It gets you on campus. Pick a school with lots of engineering students. Spend all your free time in the engineering lounge. Marry an engineer. Pay off the student loans.:-)
Lots of women are being pushed HARD into science and engineering. They seem to resist this.
Is it so hard to believe that different hormones might result in different behavior? Why must we judge this as a bad thing? Why must we judge the value, even the economic value, of a person in dollars or euros or whatever?
Maybe she'd like to stay home. Why can't she? There won't be too many bright people in the next generation if today's bright people focus on for-pay careers. That's how evolution works; it'd be good IMHO to resist becoming a world full of idiots. Smart people should have kids too, not just the dumb ones.
It's even rewarding. She can homeschool a dozen bright kids. Really, it's extremely rewarding and it's a full-time job.
The hardware is nothing nice by 2008 standards, but it isn't hopeless. It's like 1996 to 2000.
The problem is that a bunch of dumb-ass morons decided to write the entire GUI in Python. WTF? Then, since that wasn't stupid enough, they used lots of message passing and SVG graphics.
I've never seen a good explanation or excuse for this, or even an admission of the mistake. Sugar developers do all sorts of nasty performance hacks yet are unable to confront the real problems.
Normally, products drop in price as competitors show up. They are also now XP-tainted (even if not shipping it in G1G1) and not the "new thing". OLPC is going to be sorely disappointed this year.
We're probably evolving faster than ever before, for two reasons. The first is a greater number of people to get mutations. The second is the tremendous changes in our environment.
Look at the factors that determine how many decendents (grandkids, etc.) a person will have.
The biggest selection force is birth control. We're being selected to DESIRE actual kids, not merely sex. We're also being selected to be irresponsible, be dumb, and have menstrual cycles that require higher doses of birth control pills to suppress.
The next biggest selection force is diet. We're being selected to tolerate or dislike all the normal junk food. We're being selected to crave vegetables or do without them.
The next biggest selection force is addictive substances. We'll be less affected by it, or we'll desire it less.
Never imagine for a moment that humans can be immune to natural selection. Just look around you, and you can see the forces at work.
There is a huge difference between allowing adults to be perverts in the privacy of their own home and allowing perverts to reshape our society.
Go ahead, enjoy 3 guys and a goat if you like. Forcing the rest of us to recognize weird shit the same as anything else is over the line.
Regarding homosexuality in particular, the Texas law banning sodomy was wrong. The Florida and Arkansas laws limiting marriage and adoption to male-female pairs are right.
Regarding other stuff, the nearly universal laws prohibiting you from marrying a goat are right. The nearly universal laws prohibiting you from marrying multiple people are right.
When a "pretty smart chap" fails to reproduce, that just leaves room for the not-so-smart.
It's time we accept that evolution is real, and it is affecting humanity. If dumb people are the ones who reproduce, then that is where the selection pressure is taking us.
I happen to be horrified that humans are going to lose their intelligence. Let's resist it as best we can. If you are above average at all, please have as many kids as you possibly can.
What this means is freedom of speech, not porn. Remember, the US constitution has that nasty clause that allows foreign treaties to override chunks of itself. This toasts the 1st ammendment.
(Europe is big into banning Nazi stuff, etc.)
Without free speech, the people in power are able to prevent political opponents from arguing.
"constitutionally bound to separate church and state" is 100% incompatible with "religeously bound to tie church and state", which is an Islamic belief.
One could tolerate a president being Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist. None demand that the law of the land be based on direct interpretation of a religous book. Islam is a whole different matter.
The people and places he associates with are certainly pointing in a very muslim direction.
In past campains his Syrian buddy (who still regularly vists Syria) has been a major help with funding.
His father is muslim.
He spent his formative years in Indonesia, which is mainly muslim.
BTW, even if you ignore all the connections to a religeon that is hostile to our form of law, that's some serious foreign influence. It's pretty bad having a president who has unusual personal feelings toward some other part of the world.
It hurts performance. You're doing RAID/LVM stuff on disk blocks that could be empty. Wasting effort on unused bits is stupid.
It endangers data. RAID/LVM stuff isn't normally transactional. (there is no journal or log) You can handle booting with a dead disk, and you might be able to handle a disk dying at some arbitrary point in time, but you can't handle disks that mangle your data in interesting ways.
