I lived in Las Vegas for a while, my kids' bus stop was 1.1 miles from our house. Somehow a 3rd grader and 1st grader managed to make the journey for most of a year without being abducted, accosted, or otherwise traumatized by the journey! Apparently the ninja training must have paid off so the kids managed to stay under the radar of the authorities.
The point of my post is that you are anthropomorphisizing the motivation of whatever hypothetical advanced ETs you want to imagine. There is no reason to believe that we as a species would be any more or less respected or shunned for our behavior, warlike or otherwise.
Why would they WANT to contact humanity?
Maybe they like our art or our comedy or how we look. Perhaps they are fascinated that life like ours could develop so rapidly or maybe they are amazed how incredibly slowly we progress. Possibly we are the greatest entertainers in the known universe. Maybe we are the baddest ass little mercenaries ever to have sprouted from a ball of mud and they want to hire us to do their dirty work. Perhaps the ETs are a civilization evolved from something like a beehive where little value is placed on the individual, or maybe the way we as individuals seem to instinctively band together into tribal nation states is something they have never seen. Perhaps in all the universe they have discovered that the greatest concentration our particular wavelength of brainwaves is right hear on Earth and will solve their energy problems for eternity. I can speculate reasons why they would want to contact us as easily as you can speculate reasons why they would not. None of it matters though because for now it is ALL just speculation.
I'm not confusing resources of any sort. Even assuming that they could exterminate us like cockroaches is silly. Imagine humanity scrapes together the resources and technology and motivation to send out our first interstellar mission. Would we be able to decimate a planet in a day? Maybe, if that's what we'd set out to do, but once again that assumes that we would even have an interest in doing so (and on a lighter note, have you ever tried to kill a cockroach? Relatively speaking killing human beings would be much easier.)
I get your point that you think we are worthless as a species. I just don't see any justification to believe that an alien species would feel the same way. You can't even get close to a consensus about our value as a species right here at home where we share common needs for shelter, food and companionship. I concede that it is possible you are right but only with the stipulation that it is just as possible that every sentient race in the galaxy who has heard our signal is racing here to bow in supplication to our greatness.
There is simply no basis for asserting a conclusion one way or another when you start applying morals and values to the situation.
Anybody intelligent enough to be able to travel throughout this galaxy or beyond, or even just communicate, would certainly study us for awhile. They would have learned by now that we humans are a warlike race that cannot get along with one another even on our own world. Even in our fictionalized scenarios, with imagined technology, such as Star Trek or Star Wars, there is nothing but war and death, such as the destruction of entire planets by some of our imagined technology. Human history provides an absolute guarantee, that if we would meet such an advanced civilization, we would use their technology against them and one another.
Typical that some guilt ridden touchy feely sentiment gets modded insightful here.
The entire premise that some advanced civilization would evaluate humanity on it's ability to get along is ludicrous. Wasn't that the whole storyline of the Q in TNG?
If we are going to start asserting crap like this, then it would be equally valid to suggest that we are the equivalent of the 98 lb. freshman nerd of the universe and that we've been stuffed in our own locker. How about that instead of our galactic neighbors being worried about our 'warlike' nature we have been shunned for being a bunch of weak ass little pussies? Maybe they are just waiting for us to sort out our little squabbles so they can deal with the one with big enough balls to kick the crap out of everyone else. There is NO basis to suggest that either of these scenarios are more or less likely.
I'll buy just about ANY technological explanation before you'll convince me that we are being left alone because some advanced civilization who can hear our signal is essentially scared of dealing with us. Honestly, the suggestion itself is the height of conceit.
Welcome to the club. I officially switched my party affiliation to Libertarian this year. Personally I think at this point in our history as a nation the greatest threat to the average citizen is the Federal government. Republican or Democrat really doesn't matter, all either party wants to do is consolidate as much power to tax and control the populace as they possibly can.
More to the point, even if we just pushed the ISS out to a stable lunar orbit and had to leave it there for a few years (decades even) its a better plan than letting it crash into the Earth. We spent billions putting that stuff up there, the last thing we need to do is waste that effort by letting it fall down again.
