Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.
So every time a politician says "I'm going to do something" he's lying...
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
Or it could represent that there are two schools of thought. It would be unusual if their party affiliation were in no way related to their ideas about which approach is correct.
When it comes down to it, the entire process is a test. Creating a well-designed, brief, and informative resume is a test. Tying a damned tie (a skill that a trained monkey can do without cursing, but I can't), is a test. Interviewing is a test. If you're going to be tested on all these other things, then I am not going to complain about the test that focuses on whether you can do the job.
I have been tested for two of the three companies I worked for and a few others that I applied for. Two of them were in the vein of "We want you to write a simple script that can do X, and email it back to us". This was an effective test.
Another one was a multiple choice test that focused on syntax. The questions were things like "How do you terminate an IF statement"
End if
}
fi
done
It was a terrible test because they weren't looking at your ability to logically think through a problem, but were instead more concerned about whether you may confuse programming language A with programming language B. I did reasonably well, but that still, if you are going to test you employees, don't get hung up on things like "does this guy remember the modulus operator" (for Fizzbuzz tests) or "Does he remember how to use function X without looking it up".
I've had some sales experience and, yes, these gurus will most definitely be lightning rods for customer frustration...any customer frustration. It doesn't necessarily have to do with Windows Vista.
I had a guy tell me I was an f'ing idiot because I tried to sell him a warranty (AKA do my job) because his printer just broke (after 5 months, which our warranty would have covered). I wasn't pushy, but, man...that was just rude. I certainly didn't cause his $500 printer to crap out. It was nice when our manager kicked him out of the store and told the guy never to talk to his employees that way.
Some people just like treating other people like crap.
Why is everybody blaming this guy for what is probably a manufacturer's defect. So, some guy buys a printer and they go to Walmart or Circuit City, or where ever to take it out on a minimum wage employee because HP/Epson/whoever made a crappy product. I think the poster just proved his point by becoming a lightening rod, yet again.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
If a foreign-owned company has an American presence, they will be targeted. Sounds unlikely...
They say they are going to concentrate on cases where the downloader is foreign. Does this mean that anyone who seeds to foreign IPs is more likely to get nailed?
I am not a Linux fanboy (I do not have Linux installed on any machine that I own), but I have to say the Samba handles windows networking better than Windows does. Every time I try to share a drive under windows, it takes a great deal of hassle to get the other Windows machine to see it. Usually, I end up having to make sure that both machines are in the same workgroup (since MS is inconsistent with default workgroups), fiddle with security settings for a half hour or an hour, and reboot both machines, at least once, in hopes of maybe getting the two to talk to each other. Samba on a Linux distribution does not require all this rebooting, because you don't have to be in the same workgroup, and it just seems to work the first time.
Mad scientists are way too nice and sweet-natured these days. We need more evil geniuses. Who'll do things like run the Large Hardon Collider on Vista.
Is that why the world hasn't ended yet? Is the LHC still waiting for someone to click "Unblock"?
by linking cause and effect - often falsely - science is a simply dogmatic form of superstition.
Examples, please? Could someone tell me about the large number of superstitions that are often correct, and the number of scientific claims that are incorrectly stated as fact? The reason superstition survived isn't because it is more likely to be correct. It is because people were scared to death of what would happen if they were wrong.
Science is not dogmatic. Scientists base their opinions on evidence, and change their minds if contradictory evidence arises. In other words, they admit when they are wrong and learn from their mistakes.
"You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant," he says.
To rephrase that, "you have to choose between having a small amount of knowledge, or a large amount of misconceptions". I personally think that being misinformed is a form of ignorance in itself.
By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas, "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
So does anybody know if this guy is a creationist? This sounds like the kind of vague generality that would only be made in reference to creationism, or possibly the Atkins diet.
The bible may be full of unlikely stuff that the supposed holy figures did, but it's not full of alien empires and trapping folk in volcanos.
I happily ridicule all religions, but there's a difference between a talking burning bush on a holy mountain and Xenu, and anyone who looks at it rationally should be able to see that.
Yes, one is fantasy and the other is science fiction. One reads like a badly written Tolkien novel, and the other reads like a rejected Star Wars plot. The only real difference is that most other religions conform to a style that we are accustomed to, whereas Scientology is a new genre.
As for Xenu, well, try comparing him to the Holy Trinity. On the one hand, you have an evil and powerful dictator, who kills people. Those people have souls that basically turned into ghosts, that inhabit people's bodies and cause mental problems and diseases.
