peanuts and there won't be very many doctors; the educational and skill requirements are just too high. When there's no doctors or engineers, then society will totally collapse, and there won't be anyone to buy all these robotically-made products.
IANAMeterologist, but I believe the idea is that global warming => warmer waters in the oceans => more and worse hurricanes/typhoons. There's a reason hurricanes start out around the equator, in the summertime, and don't usually proceed very far north: they get their energy from the warm water and air.
I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs.
That's true, but you have to look at the context of the times. Jesus lived in a land that was under occupation by a foreign imperial power. The government that was in place didn't really do anything for the people of that area, they just took taxes and built roads and such to support their trade networks, since that's what made the empire rich. They didn't have government programs like in the modern sense, and I'm pretty sure they didn't provide an education to people in their territories either.
I'm not saying all charity is useless or anything like that, but if you really want to improve peoples' lives, there's two things that have been proven to have the biggest effect in actually eliminating poverty and helping people have better lives: the first is education, the second is health care. And both of those work a lot better when they're run by a government rather than charity services. Your family that took in homeless teens did good, but those teens would not have healthy adult lives if they had no education and were illiterate, and I'm guessing this family didn't do that for them, they just sent them to existing free government-run schools. Just keeping kids in your house for 18 years and feeding them does not turn them into healthy adults; they have to have a proper education to be an effective part of modern society, and not that many people have the ability or desire to homeschool their kids (and many who do do a terrible job of it, though lots do a great job so I'm not saying homeschooling is bad in all cases). To be a healthy adult, a child needs a good home to grow up in, and a decent education; it's really hard to achieve a decent adulthood without both. The family you speak of provided one of those when no one else would (sadly, foster care programs seem to universally suck), but the government most likely provided the other.
That's probably true, but it's really beside the point. If you're an American, living in America, buying a JDM-spec car isn't feasible; your choices of "Japanese cars" are limited to the stuff they sell at dealerships here, which are USDM-spec models. The European automakers probably do a lot of the same stuff with their cars.
Personally, my car is an Acura Integra with stiffened suspension, so that's my reference point. All other cars feel like crap to me, at least the rentals I've driven, though I did get to briefly ride in an Infiniti G35/37 a while ago that seemed to handle well, though I wasn't driving so it's hard to tell exactly.
People have been giving alms to the poor throughout the middle ages, and up until now. Government programs to help lift people out of poverty (such as by providing free education) have only been around perhaps 150 years or so. All that private charity did absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate grinding poverty, yet government provision of services (mostly education) has created a giant and prosperous middle class and a strong economy in all developed nations.
Paying your taxes (to whichever part of the government funds education) does a LOT more than giving money to some charity.
I don't really feel like commenting on myself, but you have a bit of a point, lots of people have hobbies doing things that aren't ground-breaking at all. However, they also don't spend enormous sums of money on these hobbies, it's just something to do in their spare time and generally doesn't cost much, or it's making something that you can't get for a cheap price because of the labor involved.
If you want an example of a much more useful rich-person's hobby, I saw a program a while ago about a guy who built his own submarine (or rather, had it built for him). Now, we've had submarines for ages too, but not like this one: he wanted a submarine that had a giant window in the front so it felt like you were really underwater, able to see everything, instead of feeling like you're in a tin can with no windows. It cost a couple million dollars, but he got it built, and it was pretty cool. It didn't break and speed or depth records, but there aren't many submarines in the world that offer the experience this one does; you can dive to shipwrecks and see them close-up without having to be a scuba diver (and can dive deeper than most scuba divers anyway).
Finally, judging by TFA, this doesn't look like a hobby at all, it looks like these people are being paid for this silly project by public donations. What for? It's a waste of money; these donations could be funding a far more useful project.
I hate to break it to you, but American cars have gotten a lot better at turning in the last decade or two, at least compared with the run-of-the mill Japanese cars. I've rented a bunch of different cars over the last years, and the American cars like the Chrysler 200, Ford Fusion, and Chevy Impala had handling just as good as the Mitsubishi Galant and Nissan Altima and Toyota Corolla I drove (which is to say, they were all competent for 4-door sedans but were pretty sloppy IMO).