A lunar orbiting ISS would, even if we can't use it today, be an investment in the future.
Thank you for pointing this out plainly. One of the aspects of space exploration/development that always seems to get pushed to the side is concept of recycling. The sheer expense of getting mass out of our gravity well, even if not very far out, seems to dictate to me that once it's there we should be making every effort to keep it there.
I don't necessarily agree that the ISS belongs in Lunar orbit. I think we are still a lot further out from doing anything useful on the moon than it's politically expedient for anyone involved with the space program or running for office to admit. Talk of a Lunar base is quite frankly silly at this point. When we can actually build and run a self-sustaining habitat or at least one that is nearly so, that's when it becomes time to look at a lunar base. In the mean time though, I can see the ISS still being put to other uses that would be preferable to just mothballing it because it has fulfilled its original mission.
How many satellites are currently in orbit that have ceased functioning? How many are allowed or even directed to re-enter the atmosphere to burn or crash? Even if the only thing that they are useful for is raw materials, it seems downright wasteful to me to expend the resources to get them into orbit only to later let them indefinitely lie dormant or be destroyed. I think a better use than moving the ISS to a Lunar orbit would be to re-purpose it as a management base for a satellite graveyard/repair station.
One of the key factors to progress in space exploration and development, at least in my opinion, is to make it profitable at least a lot less expensive. Make it feasible for technicians to not just make minor repairs but outright rebuilt satellites already in orbit. Once again the concept of recycling becomes key, but at some point the ROI of sending a team of engineers up to work in a satellite repair station exceeds that of simply throwing more material at the sky.
I'm sure I'll get flamed now over my ignorance of the actual intricacies of what I am suggesting and I'll admit a distinct lack of hard information regarding the costs and probably many of the secondary and tertiary issues as well. What I do know for certain though is that any significant space development will involve recycling and re-use on a level that we don't even approach right now and that being able to actually manufacture things in space will be fundamental.
I don't know enough to debate it in any depth, but I thought that the laws of physics operated differently or that our understanding of them is incomplete at the nanoscale. Ohm's Law is an example I've seen used in a couple different books about nanotech, both basically saying that when the parts get small enough that the rules as we currently understand them don't really work very well.
Before the flaming even starts I'll repeat that my knowledge on either physics or nanotechnology is limited. Perhaps someone more well versed in the topics can fill in here, but I don't think it's as simple as you seem to think it is.
...The only question is how deep Earth is within the Unthinking Deeps. I've often pondered that question and my gut always tells me we are pretty deep. Seems almost like we are sinking deeper every day...
You of course are correct, I meant to say a glut of lawyers.
I'd have to say I think what we are talking about in education is the same thing, just a different choice of words. What I call self-esteem based education is exactly what you describe - a system based on non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events.
I spend about eight hours a week volunteering at my kids' school and I frequently find myself dismayed at how much consideration is given to protecting the feelings of the average and below average children at the expense of recognition for the true achievers. I also hold a leadership position in my son's Cub Scout pack. Even in an organization that supposedly exists for the development of character, one of the primary considerations in virtually event is what the Cubmaster refers to as the 'no-tears' factor. Basically nobody is ever allowed to fail or lose.
My opinion is that it's this sort of mentality that produces children who grow up unable to deal with the world as it is. They spend years being told they are special, never being given the opportunity to learn to deal with the emotions associated with loss and/or failure. Nobody would expect a child to learn to use a toilet, tie thier shoes, read, write or do just about anything that requires practice without giving them the opportunity to practice, yet somehow we as a culture have come to believe that they will learn how to deal with failure and loss by telling them all how special they are.
This is getting way longer than I intended this reply to be so I'll wrap it up as it's becoming more of a rant than anything else. Ultimately it boils down to something we all know - we learn far more from our mistakes and failures than we learn from our successes. Unfortunately as a society we now use every method we can conceive to prevent people from facing that fact.
That's why most people who are serious about this suggest an entirely separate entrance to the cockpit from the outside of the plane, with NO access to the passenger area.
I like the way you put that, changing to a culture of resistance.
My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards. That was my first impression after the VT shootings and I found myself using exactly those words in more than one conversation.
