I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not when you say someone seems to fear Christians. I never said anything that would indicate I fear Christians. What I said was the "conservative roots" that dl_zero referred to have very little to do with what the current Republican party is actually doing. Therefore, I indicated that maybe, just maybe, dl_zero might really mean "christian values". There is no fear, just the assertion that religious values aren't the "conservative" values the Republican party used to stand for, despite what neo-cons would like the rest of the world to believe.
As for other religions not being as horrible in their quests as fundamentalist Muslims, I suggest you re-read history a little bit and remove the rose colored glasses. You have heard of the crusades right? Or maybe you don't know about the Spanish Inquisition (arguably about religion as much as land) and lets not even get into all the wars one sect has had with another. Northern Ireland mean anything to you? I seem to remember an awful lot of car bombs.
I don't know about you but I've seen "fundamentalist Christians" stand up and say that torture is justified and that we should just drop a nuclear bomb on any Muslim country. If you think I'm "a fool if you equate "Fundamental Christian"(sic) or any other fundamentalists of ANY other religion with fundamentalist Muslims" maybe you should rethink your education, or at least the propaganda you listen to.
If you think the atrocities committed by the Christian church and Christian people are any less horrific than those committed by "fundamentalist Muslims" that's your prerogative. I choose to disagree and see both sides as being completely in the wrong and unwilling to admit that there is another way. Furthermore, I don't see any teachings from either side that support the belief that the actions of the extremists are justified. There is a clear path of tolerance that no extremist is capable of understanding, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the world is caught in a struggle between two extremist groups.
As for your assertion that I'm not an adult, I'll let you believe whatever you want, but I'll choose to think for myself instead of allowing a government unfriendly to my best interests tell me what I should and shouldn't believe about a group of "terrorists". Thank you.
I'll grant that you called yourself a "bad teacher" but I'd just like to say assignments don't need to be hard to be thought provoking or educational.
Finding a real world example of the use of lossy or lossless compression and why someone might use it is a good enough assignment to force kids not to just copy and paste. "Give examples" is the short form of "give examples and an explanation as to why" but people forget that and accept a list of examples. The two are not equivalent, but have become synonymous in today's classrooms.
I commend you for recognizing that teaching wasn't for you, however. No point staying in a job you don't like and that you are apparently not highly suited for in the first place. Maybe someday you can go back to it with better capability and understanding of the needs required from a teacher.
I'll dare to say that extending the coverage to extra forms of "professions" is a degree rather than a simple "yes or no" unless the federal law specifically excludes people. By leaving the "financial gain" vague (if in fact it does) it leaves plenty of room for states to interpret that as they will.
Yes federal government extortion is definitely a precedent, but that's not the same thing as overriding the law. I wasn't aware about the whole consumption versus purchase for the drinking age but thanks for educating me.
I will note, however that in most cases where the federal government extorts the states the feds are trying to enforce stricter standards, not lower standards.
Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level? That's like saying that the federal drinking age (in the 80s) of 18 made it mandatory for all states to comply with 18 instead of 21. That's not the case.
You mean the conservative roots of small government? Maybe you're thinking of a balanced budget, or perhaps you mean upholding the Constitution and fighting for individual and state rights instead of federal power? Or maybe environmental issues like Roosevelt suggested, or the Clean Air Act that Nixon promoted?
Or possibly could you mean "christian values" or something similar? (Just for edification, religion and politics aren't supposed to mix in the USA.)
I'll agree that slashdot readers seem to be liberal, but I wouldn't say "far left" or "radical left" in the slightest. As you suggest the poles make the opposite seem even further from center, when in reality it seems there's actually a fairly mixed bag. You seem to be "far right" while others seem to be "far left". Most of us, however, see both sides fairly reasonably and recognize them for what they are; two heads of the same beast.
As for the rest of your flame and it's anti-muslim sentiment, I'll just suggest that some folks view the same issue for the US and the "Fundamental Christian" movement.
I'm confused as to how you can separate politics and security in this situation. The "security" concerns of which you speak are precisely the basis of our political system. In my mind, the two are inseparable at this level.
I'm not disagreeing that he should be held accountable for his actions. I just said he made the right choice, by upholding the Constitution instead of supporting illegal activities that the administration decided it would conduct. I do think, however, that whistle blower laws should protect him as much as possible, though I doubt they will really negate the validity of needing to protect classified information. In the end he's more heroic than 99% of US citizens today because he did indeed risk his own livelihood for something more important. Not many people are willing to do that these days.