I have to agree, this project is a total waste of time. It's really nothing more than sticking an aircraft engine in a car. We have lots of places that can go faster than 1000 mph; we've been building mach 2+ planes for decades now. The SR-71 could go Mach 3 IIRC, and that was built in the late 50s or early 60s. There's no point in making a "car" that goes that fast, when you can only do it at the Bonneville Salt Flats, and it has zero practical application. It's not like we can make passenger cars go any faster safely. Even if we went to all-driverless robotic cars, they're not going to drive that much faster than people-driven cars, and lots of cars today can go 150mph easily, there's no technical challenge there. Just go buy a BMW or a Ferrari or a Lamborghini and you're done.
So they've done a successful test of a turbine engine. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? We've been building jet engines this powerful (and more) for decades now. Any modern fighter jet has an engine at least this powerful. You want a powerful jet engine? Go buy one from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce. They make tons of them. It's nothing special. Oh, it's a rocket engine? Whoopee, we've been building rocket engines much more powerful than this for decades too. And why on earth would you build a rocket engine for an earth-bound vehicle, where oxygen in the atmosphere is plentiful?
If they wanted to do something interesting and useful, they'd build an electric vehicle, or some kind of automated people transport, something that shows where technology is headed.
You need to go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Your incorrect assumption is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ, which is completely wrong.
Frankly, I think your version is inferior. If you are going to have a dedicated popup/wizard page for DNT, why have you check "No" by default? Just provide 2 separate buttons: "Yes" and "No".
Yes, it is inferior. I was just thinking you'd default to "No" to keep these other companies from bitching and complaining too much.
Also, the wording you use has double negatives. "Do you want to enable Do Not Track" is a cognitive disaster. You don't present users with the option to "enable something not to happen".
You're probably right. Maybe they should just make it ask "Do you want to be tracked by advertisers on the web?" and have it check "Yes" by default, and force users to click "OK" to set that. Anyone who just clicks "OK" deserves no privacy.
The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default. So by making it default, they're breaking the standard. I'm all for not-tracking, but if everyone's agreed to a certain standard and that it must be implemented a certain way, then they should follow that or else try to get it changed (good luck).
Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.
I live in Arizona. It's not much better than Mississippi. And I don't think most of the Southern and midwest states are much better.
One in three is fat and most wait until they're 30? You must live someplace like northern California to say that. That place is **not** typical for the country.
a) You can use windows 8 on a desktop, where it's quicker than windows 7, and you can produce as much as you like.
Except then you're stuck with that shitty Metro UI.
b) Lots of people use tablets for productivity. One of my clients outside sales reps carry tablets to complete on-site invoices.
Sorry, but typing on a touchscreen is a no-go, except for very short piece of text.
Unless you use a tablet; where its just fine. Or count the fact its genuinely snappier than Windows 7... both of which are positives for productivity.
Nope. "Productivity" means you're producing something. A tablet is a consumption-only device; you don't produce anything with a tablet.
Back to the drawing board? Hardly... Windows 7 is as close an OS to Vista as XP was to W2K. Some minor UI tweaks, less offensive UAC,
To regular users, the UI is the OS (along with highly annoying things that pop up like UAC). If you significantly tweak the UI, you've by definition "gone back to the drawing board" in the eyes of a normal user.
There are, after all, several full-fledged desktop environments available for Fedora and Ubuntu and all their kin. If fewer people are using Gnome Shell and more are using LXDE, there will be a shift in feature requests and bug reports and new applets developed, and resources will shift around.
In theory, sure, but in practice I don't see it, because Fedora and Ubuntu are going full steam ahead with Gnome3 and Unity. Also, Unity is Mark's baby, so he's not going to give that up no matter what. And Red Hat employs a bunch of Gnome developers, so they're highly invested in it as well, and it's unlikely they're going to dump Gnome and switch to something else just because the users have switched. And finally, users usually use what's popular and well-supported, even if it's not their favorite. That's why so many people use Windows after all. People have been bitching and complaining about Windows for 20+ years now, but they keep using it because it's "the standard", and it's well-supported by their hardware and especially their software.
because Koreans are freaking idiots with zero common sense and even less logic.
Um, how long has it been since you've been to America? You do realize this is the home of Focus on the Family, the Creationist Museum, etc., don't you?
Of course, things depend a lot on exactly where in the USA you're moving to, which I don't think you've revealed here. If you're trying to avoid total idiocy, you'll probably want to stay on the coasts.
Also, if you're single, surely the prospects are better in Korea; all the women here are obese and have kids when they're teenagers.
Yep, that too. Honestly, why is the poster wanting to come back to the US anyway? Just about everything is worse here than in SK, except maybe the constant worry about the NK starting another war, but considering how fast SK has improved that doesn't seem to have held anyone there back.