On reading the supposedly liberal traits, my first thought was "gay".
It's rather well known what types of people (straight, gay, single, housewife, etc.) support various types of politics, and you can trivially match that up with the given traits.
You can deny it all you want, with nonsense about how compartments aren't really "above", but any reasonable interpretation is that they are in fact above top secret.
More restrictions, more background checking, a subset of top secret people qualified... The only reasonable conclusion that that SAP and SCI are above top secret.
I graduate once, but apply for many jobs. It's thus far better (total time/money required, etc.) to have national standard testing in the schools.
You seem to be under this impression that the tests aren't tied to real-world ability. I see no reason to believe that.
I've always seen the best scores go to students who learn the material, and the worst scores to those who don't. Learning the material is some combination of doing homework, raw intelligence, listening in class, and studying. Mid-level or inconsistant grades go to the students who partly learn the material via having only some of those traits.
In theory there could be a person who learns the material but panics in a test situation. On the one hand, this is partly just; the test reveals that the learning is moot under mild stress. On the other hand, this simply indicates that the person needs to seek mental help. In any case, I don't think I've ever seen it.
The other possible error, that a non-learner gets great test scores, is only possible via unusually horrible test design or test environment control. In other words, the test designer or test proctor is incompetent. No educational policy is immune to being implemented by idiots, though a test-based one is a tiny bit harder to screw up.
"We've always been able to find the smart and well educated people"
Not really. You can't look at a diploma or degree and just know, because there is no standardization. You have to use an evaluation process that is time-consuming and error-prone, and thus expensive. Such evaluation takes time away from evaluating things like personality, takes time away from evaluating other people, and so on. It's waste.
"if you don't think people should need college degrees to do certain things which they currently do, then argue against them... but frankly I can't think of all that many examples to support your point. None, in fact. the truth of the matter is that most fields have become far more specialized and now require a greater amount of esoteric knowledge than they used to."
No way. Outside of the specialist nerd degrees, the requirement is often that a person have **any** college degree. Typical degrees for such people include art history, communication, black studies, dance, international relations, criminal justice, philosophy, English, business, journalism, French, marketing, early childhood development, women's studies, music performance, athletic performance, physical education, sociology, political science, psychology...
Most often, these people aren't actually using the degree. Employers hope that the degree requirement will screen out people who can't read and write. Such a situation is simply horrible; reading and writing skills should be ensured by the completion of elementary school. If that's all the skill you need -- and it is for many people -- then you're wasting over a decade in school.
BTW, this often doesn't help screen out people who are unable to do math. Many of the above degrees can be had without any math classes, or at most a "D" in a trivial introductory algebra class.
Prior to the tests, we couldn't measure success well at all. We had the SAT (a test) for people going off to college. Class rank was relative, as was GPA, so one couldn't tell the difference between successful education and grade inflation. Any school district or individual teacher could claim to be doing well, and nobody could dispute the claim.
Because of these problems, a high school diploma has become nearly meaningless in the job market. The 4-year college degree is now a requirement for numerous fields that really shouldn't need it. That's an extra 4 years of human life being spent on remedial education, times however many people.
If you look back at 5th grade and 8th grade final exams from 100 to 200 years ago, you can see how dramatic the slide has been. In the absense of nationwide standard tests (which we still don't really have) there is nothing to stop education from getting worse. There was a time when an 8th grade education meant you could deal with latin, rhetoric, logic, word problems, and so on. Typical college graduates today are unable to meet a similar standard.
Slashdot Mirror
It gets you on campus. Pick a school with lots :-)
of engineering students. Spend all your free time
in the engineering lounge. Marry an engineer.
Pay off the student loans.
It's rather practical actually.
Lots of women are being pushed HARD into science
and engineering. They seem to resist this.
Is it so hard to believe that different hormones
might result in different behavior? Why must we
judge this as a bad thing? Why must we judge the
value, even the economic value, of a person in
dollars or euros or whatever?
Maybe she'd like to stay home. Why can't she?
There won't be too many bright people in the
next generation if today's bright people focus
on for-pay careers. That's how evolution works;
it'd be good IMHO to resist becoming a world
full of idiots. Smart people should have kids
too, not just the dumb ones.
It's even rewarding. She can homeschool a dozen
bright kids. Really, it's extremely rewarding
and it's a full-time job.