On the other hand, you have three gods that are also one god. One is the son of the other, but they are both the same person. Once, one of them decided that he didn't approve of human behavior, but the only way he could ever forgive them was if his son, who was also him, was killed. He didn't want to do it, but he had to, because he decided that he had to. Maybe it was a rule of the universe, or something. People have souls, which, upon death are transported to a place that exists, but only in another dimension.
Now, if you want to argue about the COS' policies, or things that Scientologists do, or claims that they make, that is a different story entirely...
I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"... Was this done to claim additional protections?
It is racial bigotry. Some of us were going to make fun of thetans
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
No. It is only those who are prudent in their determinations of what to question. I can spend my entire life questioning whether gravity exists, but that wouldn't bring our society closer to anything. And, if I demanded that every school in America devote a few classes to the "research" into "theories" of gravity's non-existence, then that detracts from time that they spend learning things that really are true.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
No, Bob. Evolution is based on evidence. We know that evolution does happen, because we see it every year, when we get our new flu vaccine. We know it happens because it has been observed several times in reproducible experiments. The fossil record and molecular evidence may not be reproducible in experiments, but there are several experiments that show that every building block needed does exist, and that they do occur without any kind of intelligent intervention.
Now, if you want to argue that evolution does happen, but it didn't happen before, then that is an area where we can not be 100% sure. But, we have a choice, we can either believe it is the result of a phenomena that we know occurs and see no reason to believe did not occur then, or we can make up a completely unnecessary supernatural explanation, based on no evidence, and pronounce it as a viable explanation. The problems with the later are that it is not science, because there have been no tests or research performed, and that anybody can make up a supernatural creation story. If we spend time teaching our students every creation myth every told, and pass it off as science, then students won't have any time to learn any real science.
Short answer: Maybe... But if so, it is a small part of what let them survive...
Don't diseases and insects ALMOST ALWAYS follow other natural disasters where there are numerous dead and dying creatures on the land and in the water?
Besides, sharks have awesome immune systems (some scientists say they actually have the BEST immune systems) and many varieties of sharks also went extinct at the same extension period as well numerous species of plants...
Does the author mean to imply that plants also survived the insects and diseases because of their 'immune systems'? I did not realize that plants had immune systems??...
Guess I'll go RTFA...
Not trying to be a smart-ass, but is it possible that adapting an excellent immune system is what allowed those species that did survive to survive? Do we have any way of knowing how good the immune system was in those that died out?
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
The problem with that attitude, however, is that you act as though complete agnosticism is the only option for something that cannot be proven, but, if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven. At some point you have to look at what has the most compelling evidence and say "based on what we now know, this seems to be true".
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence. Evidence is the reason evolution became as popular as it did, among scientists. Popularity alone is the reason creationism became popular among non-scientists.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
But your argument is based on the idea that because God is a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and for which there is no evidence, then no amount of facts will ever be relevant. It is a discussion of wills because creationists choose to dig in their heels and ignore the evidence.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
But we can test this phenomena, and have been doing so for a century and a half. There are several experiments in which evolution has been directly observed. You will never be able to start with a single-celled organism and see it evolve to an intelligent life form, but it is idiotic to assume that either option is equally likely, or to assume that the one supported by no evidence is more likely than the one supported by a great deal of evidence.
In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
You obviously went to a messed up school then or maybe you just missed some particular classes all the time.. you know.. the ones called LABS? Ofcourse no school would give you an opportunity to actually experience how some complicated phenomenon works, like say a nuclear fission reaction, in a puny little lab room unless ofcourse you go on a field trip to a nuclear reactor nearby, but thats what the higher studies are for.
There were a few lab assignments in high school, but my school experience, as I remember it, went like this. Several years of memorizing facts, then we cut open a starfish. Now, I'm sure that the scientific method was covered, several times, along with the difference between a fact, a theory, etc. But, that was only a small part of it.
As for the nuclear reactor part, that is a total straw man. If you were an Algebra teacher and your students didn't know how to add and subtract, then the answer isn't to teach calculus. It is to hit the basics a little harder. That is what I'm promoting. Students don't understand the basics, so that science classes should hit them harder before moving on. It could easily be accomplished with a few more assignments that ask questions like "under situation x, you suspect y, what is the next step".