I'll reiterate that the military doesn't give up the right to free speech, they just have some extra restrictions on when and where they can act on the right.
I'm not sure what makes you think Constitutional rights don't apply to military members, but I'll promise you you're wrong. There are some limitations, but they are the same as most employers' limits on their employees (IE you can't associate your company with your own political opinion etc etc.)
The military has a few extensions on their limitations due to UCMJ but all members of the US military still retain their constitutional rights.
As for your comments about ignoring commands, that is specifically against the UCMJ so it's unlikely to happen unless there were a complete military coup. In which case, there are so many checks and balances against that happening, it's a seriously unlikely scenario. And each member of congress, the President, Vice-President and all members of the military swear an oath. that oath is to the Constitution of the United States, no one else. I'd like to see more people in those positions remembering their oaths and acting accordingly.
So whether he broke a law or not, the leaker was definitely upholding the Constitution, which is, in theory, the highest law we have in this country. He therefore did his duty to uphold the constitution (though he likely didn't take such an oath) and was far more "in the right" than if he had kept quiet about it. There are also "whistle blower" laws to protect him and his family in just such an event. Why is the current administration not extending him the courtesy of these laws I wonder?
When a company, any company is breaking the law in their business practices, it is an employees duty to report that company. So how do you get around the "illegal" disclosure of an illegal act? You accept the possible consequences, knowing that in the end you did what was right, whether it was legal or not.
"I used to love Wikipedia, but that incident made me realise it's nothing more than a starting point to get a very basic idea of a subject and then move on"
Seriously, it took you a problem with editors to figure that out? I would have expected anyone on Slashdot to recognize that immediately.
Am I too old or something? Are all "those damn kids" being taught that Wikipedia is now an acceptable source to quote without verification?
Mil standards generally call for equipment to survive "non-operational" temperatures of -40C to 85C and most space standards are just as rigorous, if not moreso. Why would anyone think these things are going to fail so easily? Were these not designed to the standards that are routinely used for spacecraft?
I didn't say that a soldered battery was the best choice, just that it wasn't necessarily a bad choice. I'd also wager you wouldn't enjoy an MP3 player that required 6 AA batteries to run for more than a couple of minutes.
I'd also recommend you check out some of the older handheld VHF radios if you think a two piece iPhone would be a good option. They're rugged, but certainly not user friendly. Granted some of that would be less of a problem with the smaller batteries we have these days, but my point was, there's no need for it, when the market they are trying to reach doesn't give a damn either way.
Would more people be happy if they could change the battery easily? Absolutely. Should Apple try and reach that market? Questionable. If you can change the battery easily, that means someone will produce lower quality after-market batteries. Odds are, Apple would have to eat the cost of any problems caused by those batteries should the phone still be under warranty when said problems occur. This way, Apple reduces their support costs and (my guess is) >90% of their demographic is happy with the final product. Why risk higher cost for a few % of people to be more happy with a product that they essentially like already?
I don't know why you'd expect these batteries to have any shorter life than other batteries. Soldering them on makes them less likely to fail, it makes the phone look and feel better. There is a reasonable argument that the soldered battery will also have a slightly longer life than an easily replaced version would.
Laptop batteries and cell phone batteries pretty consistently last several years with constant usage. For most consumers, at least with their phones, they just get a new phone because the new tech has functions/size that they want and it's cheaper to buy a new phone than to replace the battery. Why should the iPhone be any different?
If you say cost I'll just point you to all the PDA users out there who don't seem to be replacing their batteries that often. There's plenty of precedent for Apple to not worry about the battery being easily replaced by the consumer. They sell you a "turn key" product as the lowest replaceable unit level. To most consumers these will be throw aways; when the battery goes, they buy a new one. Why make the design less capable if that's the market you're trying to reach?
They didn't "piss away the savings" on a Coke, they made an additional, completely separate purchase with money they wouldn't have had otherwise. Just because it's not how you would choose to spend the money doesn't mean it was pissed away.
People rarely consider their own time when figuring the cost of things, so it's no surprise that the 10 minutes spent waiting is completely overlooked.