The hardware is nothing nice by 2008 standards,
but it isn't hopeless. It's like 1996 to 2000.
The problem is that a bunch of dumb-ass morons
decided to write the entire GUI in Python. WTF?
Then, since that wasn't stupid enough, they used
lots of message passing and SVG graphics.
I've never seen a good explanation or excuse for
this, or even an admission of the mistake. Sugar
developers do all sorts of nasty performance hacks
yet are unable to confront the real problems.
You sound like a zealot looking to promote
your ideology, not to promote software freedom.
(your ideology being that poor people should be
helped, and that this should be done by providing
them with free-as-in-beer electronic junk)
Making poor people depend on a for-profit
software vendor is an "interesting" ideology.
Normally, products drop in price as competitors
show up. They are also now XP-tainted (even if not
shipping it in G1G1) and not the "new thing".
OLPC is going to be sorely disappointed this year.
They've never been the type to accept reality.
We're probably evolving faster than ever before,
for two reasons. The first is a greater number
of people to get mutations. The second is the
tremendous changes in our environment.
Look at the factors that determine how many
decendents (grandkids, etc.) a person will have.
The biggest selection force is birth control.
We're being selected to DESIRE actual kids,
not merely sex. We're also being selected to
be irresponsible, be dumb, and have menstrual
cycles that require higher doses of birth
control pills to suppress.
The next biggest selection force is diet. We're
being selected to tolerate or dislike all the
normal junk food. We're being selected to crave
vegetables or do without them.
The next biggest selection force is addictive
substances. We'll be less affected by it, or
we'll desire it less.
Never imagine for a moment that humans can be
immune to natural selection. Just look around
you, and you can see the forces at work.
There is a huge difference between allowing adults
to be perverts in the privacy of their own home and
allowing perverts to reshape our society.
Go ahead, enjoy 3 guys and a goat if you like.
Forcing the rest of us to recognize weird shit
the same as anything else is over the line.
Regarding homosexuality in particular, the Texas
law banning sodomy was wrong. The Florida and
Arkansas laws limiting marriage and adoption to
male-female pairs are right.
Regarding other stuff, the nearly universal
laws prohibiting you from marrying a goat are
right. The nearly universal laws prohibiting
you from marrying multiple people are right.
When a "pretty smart chap" fails to reproduce,
that just leaves room for the not-so-smart.
It's time we accept that evolution is real, and
it is affecting humanity. If dumb people are the
ones who reproduce, then that is where the
selection pressure is taking us.
I happen to be horrified that humans are going
to lose their intelligence. Let's resist it as
best we can. If you are above average at all,
please have as many kids as you possibly can.
What this means is freedom of speech, not porn.
Remember, the US constitution has that nasty
clause that allows foreign treaties to override
chunks of itself. This toasts the 1st ammendment.
(Europe is big into banning Nazi stuff, etc.)
Without free speech, the people in power are able
to prevent political opponents from arguing.
Writing software seems rather foolish now.
Unless you're already in jail, you'd be nuts
to risk criminal charges.
About the only software development that might
be able to continue is Reiserfs.
"constitutionally bound to separate church and state" is 100% incompatible with "religeously bound to tie church and state", which is an Islamic belief.
One could tolerate a president being Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist. None demand that the law of the land be based on direct interpretation of a religous book. Islam is a whole different matter.
Look up Sharia if you are truly clueless.
BTW, even if you ignore all the connections to a religeon that is hostile to our form of law, that's some serious foreign influence. It's pretty bad having a president who has unusual personal feelings toward some other part of the world.
My guess would be anti-psychotic medication.
In any case, some sort of psychiatric medication
is appropriate. Lots of people are borderline nuts,
and a good number are more than that.
At a typical jail in the USA, inmates spend their
days playing video games and lifting weights.
This is so they can be anti-social and strong.
(actually true)
It hurts performance. You're doing RAID/LVM stuff
on disk blocks that could be empty. Wasting effort
on unused bits is stupid.
It endangers data. RAID/LVM stuff isn't normally
transactional. (there is no journal or log)
You can handle booting with a dead disk, and you
might be able to handle a disk dying at some
arbitrary point in time, but you can't handle
disks that mangle your data in interesting ways.
They feed him. They put a roof over his head.
They even bathe him.