I can speculate many reasons behind the shift toward cowardice in the U.S. but all that does is create a lot of argument and derision from the people I'd lump in as cowards. I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.
I think putting sci-fi writers to work in this manner is a great idea. Most of them are fairly innovative thinkers who are going to see things in a different light than the typical 'security' expert. This can only be a good thing and in the grand scheme it's a bargain.
I've never wished I had mod points more than after reading the parent. People in general just do not know nearly enough about world history to really even get a decent grasp of the status quo.
Nothing curbs population growth as much as development. Most (if not all) industrialized nations have zero or negative population growth. It basically works like this: in a modern industrialized country, children are a liability in preparation for a time when you are too old to work. In a third world country, children are insurance that you will be cared for when you are too old to provide for yourself (not to mention they are free labor on a farm, in a sweatshop, etc...)
You can claim that exercise doesn't relieve your stress, but I think you are confusing stress with something else.
Stress is a physiological reaction. Stress occurs when your body encounters stimulus that triggers the 'fight or flight' response (which in our modern world abound.) When this metabolic change occurs, your body needs a healthy way to diffuse that 'fight or flight' response - playing a video game or watching TV may be relaxing but they don't do anything to alleviate that physiological reaction (with the exception being physically demanding video games.) Reading a book does, as does almost any activity that forces you to focus solely on that one activity. Exercise is best because it deals with the 'fight or flight' reaction in the way our bodies evolved to deal with it - physical exertion. That's why playing video games or watching television while on the treadmill still work, the physical exertion trumps all other stress reducers.
You may not like exercise, you may not find it 'relaxing', but except for getting way too much exercise it is the most effective and healthy way to eliminate stress.
Consume fewer calories than you expend and you will lose weight.
Consume more calories than you expend and you will gain weight.
Sure it may be easier for some people due to genetics, but no amout of arguing will make those two statements untrue. I'm living walking proof that what I say is true, as are many other people. My ideal weight is 164 lbs (not that I agree, but that's what doctors tell me.) After leaving the army, I let myself gradually balloon up to 227 lbs. Three years ago I decided enough was enough and that I wasn't going to spend another summer disgusted with my appearance and reluctant to walk around with my shirt off. I cut back on the food (used fitday.com to track my calories,) made better food choices and started exercising - in six months I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off ever since. You don't get fat overnight, you won't lose it overnight either.
A formal exercise program isn't even necessary, just get your body moving. Do push-ups or sit-ups or jumping jacks every time there's a comercial on while you are watching TV. Play DDR. Walk or bike wherever you can and if you can't walk or ride, then park at the far end of the parking lot. Take the stairs instead of the elevator - if it's only one floor, fine, if it's five or six even better. Stand while you are making phone calls, sure it's not much but you burn more calories standing than you do sitting. Every extra calorie you burn is either weight lost or more food you can eat.
When you grocery shop, don't walk down the aisles - that's where the processed food is. Stick to the outside ring of the store where the fresh food is. Start cooking more, and if you say you don't have time to cook then maybe you really don't have time to eat either. Grab a an apple or a banana or a pear or other fruit, or even better try raw carrots or some other raw vegetable. Eat to live, don't live to eat.
You can make any excuses you want, but those two sentences at the top are incontrovertable truth. If you never exercised at all, not even to rise out of bed, you could stay thin by simply not eating too much. There is a whole industry built on making excuses and/or providing shortcuts for something everbody reading this intuitively knows: if you eat too much you will get fat.
The first IT job I took after getting out of the army was answering phones on a help desk for a retail company. We had to support about 1,500 users.
Not long before I started that job, the company had hired a new "Director of End User Technology" and this guy was sharp. His primary goal at the time was to straighten out the cobbled together mess of a network that had haphazardly grown department by department. The place was a real mess and the network ran like mud.
Over a period of about four years, we standardized our PCs and laptops, physically consolidated the servers that were spread all over the HQ building, corrected the messed up cabling, centralized administration, built a training room and implemented a number of classes, etc. It was a truly exciting and fun place to work and virtually everyone who I started out with on the help desk eventually learned, got certifications and moved into administration and/or engineering. When I had started there we had a real mom & pop shop type feel and very little oversight. All we had to go on were some clearly defined goals and a directive to "get things fixed."