This is totally true. The glass film from the article was designed for application in large, modern office buildings that are mostly glass. Specifically, you may recognize this building:
Because there's no point in breaking the wings if it requires more force than it takes to actually shear them from the fuselage.
If you know "worst case" forces and you know standard use forces, there's no point in testing to conditions that the wings will never encounter. It's just cost prohibitive, despite how cool it might be to watch.
Perhaps less worthwhile for that particular war, but certainly it drove some pretty important stuff, like the race to the moon. And modern missile guidance systems started somewhere. It's pretty shallow to discount the V-2 because it wasn't particularly effective at it's most obvious design justification. Of course, there are some who believe the whole intent of the V2 was the terror it created.
Well, you must be driving at least 120 or so to get that much reduction in mileage. My average speed on long trips (which I do a lot of) is about 85-90 mph and I still only lose maybe 25-30 miles per tank worst case scenario.
I've heard complaints about the '06 Hondas not getting quite as good mileage as their predecessors but have no first hand experience with them. I kill cars before I replace them, so I have 4 more years (hopefully) on my Accord. At this point I'm seriously considering something German as the replacement though.
I was wondering the same thing about the Tesla when discussing it with a friend of mine after the initial press announcement. I couldn't find any information in a cursory search though.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment that you should take your business elsewhere, but there are other options. Buy the computer on a personal card, get reimbursed by your company then file paperwork with Dell to get your tax reimbursed. It's not optional for them, if you can show proof that you're non-profit.
Then make a complaint as high up as you can escalate it that the policy is stupid.
Because that would require the consumer to actually take responsibility for themselves and modern consumers don't want to do that. If our AC doesn't blast us with an arctic wind immediately we complain and complain loudly. That translates to fewer sales of that AC (and subsequently the vehicle it's in) which means the auto manufacturer loses money. Losing money means losing jobs, and we can't have that.
All because of a lack of personal responsibility. The "American Way" just isn't any more.
Traditional cars getting only 250 miles to a tank of gas? Cars from what era? Seriously, I don't know of any modern (15 years old) vehicles (except possibly large pick up trucks with single tanks and ridiculously large SUVs) that get less than 300-350 miles to a tank of gas. My car (2002 Honda Accord standard transmission 150k miles) gets about 480 if I actually push it, and easily 440 without stressing about where to stop for gas immediately. That's a whole extra vehicle (or recharge cycle) by modern electric range standards.
I'm all for extending the range of electric cars; I'm trying to build one now, because I think it will be a great commuter vehicle and it's a fun project. But they're currently nowhere near the range of "a lot of traditional cars".
The problem with "charging while you drive" is that you're using more than you're replacing. It's a great supplement to limit your down times, but it won't extend your range any significant amount until we can figure out PV skins or something for covering the entire surface of the vehicle. Currently PV cells are too big and too heavy (not to mention low efficiency) to make any significant practical addition to an electric vehicle.
As for the hybrids, I've been trying to figure out exactly where they would help. Most modern hybrids recharge through braking and through some sort of alternator charging that runs when the IC engine is engaged. I don't see much need for the solar cells in those cases since the electric system isn't the range limiter on those vehicles. It might extend your mpg a couple miles but I doubt it would even gain you that much, more likely 10ths of a mile per gallon.
Which would have absolutely no effect on either user's experience. I do that all the time at home, and never get any error messages from iTunes. I suspect it's more likely some confusion of multiple users logged into the same machine (fast user switching or whatever) and something getting borked in the user switch.
Some of us do it for the exact opposite reason you suppose. Some of us believe that tracing lineage is the only way to show that race and religion and nationality don't mean shit in the long run. Like it or not we all came from the same small gene pool if you go back far enough.
Not to mention, history is interesting to a lot of people. History isn't just about the dates of wars, it's about people and how they were influenced by events (and other people) around them. Genealogy is one way to "touch" that history directly.
By the way living in a small village doesn't make you any less lonely and living in a city doesn't make anyone else more lonely. That's all a matter of attitude. Get over yourself and allow people to have their own interests.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not when you say someone seems to fear Christians. I never said anything that would indicate I fear Christians. What I said was the "conservative roots" that dl_zero referred to have very little to do with what the current Republican party is actually doing. Therefore, I indicated that maybe, just maybe, dl_zero might really mean "christian values". There is no fear, just the assertion that religious values aren't the "conservative" values the Republican party used to stand for, despite what neo-cons would like the rest of the world to believe.