In the context of this discussion, what does that even mean? Are you claiming that because evidence makes it look like evolution occurred, that doesn't mean it did? Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you. And even then, you can always claim that it only "correlates to be a time machine".
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
No, they just need a better understanding of what the scientific method is and how it works. In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that scientists dictate assertions to the rest of us. I now know that there is a method, with checks and balances, but the impression I got in school was always that science was a list of terms to memorize, and an occasional fact or process that needed to be explained "in your own words". In short, I wasn't learning what science is or how it works. I was seeing the product, instead of the process, and that kind of thinking is what allows creationism to flourish in, otherwise, reasonable people.
Fourthly, 5 year old skills are still useful. Few if any companies are using bleeding edge stuff exclusively.
Agreed. If they're willing to hire someone with a high-school diploma, and nothing more, to be their "tech guy", then they probably don't have anything bleeding edge. If the purpose is to prepare them for college, then focus on the fundamental concepts; i.e., the things that haven't changed in a decade or two, and they'll be more than prepared.
Not to mention, how naive do you have to be to pay any attention to what they say when asked "do you want to politicize science". That like publishing a news article about the yes or no answer given when asked "do you want to raise taxes for poor people", or "do you want to make it easier for homicidal maniacs to get guns".
What ever happened to sysadmins being known for having strong/good morals and ethics?
Hey, did you hear about that kid who hacked something...I think it was a hospital or something. He made all the pacemakers play a bad midi of "stayin alive" constantly, at full volume...Three people died, but the hospital was impressed and offered him 175,000 a year to work from home as their head computer guy...I know it happened because I have heard about it from several corroborating sources.
Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.
Besides, it is much easier to say "I didn't vote because there was no candidate that was running on [insert favorite cause here]". And as long as the non-voters continue to not vote (or just complain), we'll continue to have this same system.
We can get them to vote. We'll just have to start referring to Obama as "fitty", McCain as "Old Dirty Bastard", Ron Paul as "Ron Paul", and find a way to work text messaging into it.
Slashdot Mirror
FROM TFA
Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.
So every time a politician says "I'm going to do something" he's lying...
While you can't polish a turd, you can roll it in glitter!
That is sexist! How dare you call Sarah Palin a turd rolled in glitter!
To that person: If your goal was to get your resume noticed, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Yes, an rtf file, placed in a zipfile full of pirated software. I think we have finally found someone lamer than the freecreditreport.com guy.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
Or it could represent that there are two schools of thought. It would be unusual if their party affiliation were in no way related to their ideas about which approach is correct.
When it comes down to it, the entire process is a test. Creating a well-designed, brief, and informative resume is a test. Tying a damned tie (a skill that a trained monkey can do without cursing, but I can't), is a test. Interviewing is a test. If you're going to be tested on all these other things, then I am not going to complain about the test that focuses on whether you can do the job.
I have been tested for two of the three companies I worked for and a few others that I applied for. Two of them were in the vein of "We want you to write a simple script that can do X, and email it back to us". This was an effective test.
Another one was a multiple choice test that focused on syntax. The questions were things like "How do you terminate an IF statement"
It was a terrible test because they weren't looking at your ability to logically think through a problem, but were instead more concerned about whether you may confuse programming language A with programming language B. I did reasonably well, but that still, if you are going to test you employees, don't get hung up on things like "does this guy remember the modulus operator" (for Fizzbuzz tests) or "Does he remember how to use function X without looking it up".
I've had some sales experience and, yes, these gurus will most definitely be lightning rods for customer frustration...any customer frustration. It doesn't necessarily have to do with Windows Vista.
I had a guy tell me I was an f'ing idiot because I tried to sell him a warranty (AKA do my job) because his printer just broke (after 5 months, which our warranty would have covered). I wasn't pushy, but, man...that was just rude. I certainly didn't cause his $500 printer to crap out. It was nice when our manager kicked him out of the store and told the guy never to talk to his employees that way.
Some people just like treating other people like crap.
Why is everybody blaming this guy for what is probably a manufacturer's defect. So, some guy buys a printer and they go to Walmart or Circuit City, or where ever to take it out on a minimum wage employee because HP/Epson/whoever made a crappy product. I think the poster just proved his point by becoming a lightening rod, yet again.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
I am not a Linux fanboy (I do not have Linux installed on any machine that I own), but I have to say the Samba handles windows networking better than Windows does. Every time I try to share a drive under windows, it takes a great deal of hassle to get the other Windows machine to see it. Usually, I end up having to make sure that both machines are in the same workgroup (since MS is inconsistent with default workgroups), fiddle with security settings for a half hour or an hour, and reboot both machines, at least once, in hopes of maybe getting the two to talk to each other. Samba on a Linux distribution does not require all this rebooting, because you don't have to be in the same workgroup, and it just seems to work the first time.