We consistently accomplished our goals. Within the first couple years we had fixed the network and made it into something useful. The consequence was more use by upper management and as you might expect, more management from upper management. Every time we met another goal, the more visibility we received. The more visibility we received, the more layers of management they installed above us. Every layer of management installed made it harder and harder to actually get anything done, basically because each new layer of management knew less about IT but more about "managing.".
I guess mostly I'm just whining here, but eventually most of us who had built the network quit. They 'managed' us right out the door.
While I'm sure it sounds petty, I was certainly unimpressed when I got a confirmation email saying it would be sent but never actually received the CD.
I could make a very long winded post about this, but what I believe is really very simple: all personal info should be private by default.
Any time anyone wants any of of my personal info, be it SS#, Credit Report, phone number, address, email address, et al. they should be required to get my authorization before it can be released or even used. Kinda like medical/health info except done a lot more robustly. I'd go so far as to advocate serious jail time for individuals who abuse my personal info, for instance all the laptops that various government agencies manage to lose. I'd hope the threat of years in a federal penitentiary would do the trick.
I'm not holding my breath, but it pisses me off to no end that I have to maintain so much of a defense of my information.
My cable company offers VOD for a monthly fee. My cable company also rents me a DVR which I use for almost all of my TV watching. If they start messing with that I'll go ahead and set up a MythTV box.
Unless there is some truly unique and outstanding contentor they add Disney VOD to my package for free, I wouldn't even consider using it.
Just guessing here, but I'd say it has something to do with people not understanding what the word "servant" means. Unfortunately most government employees treat their job as an entitlement, as opposed to an opportunity to 'serve' their country.
Scotty used the "It's green" line in TOS episode 51: By Any Other Name. He was trying to bring out the 'humanity' in the aliens who had hijacked the enterprise by getting the guy loaded.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived in Las Vegas for a while, my kids' bus stop was 1.1 miles from our house. Somehow a 3rd grader and 1st grader managed to make the journey for most of a year without being abducted, accosted, or otherwise traumatized by the journey! Apparently the ninja training must have paid off so the kids managed to stay under the radar of the authorities.
...We don't attempt to teach nematodes to read!
I work as a substitute elementary school teacher a few days a week. I am not so sure your right about this one...
Why would they WANT to contact humanity?
Maybe they like our art or our comedy or how we look. Perhaps they are fascinated that life like ours could develop so rapidly or maybe they are amazed how incredibly slowly we progress. Possibly we are the greatest entertainers in the known universe. Maybe we are the baddest ass little mercenaries ever to have sprouted from a ball of mud and they want to hire us to do their dirty work. Perhaps the ETs are a civilization evolved from something like a beehive where little value is placed on the individual, or maybe the way we as individuals seem to instinctively band together into tribal nation states is something they have never seen. Perhaps in all the universe they have discovered that the greatest concentration our particular wavelength of brainwaves is right hear on Earth and will solve their energy problems for eternity. I can speculate reasons why they would want to contact us as easily as you can speculate reasons why they would not. None of it matters though because for now it is ALL just speculation.
I'm not confusing resources of any sort. Even assuming that they could exterminate us like cockroaches is silly. Imagine humanity scrapes together the resources and technology and motivation to send out our first interstellar mission. Would we be able to decimate a planet in a day? Maybe, if that's what we'd set out to do, but once again that assumes that we would even have an interest in doing so (and on a lighter note, have you ever tried to kill a cockroach? Relatively speaking killing human beings would be much easier.)
I get your point that you think we are worthless as a species. I just don't see any justification to believe that an alien species would feel the same way. You can't even get close to a consensus about our value as a species right here at home where we share common needs for shelter, food and companionship. I concede that it is possible you are right but only with the stipulation that it is just as possible that every sentient race in the galaxy who has heard our signal is racing here to bow in supplication to our greatness.
There is simply no basis for asserting a conclusion one way or another when you start applying morals and values to the situation.