As for other religions not being as horrible in their quests as fundamentalist Muslims, I suggest you re-read history a little bit and remove the rose colored glasses. You have heard of the crusades right? Or maybe you don't know about the Spanish Inquisition (arguably about religion as much as land) and lets not even get into all the wars one sect has had with another. Northern Ireland mean anything to you? I seem to remember an awful lot of car bombs.
I don't know about you but I've seen "fundamentalist Christians" stand up and say that torture is justified and that we should just drop a nuclear bomb on any Muslim country. If you think I'm "a fool if you equate "Fundamental Christian"(sic) or any other fundamentalists of ANY other religion with fundamentalist Muslims" maybe you should rethink your education, or at least the propaganda you listen to.
If you think the atrocities committed by the Christian church and Christian people are any less horrific than those committed by "fundamentalist Muslims" that's your prerogative. I choose to disagree and see both sides as being completely in the wrong and unwilling to admit that there is another way. Furthermore, I don't see any teachings from either side that support the belief that the actions of the extremists are justified. There is a clear path of tolerance that no extremist is capable of understanding, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the world is caught in a struggle between two extremist groups.
As for your assertion that I'm not an adult, I'll let you believe whatever you want, but I'll choose to think for myself instead of allowing a government unfriendly to my best interests tell me what I should and shouldn't believe about a group of "terrorists". Thank you.
I'll grant that you called yourself a "bad teacher" but I'd just like to say assignments don't need to be hard to be thought provoking or educational.
Finding a real world example of the use of lossy or lossless compression and why someone might use it is a good enough assignment to force kids not to just copy and paste. "Give examples" is the short form of "give examples and an explanation as to why" but people forget that and accept a list of examples. The two are not equivalent, but have become synonymous in today's classrooms.
I commend you for recognizing that teaching wasn't for you, however. No point staying in a job you don't like and that you are apparently not highly suited for in the first place. Maybe someday you can go back to it with better capability and understanding of the needs required from a teacher.
I'll dare to say that extending the coverage to extra forms of "professions" is a degree rather than a simple "yes or no" unless the federal law specifically excludes people. By leaving the "financial gain" vague (if in fact it does) it leaves plenty of room for states to interpret that as they will.
Yes federal government extortion is definitely a precedent, but that's not the same thing as overriding the law. I wasn't aware about the whole consumption versus purchase for the drinking age but thanks for educating me.
I will note, however that in most cases where the federal government extorts the states the feds are trying to enforce stricter standards, not lower standards.
Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level? That's like saying that the federal drinking age (in the 80s) of 18 made it mandatory for all states to comply with 18 instead of 21. That's not the case.
You mean the conservative roots of small government? Maybe you're thinking of a balanced budget, or perhaps you mean upholding the Constitution and fighting for individual and state rights instead of federal power? Or maybe environmental issues like Roosevelt suggested, or the Clean Air Act that Nixon promoted?
Or possibly could you mean "christian values" or something similar? (Just for edification, religion and politics aren't supposed to mix in the USA.)
I'll agree that slashdot readers seem to be liberal, but I wouldn't say "far left" or "radical left" in the slightest. As you suggest the poles make the opposite seem even further from center, when in reality it seems there's actually a fairly mixed bag. You seem to be "far right" while others seem to be "far left". Most of us, however, see both sides fairly reasonably and recognize them for what they are; two heads of the same beast.
As for the rest of your flame and it's anti-muslim sentiment, I'll just suggest that some folks view the same issue for the US and the "Fundamental Christian" movement.
I'm confused as to how you can separate politics and security in this situation. The "security" concerns of which you speak are precisely the basis of our political system. In my mind, the two are inseparable at this level.
I'm not disagreeing that he should be held accountable for his actions. I just said he made the right choice, by upholding the Constitution instead of supporting illegal activities that the administration decided it would conduct. I do think, however, that whistle blower laws should protect him as much as possible, though I doubt they will really negate the validity of needing to protect classified information. In the end he's more heroic than 99% of US citizens today because he did indeed risk his own livelihood for something more important. Not many people are willing to do that these days.
I'll reiterate that the military doesn't give up the right to free speech, they just have some extra restrictions on when and where they can act on the right.