He might as well devote himself to filesystems.
Think not? Think again.
Anytime you have automatic updates, you have a
kill switch. You're trusting somebody else with
everything. They have a backdoor into your system.
They can grab your keystrokes, screen content,
crypto keys, email, web cam and microphone data...
and nothing of value was lost
On reading the supposedly liberal traits, my first thought was "gay".
It's rather well known what types of people (straight, gay, single,
housewife, etc.) support various types of politics, and you can
trivially match that up with the given traits.
of course, a compartment is above top secret
The denial is totally silly. Look, you have:
* more restricted set of people
* more restrictions on document handling
* more frequent review of people
* different document markings
The only thing not "above" about SCI and SAP
is the silly denial.
SAP and SCI are obviously above top secret.
You can deny it all you want, with nonsense
about how compartments aren't really "above",
but any reasonable interpretation is that
they are in fact above top secret.
More restrictions, more background checking,
a subset of top secret people qualified...
The only reasonable conclusion that that SAP
and SCI are above top secret.
The constant denial is completely silly.
I graduate once, but apply for many jobs. It's thus far better (total time/money required, etc.) to have national standard testing in the schools.
You seem to be under this impression that the tests aren't tied to real-world ability. I see no reason to believe that.
I've always seen the best scores go to students who learn the material, and the worst scores to those who don't. Learning the material is some combination of doing homework, raw intelligence, listening in class, and studying. Mid-level or inconsistant grades go to the students who partly learn the material via having only some of those traits.
In theory there could be a person who learns the material but panics in a test situation. On the one hand, this is partly just; the test reveals that the learning is moot under mild stress. On the other hand, this simply indicates that the person needs to seek mental help. In any case, I don't think I've ever seen it.
The other possible error, that a non-learner gets great test scores, is only possible via unusually horrible test design or test environment control. In other words, the test designer or test proctor is incompetent. No educational policy is immune to being implemented by idiots, though a test-based one is a tiny bit harder to screw up.
"We've always been able to find the smart and well educated people"
Not really. You can't look at a diploma or degree and just know, because there is no standardization. You have to use an evaluation process that is time-consuming and error-prone, and thus expensive. Such evaluation takes time away from evaluating things like personality, takes time away from evaluating other people, and so on. It's waste.
"if you don't think people should need college degrees to do certain things which they currently do, then argue against them... but frankly I can't think of all that many examples to support your point. None, in fact. the truth of the matter is that most fields have become far more specialized and now require a greater amount of esoteric knowledge than they used to."
No way. Outside of the specialist nerd degrees, the requirement is often that a person have **any** college degree. Typical degrees for such people include art history, communication, black studies, dance, international relations, criminal justice, philosophy, English, business, journalism, French, marketing, early childhood development, women's studies, music performance, athletic performance, physical education, sociology, political science, psychology...
Most often, these people aren't actually using the degree. Employers hope that the degree requirement will screen out people who can't read and write. Such a situation is simply horrible; reading and writing skills should be ensured by the completion of elementary school. If that's all the skill you need -- and it is for many people -- then you're wasting over a decade in school.
BTW, this often doesn't help screen out people who are unable to do math. Many of the above degrees can be had without any math classes, or at most a "D" in a trivial introductory algebra class.
Prior to the tests, we couldn't measure success
well at all. We had the SAT (a test) for people
going off to college. Class rank was relative,
as was GPA, so one couldn't tell the difference
between successful education and grade inflation.
Any school district or individual teacher could
claim to be doing well, and nobody could dispute
the claim.
Because of these problems, a high school diploma
has become nearly meaningless in the job market.
The 4-year college degree is now a requirement
for numerous fields that really shouldn't need it.
That's an extra 4 years of human life being spent
on remedial education, times however many people.
If you look back at 5th grade and 8th grade
final exams from 100 to 200 years ago, you can
see how dramatic the slide has been. In the
absense of nationwide standard tests (which we
still don't really have) there is nothing to
stop education from getting worse. There was a
time when an 8th grade education meant you could
deal with latin, rhetoric, logic, word problems,
and so on. Typical college graduates today are
unable to meet a similar standard.
Quality control requires measurement. Sorry.
We need cold hard numbers, not some rubbish
about how the students are all self-esteemy.
No numbers? The learning didn't happen.