Anybody intelligent enough to be able to travel throughout this galaxy or beyond, or even just communicate, would certainly study us for awhile. They would have learned by now that we humans are a warlike race that cannot get along with one another even on our own world. Even in our fictionalized scenarios, with imagined technology, such as Star Trek or Star Wars, there is nothing but war and death, such as the destruction of entire planets by some of our imagined technology. Human history provides an absolute guarantee, that if we would meet such an advanced civilization, we would use their technology against them and one another.
Typical that some guilt ridden touchy feely sentiment gets modded insightful here.
The entire premise that some advanced civilization would evaluate humanity on it's ability to get along is ludicrous. Wasn't that the whole storyline of the Q in TNG?
If we are going to start asserting crap like this, then it would be equally valid to suggest that we are the equivalent of the 98 lb. freshman nerd of the universe and that we've been stuffed in our own locker. How about that instead of our galactic neighbors being worried about our 'warlike' nature we have been shunned for being a bunch of weak ass little pussies? Maybe they are just waiting for us to sort out our little squabbles so they can deal with the one with big enough balls to kick the crap out of everyone else. There is NO basis to suggest that either of these scenarios are more or less likely.
I'll buy just about ANY technological explanation before you'll convince me that we are being left alone because some advanced civilization who can hear our signal is essentially scared of dealing with us. Honestly, the suggestion itself is the height of conceit.
Welcome to the club. I officially switched my party affiliation to Libertarian this year. Personally I think at this point in our history as a nation the greatest threat to the average citizen is the Federal government. Republican or Democrat really doesn't matter, all either party wants to do is consolidate as much power to tax and control the populace as they possibly can.
More to the point, even if we just pushed the ISS out to a stable lunar orbit and had to leave it there for a few years (decades even) its a better plan than letting it crash into the Earth. We spent billions putting that stuff up there, the last thing we need to do is waste that effort by letting it fall down again.
A lunar orbiting ISS would, even if we can't use it today, be an investment in the future.
Thank you for pointing this out plainly. One of the aspects of space exploration/development that always seems to get pushed to the side is concept of recycling. The sheer expense of getting mass out of our gravity well, even if not very far out, seems to dictate to me that once it's there we should be making every effort to keep it there.
I don't necessarily agree that the ISS belongs in Lunar orbit. I think we are still a lot further out from doing anything useful on the moon than it's politically expedient for anyone involved with the space program or running for office to admit. Talk of a Lunar base is quite frankly silly at this point. When we can actually build and run a self-sustaining habitat or at least one that is nearly so, that's when it becomes time to look at a lunar base. In the mean time though, I can see the ISS still being put to other uses that would be preferable to just mothballing it because it has fulfilled its original mission.
How many satellites are currently in orbit that have ceased functioning? How many are allowed or even directed to re-enter the atmosphere to burn or crash? Even if the only thing that they are useful for is raw materials, it seems downright wasteful to me to expend the resources to get them into orbit only to later let them indefinitely lie dormant or be destroyed. I think a better use than moving the ISS to a Lunar orbit would be to re-purpose it as a management base for a satellite graveyard/repair station.
One of the key factors to progress in space exploration and development, at least in my opinion, is to make it profitable at least a lot less expensive. Make it feasible for technicians to not just make minor repairs but outright rebuilt satellites already in orbit. Once again the concept of recycling becomes key, but at some point the ROI of sending a team of engineers up to work in a satellite repair station exceeds that of simply throwing more material at the sky.
I'm sure I'll get flamed now over my ignorance of the actual intricacies of what I am suggesting and I'll admit a distinct lack of hard information regarding the costs and probably many of the secondary and tertiary issues as well. What I do know for certain though is that any significant space development will involve recycling and re-use on a level that we don't even approach right now and that being able to actually manufacture things in space will be fundamental.
+1 Insightful!
I don't know enough to debate it in any depth, but I thought that the laws of physics operated differently or that our understanding of them is incomplete at the nanoscale. Ohm's Law is an example I've seen used in a couple different books about nanotech, both basically saying that when the parts get small enough that the rules as we currently understand them don't really work very well.