I'm not sure what makes you think Constitutional rights don't apply to military members, but I'll promise you you're wrong. There are some limitations, but they are the same as most employers' limits on their employees (IE you can't associate your company with your own political opinion etc etc.)
The military has a few extensions on their limitations due to UCMJ but all members of the US military still retain their constitutional rights.
As for your comments about ignoring commands, that is specifically against the UCMJ so it's unlikely to happen unless there were a complete military coup. In which case, there are so many checks and balances against that happening, it's a seriously unlikely scenario. And each member of congress, the President, Vice-President and all members of the military swear an oath. that oath is to the Constitution of the United States, no one else. I'd like to see more people in those positions remembering their oaths and acting accordingly.
So whether he broke a law or not, the leaker was definitely upholding the Constitution, which is, in theory, the highest law we have in this country. He therefore did his duty to uphold the constitution (though he likely didn't take such an oath) and was far more "in the right" than if he had kept quiet about it. There are also "whistle blower" laws to protect him and his family in just such an event. Why is the current administration not extending him the courtesy of these laws I wonder?
When a company, any company is breaking the law in their business practices, it is an employees duty to report that company. So how do you get around the "illegal" disclosure of an illegal act? You accept the possible consequences, knowing that in the end you did what was right, whether it was legal or not.
"I used to love Wikipedia, but that incident made me realise it's nothing more than a starting point to get a very basic idea of a subject and then move on"
Seriously, it took you a problem with editors to figure that out? I would have expected anyone on Slashdot to recognize that immediately.
Am I too old or something? Are all "those damn kids" being taught that Wikipedia is now an acceptable source to quote without verification?
"BTW, where the hell is the option to respond to the original article?! I can only respond to an existing article now..."
You're obviously using the wrong distro.
Mil standards generally call for equipment to survive "non-operational" temperatures of -40C to 85C and most space standards are just as rigorous, if not moreso. Why would anyone think these things are going to fail so easily? Were these not designed to the standards that are routinely used for spacecraft?
I didn't say that a soldered battery was the best choice, just that it wasn't necessarily a bad choice. I'd also wager you wouldn't enjoy an MP3 player that required 6 AA batteries to run for more than a couple of minutes.
I'd also recommend you check out some of the older handheld VHF radios if you think a two piece iPhone would be a good option. They're rugged, but certainly not user friendly. Granted some of that would be less of a problem with the smaller batteries we have these days, but my point was, there's no need for it, when the market they are trying to reach doesn't give a damn either way.
Would more people be happy if they could change the battery easily? Absolutely. Should Apple try and reach that market? Questionable. If you can change the battery easily, that means someone will produce lower quality after-market batteries. Odds are, Apple would have to eat the cost of any problems caused by those batteries should the phone still be under warranty when said problems occur. This way, Apple reduces their support costs and (my guess is) >90% of their demographic is happy with the final product. Why risk higher cost for a few % of people to be more happy with a product that they essentially like already?
I don't know why you'd expect these batteries to have any shorter life than other batteries. Soldering them on makes them less likely to fail, it makes the phone look and feel better. There is a reasonable argument that the soldered battery will also have a slightly longer life than an easily replaced version would.
Laptop batteries and cell phone batteries pretty consistently last several years with constant usage. For most consumers, at least with their phones, they just get a new phone because the new tech has functions/size that they want and it's cheaper to buy a new phone than to replace the battery. Why should the iPhone be any different?
If you say cost I'll just point you to all the PDA users out there who don't seem to be replacing their batteries that often. There's plenty of precedent for Apple to not worry about the battery being easily replaced by the consumer. They sell you a "turn key" product as the lowest replaceable unit level. To most consumers these will be throw aways; when the battery goes, they buy a new one. Why make the design less capable if that's the market you're trying to reach?
Condsidering this is slashdot, he's probably used to rubbing a lot. Give him a break, it's not his fault, he was just born a geek.
They didn't "piss away the savings" on a Coke, they made an additional, completely separate purchase with money they wouldn't have had otherwise. Just because it's not how you would choose to spend the money doesn't mean it was pissed away.
People rarely consider their own time when figuring the cost of things, so it's no surprise that the 10 minutes spent waiting is completely overlooked.