Mad scientists are way too nice and sweet-natured these days. We need more evil geniuses. Who'll do things like run the Large Hardon Collider on Vista.
Is that why the world hasn't ended yet? Is the LHC still waiting for someone to click "Unblock"?
by linking cause and effect - often falsely - science is a simply dogmatic form of superstition.
Examples, please? Could someone tell me about the large number of superstitions that are often correct, and the number of scientific claims that are incorrectly stated as fact? The reason superstition survived isn't because it is more likely to be correct. It is because people were scared to death of what would happen if they were wrong.
Science is not dogmatic. Scientists base their opinions on evidence, and change their minds if contradictory evidence arises. In other words, they admit when they are wrong and learn from their mistakes.
"You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant," he says.
To rephrase that, "you have to choose between having a small amount of knowledge, or a large amount of misconceptions". I personally think that being misinformed is a form of ignorance in itself.
By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas, "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
So does anybody know if this guy is a creationist? This sounds like the kind of vague generality that would only be made in reference to creationism, or possibly the Atkins diet.
The bible may be full of unlikely stuff that the supposed holy figures did, but it's not full of alien empires and trapping folk in volcanos.
I happily ridicule all religions, but there's a difference between a talking burning bush on a holy mountain and Xenu, and anyone who looks at it rationally should be able to see that.
Yes, one is fantasy and the other is science fiction. One reads like a badly written Tolkien novel, and the other reads like a rejected Star Wars plot. The only real difference is that most other religions conform to a style that we are accustomed to, whereas Scientology is a new genre.
As for Xenu, well, try comparing him to the Holy Trinity. On the one hand, you have an evil and powerful dictator, who kills people. Those people have souls that basically turned into ghosts, that inhabit people's bodies and cause mental problems and diseases.
On the other hand, you have three gods that are also one god. One is the son of the other, but they are both the same person. Once, one of them decided that he didn't approve of human behavior, but the only way he could ever forgive them was if his son, who was also him, was killed. He didn't want to do it, but he had to, because he decided that he had to. Maybe it was a rule of the universe, or something. People have souls, which, upon death are transported to a place that exists, but only in another dimension.
Now, if you want to argue about the COS' policies, or things that Scientologists do, or claims that they make, that is a different story entirely...
I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"...
Was this done to claim additional protections?
It is racial bigotry. Some of us were going to make fun of thetans
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
No. It is only those who are prudent in their determinations of what to question. I can spend my entire life questioning whether gravity exists, but that wouldn't bring our society closer to anything. And, if I demanded that every school in America devote a few classes to the "research" into "theories" of gravity's non-existence, then that detracts from time that they spend learning things that really are true.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
No, Bob. Evolution is based on evidence. We know that evolution does happen, because we see it every year, when we get our new flu vaccine. We know it happens because it has been observed several times in reproducible experiments. The fossil record and molecular evidence may not be reproducible in experiments, but there are several experiments that show that every building block needed does exist, and that they do occur without any kind of intelligent intervention.
Now, if you want to argue that evolution does happen, but it didn't happen before, then that is an area where we can not be 100% sure. But, we have a choice, we can either believe it is the result of a phenomena that we know occurs and see no reason to believe did not occur then, or we can make up a completely unnecessary supernatural explanation, based on no evidence, and pronounce it as a viable explanation. The problems with the later are that it is not science, because there have been no tests or research performed, and that anybody can make up a supernatural creation story. If we spend time teaching our students every creation myth every told, and pass it off as science, then students won't have any time to learn any real science.
Short answer: Maybe... But if so, it is a small part of what let them survive...
Don't diseases and insects ALMOST ALWAYS follow other natural disasters where there are numerous dead and dying creatures on the land and in the water?
Besides, sharks have awesome immune systems (some scientists say they actually have the BEST immune systems) and many varieties of sharks also went extinct at the same extension period as well numerous species of plants...
Does the author mean to imply that plants also survived the insects and diseases because of their 'immune systems'? I did not realize that plants had immune systems??...
Guess I'll go RTFA...