Before the flaming even starts I'll repeat that my knowledge on either physics or nanotechnology is limited. Perhaps someone more well versed in the topics can fill in here, but I don't think it's as simple as you seem to think it is.
You of course are correct, I meant to say a glut of lawyers.
I'd have to say I think what we are talking about in education is the same thing, just a different choice of words. What I call self-esteem based education is exactly what you describe - a system based on non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events.
I spend about eight hours a week volunteering at my kids' school and I frequently find myself dismayed at how much consideration is given to protecting the feelings of the average and below average children at the expense of recognition for the true achievers. I also hold a leadership position in my son's Cub Scout pack. Even in an organization that supposedly exists for the development of character, one of the primary considerations in virtually event is what the Cubmaster refers to as the 'no-tears' factor. Basically nobody is ever allowed to fail or lose.
My opinion is that it's this sort of mentality that produces children who grow up unable to deal with the world as it is. They spend years being told they are special, never being given the opportunity to learn to deal with the emotions associated with loss and/or failure. Nobody would expect a child to learn to use a toilet, tie thier shoes, read, write or do just about anything that requires practice without giving them the opportunity to practice, yet somehow we as a culture have come to believe that they will learn how to deal with failure and loss by telling them all how special they are.
This is getting way longer than I intended this reply to be so I'll wrap it up as it's becoming more of a rant than anything else. Ultimately it boils down to something we all know - we learn far more from our mistakes and failures than we learn from our successes. Unfortunately as a society we now use every method we can conceive to prevent people from facing that fact.
That's why most people who are serious about this suggest an entirely separate entrance to the cockpit from the outside of the plane, with NO access to the passenger area.
I like the way you put that, changing to a culture of resistance.
My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards. That was my first impression after the VT shootings and I found myself using exactly those words in more than one conversation.
I can speculate many reasons behind the shift toward cowardice in the U.S. but all that does is create a lot of argument and derision from the people I'd lump in as cowards. I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.
I think putting sci-fi writers to work in this manner is a great idea. Most of them are fairly innovative thinkers who are going to see things in a different light than the typical 'security' expert. This can only be a good thing and in the grand scheme it's a bargain.
Mod parent up!!!
I've never wished I had mod points more than after reading the parent. People in general just do not know nearly enough about world history to really even get a decent grasp of the status quo.
Nothing curbs population growth as much as development. Most (if not all) industrialized nations have zero or negative population growth. It basically works like this: in a modern industrialized country, children are a liability in preparation for a time when you are too old to work. In a third world country, children are insurance that you will be cared for when you are too old to provide for yourself (not to mention they are free labor on a farm, in a sweatshop, etc...)
You can claim that exercise doesn't relieve your stress, but I think you are confusing stress with something else.
Stress is a physiological reaction. Stress occurs when your body encounters stimulus that triggers the 'fight or flight' response (which in our modern world abound.) When this metabolic change occurs, your body needs a healthy way to diffuse that 'fight or flight' response - playing a video game or watching TV may be relaxing but they don't do anything to alleviate that physiological reaction (with the exception being physically demanding video games.) Reading a book does, as does almost any activity that forces you to focus solely on that one activity. Exercise is best because it deals with the 'fight or flight' reaction in the way our bodies evolved to deal with it - physical exertion. That's why playing video games or watching television while on the treadmill still work, the physical exertion trumps all other stress reducers.
You may not like exercise, you may not find it 'relaxing', but except for getting way too much exercise it is the most effective and healthy way to eliminate stress.
Mod parent up!
Consume fewer calories than you expend and you will lose weight.
Consume more calories than you expend and you will gain weight.
Sure it may be easier for some people due to genetics, but no amout of arguing will make those two statements untrue. I'm living walking proof that what I say is true, as are many other people. My ideal weight is 164 lbs (not that I agree, but that's what doctors tell me.) After leaving the army, I let myself gradually balloon up to 227 lbs. Three years ago I decided enough was enough and that I wasn't going to spend another summer disgusted with my appearance and reluctant to walk around with my shirt off. I cut back on the food (used fitday.com to track my calories,) made better food choices and started exercising - in six months I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off ever since. You don't get fat overnight, you won't lose it overnight either.