This is totally true. The glass film from the article was designed for application in large, modern office buildings that are mostly glass. Specifically, you may recognize this building:
4 /National_Security_Agency_headquarters,_Fort_Meade ,_Maryland.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8
This stuff is far too expensive for any standard citizen to bother with, and as you said, there are more cost effective methods that are just as good.
Because there's no point in breaking the wings if it requires more force than it takes to actually shear them from the fuselage.
If you know "worst case" forces and you know standard use forces, there's no point in testing to conditions that the wings will never encounter. It's just cost prohibitive, despite how cool it might be to watch.
Perhaps less worthwhile for that particular war, but certainly it drove some pretty important stuff, like the race to the moon. And modern missile guidance systems started somewhere. It's pretty shallow to discount the V-2 because it wasn't particularly effective at it's most obvious design justification. Of course, there are some who believe the whole intent of the V2 was the terror it created.
The summary says AppleTV will get it after an upgrade, so presumably any desktop mac will also have that as an option.
Well, you must be driving at least 120 or so to get that much reduction in mileage. My average speed on long trips (which I do a lot of) is about 85-90 mph and I still only lose maybe 25-30 miles per tank worst case scenario.
I've heard complaints about the '06 Hondas not getting quite as good mileage as their predecessors but have no first hand experience with them. I kill cars before I replace them, so I have 4 more years (hopefully) on my Accord. At this point I'm seriously considering something German as the replacement though.
I was wondering the same thing about the Tesla when discussing it with a friend of mine after the initial press announcement. I couldn't find any information in a cursory search though.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment that you should take your business elsewhere, but there are other options. Buy the computer on a personal card, get reimbursed by your company then file paperwork with Dell to get your tax reimbursed. It's not optional for them, if you can show proof that you're non-profit.
Then make a complaint as high up as you can escalate it that the policy is stupid.
Because that would require the consumer to actually take responsibility for themselves and modern consumers don't want to do that. If our AC doesn't blast us with an arctic wind immediately we complain and complain loudly. That translates to fewer sales of that AC (and subsequently the vehicle it's in) which means the auto manufacturer loses money. Losing money means losing jobs, and we can't have that.
All because of a lack of personal responsibility. The "American Way" just isn't any more.
Traditional cars getting only 250 miles to a tank of gas? Cars from what era? Seriously, I don't know of any modern (15 years old) vehicles (except possibly large pick up trucks with single tanks and ridiculously large SUVs) that get less than 300-350 miles to a tank of gas. My car (2002 Honda Accord standard transmission 150k miles) gets about 480 if I actually push it, and easily 440 without stressing about where to stop for gas immediately. That's a whole extra vehicle (or recharge cycle) by modern electric range standards.
I'm all for extending the range of electric cars; I'm trying to build one now, because I think it will be a great commuter vehicle and it's a fun project. But they're currently nowhere near the range of "a lot of traditional cars".
The problem with "charging while you drive" is that you're using more than you're replacing. It's a great supplement to limit your down times, but it won't extend your range any significant amount until we can figure out PV skins or something for covering the entire surface of the vehicle. Currently PV cells are too big and too heavy (not to mention low efficiency) to make any significant practical addition to an electric vehicle.
As for the hybrids, I've been trying to figure out exactly where they would help. Most modern hybrids recharge through braking and through some sort of alternator charging that runs when the IC engine is engaged. I don't see much need for the solar cells in those cases since the electric system isn't the range limiter on those vehicles. It might extend your mpg a couple miles but I doubt it would even gain you that much, more likely 10ths of a mile per gallon.
Which would have absolutely no effect on either user's experience. I do that all the time at home, and never get any error messages from iTunes. I suspect it's more likely some confusion of multiple users logged into the same machine (fast user switching or whatever) and something getting borked in the user switch.
Some of us do it for the exact opposite reason you suppose. Some of us believe that tracing lineage is the only way to show that race and religion and nationality don't mean shit in the long run. Like it or not we all came from the same small gene pool if you go back far enough.
Not to mention, history is interesting to a lot of people. History isn't just about the dates of wars, it's about people and how they were influenced by events (and other people) around them. Genealogy is one way to "touch" that history directly.
By the way living in a small village doesn't make you any less lonely and living in a city doesn't make anyone else more lonely. That's all a matter of attitude. Get over yourself and allow people to have their own interests.