Not trying to be a smart-ass, but is it possible that adapting an excellent immune system is what allowed those species that did survive to survive? Do we have any way of knowing how good the immune system was in those that died out?
Huh? WTF? Is sex ever safe if your partner weighs 4 tons, has teeth the size of toasters, and never brushes their teeth?
It can be safe, but not pleasant.
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
The problem with that attitude, however, is that you act as though complete agnosticism is the only option for something that cannot be proven, but, if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven. At some point you have to look at what has the most compelling evidence and say "based on what we now know, this seems to be true".
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence. Evidence is the reason evolution became as popular as it did, among scientists. Popularity alone is the reason creationism became popular among non-scientists.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
But your argument is based on the idea that because God is a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and for which there is no evidence, then no amount of facts will ever be relevant. It is a discussion of wills because creationists choose to dig in their heels and ignore the evidence.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
But we can test this phenomena, and have been doing so for a century and a half. There are several experiments in which evolution has been directly observed. You will never be able to start with a single-celled organism and see it evolve to an intelligent life form, but it is idiotic to assume that either option is equally likely, or to assume that the one supported by no evidence is more likely than the one supported by a great deal of evidence.
In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
You obviously went to a messed up school then or maybe you just missed some particular classes all the time.. you know.. the ones called LABS? Ofcourse no school would give you an opportunity to actually experience how some complicated phenomenon works, like say a nuclear fission reaction, in a puny little lab room unless ofcourse you go on a field trip to a nuclear reactor nearby, but thats what the higher studies are for.
There were a few lab assignments in high school, but my school experience, as I remember it, went like this. Several years of memorizing facts, then we cut open a starfish. Now, I'm sure that the scientific method was covered, several times, along with the difference between a fact, a theory, etc. But, that was only a small part of it.
As for the nuclear reactor part, that is a total straw man. If you were an Algebra teacher and your students didn't know how to add and subtract, then the answer isn't to teach calculus. It is to hit the basics a little harder. That is what I'm promoting. Students don't understand the basics, so that science classes should hit them harder before moving on. It could easily be accomplished with a few more assignments that ask questions like "under situation x, you suspect y, what is the next step".
Correlation is not causation.
In the context of this discussion, what does that even mean? Are you claiming that because evidence makes it look like evolution occurred, that doesn't mean it did? Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you. And even then, you can always claim that it only "correlates to be a time machine".
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
No, they just need a better understanding of what the scientific method is and how it works. In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that scientists dictate assertions to the rest of us. I now know that there is a method, with checks and balances, but the impression I got in school was always that science was a list of terms to memorize, and an occasional fact or process that needed to be explained "in your own words". In short, I wasn't learning what science is or how it works. I was seeing the product, instead of the process, and that kind of thinking is what allows creationism to flourish in, otherwise, reasonable people.
They could implement it using iframes and AJAX.
Fourthly, 5 year old skills are still useful. Few if any companies are using bleeding edge stuff exclusively.
Agreed. If they're willing to hire someone with a high-school diploma, and nothing more, to be their "tech guy", then they probably don't have anything bleeding edge. If the purpose is to prepare them for college, then focus on the fundamental concepts; i.e., the things that haven't changed in a decade or two, and they'll be more than prepared.
According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science....
But only one side intend to keep science out of science...
(Credit to Soulskill for the alley-oop)
Not to mention, how naive do you have to be to pay any attention to what they say when asked "do you want to politicize science". That like publishing a news article about the yes or no answer given when asked "do you want to raise taxes for poor people", or "do you want to make it easier for homicidal maniacs to get guns".
What ever happened to sysadmins being known for having strong/good morals and ethics?
Hey, did you hear about that kid who hacked something...I think it was a hospital or something. He made all the pacemakers play a bad midi of "stayin alive" constantly, at full volume...Three people died, but the hospital was impressed and offered him 175,000 a year to work from home as their head computer guy...I know it happened because I have heard about it from several corroborating sources.
Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.
Besides, it is much easier to say "I didn't vote because there was no candidate that was running on [insert favorite cause here]". And as long as the non-voters continue to not vote (or just complain), we'll continue to have this same system.
We can get them to vote. We'll just have to start referring to Obama as "fitty", McCain as "Old Dirty Bastard", Ron Paul as "Ron Paul", and find a way to work text messaging into it.
You do NOT want to mess with the stupid people lobby... They are a powerful group.
Well, they did get W elected...