A formal exercise program isn't even necessary, just get your body moving. Do push-ups or sit-ups or jumping jacks every time there's a comercial on while you are watching TV. Play DDR. Walk or bike wherever you can and if you can't walk or ride, then park at the far end of the parking lot. Take the stairs instead of the elevator - if it's only one floor, fine, if it's five or six even better. Stand while you are making phone calls, sure it's not much but you burn more calories standing than you do sitting. Every extra calorie you burn is either weight lost or more food you can eat.
When you grocery shop, don't walk down the aisles - that's where the processed food is. Stick to the outside ring of the store where the fresh food is. Start cooking more, and if you say you don't have time to cook then maybe you really don't have time to eat either. Grab a an apple or a banana or a pear or other fruit, or even better try raw carrots or some other raw vegetable. Eat to live, don't live to eat.
You can make any excuses you want, but those two sentences at the top are incontrovertable truth. If you never exercised at all, not even to rise out of bed, you could stay thin by simply not eating too much. There is a whole industry built on making excuses and/or providing shortcuts for something everbody reading this intuitively knows: if you eat too much you will get fat.
The first IT job I took after getting out of the army was answering phones on a help desk for a retail company. We had to support about 1,500 users.
Not long before I started that job, the company had hired a new "Director of End User Technology" and this guy was sharp. His primary goal at the time was to straighten out the cobbled together mess of a network that had haphazardly grown department by department. The place was a real mess and the network ran like mud.
Over a period of about four years, we standardized our PCs and laptops, physically consolidated the servers that were spread all over the HQ building, corrected the messed up cabling, centralized administration, built a training room and implemented a number of classes, etc. It was a truly exciting and fun place to work and virtually everyone who I started out with on the help desk eventually learned, got certifications and moved into administration and/or engineering. When I had started there we had a real mom & pop shop type feel and very little oversight. All we had to go on were some clearly defined goals and a directive to "get things fixed."
We consistently accomplished our goals. Within the first couple years we had fixed the network and made it into something useful. The consequence was more use by upper management and as you might expect, more management from upper management. Every time we met another goal, the more visibility we received. The more visibility we received, the more layers of management they installed above us. Every layer of management installed made it harder and harder to actually get anything done, basically because each new layer of management knew less about IT but more about "managing.".
I guess mostly I'm just whining here, but eventually most of us who had built the network quit. They 'managed' us right out the door.
Here here!
While I'm sure it sounds petty, I was certainly unimpressed when I got a confirmation email saying it would be sent but never actually received the CD.
I could make a very long winded post about this, but what I believe is really very simple: all personal info should be private by default.
Any time anyone wants any of of my personal info, be it SS#, Credit Report, phone number, address, email address, et al. they should be required to get my authorization before it can be released or even used. Kinda like medical/health info except done a lot more robustly. I'd go so far as to advocate serious jail time for individuals who abuse my personal info, for instance all the laptops that various government agencies manage to lose. I'd hope the threat of years in a federal penitentiary would do the trick.
I'm not holding my breath, but it pisses me off to no end that I have to maintain so much of a defense of my information.
My cable company offers VOD for a monthly fee. My cable company also rents me a DVR which I use for almost all of my TV watching. If they start messing with that I'll go ahead and set up a MythTV box.
Unless there is some truly unique and outstanding content or they add Disney VOD to my package for free, I wouldn't even consider using it.
Your post reminds me of a Arthur C. Clarke story called The Star
Just thought I'd take the opportunity to throw that title out there. It's a great story about god and supernovae.
Just guessing here, but I'd say it has something to do with people not understanding what the word "servant" means. Unfortunately most government employees treat their job as an entitlement, as opposed to an opportunity to 'serve' their country.
I agree.
I took my kids to see Robinsons as well - best 3D ever imho. Glasses weren't bad at all.
Scotty used the "It's green" line in TOS episode 51: By Any Other Name. He was trying to bring out the 'humanity' in the aliens who had hijacked the enterprise by getting the guy loaded.
I always love this post. Really, haven't seen it in a while and forgot how great a 'reefer madness' feel it has.