Fact: Religious fundamentalism exists in America, and is growing.
True. Just to be clear, Christian fundamentalists are growing... so are Islamic Fundamentalists, so are Jewish fundamentalists, so are science fundamentalists.
Fact: Religions fundamentalists, because they are (by definition) vocal and passionate, command a very strong political powerbase.
I wouldn't characterize it as "very strong", but yes, they do command some political base. But so do white supremacists, black supremacists, Neo Nazi groups...
Fact: The Bush administration, more than any president in recent memory, caters to and sympathises with religious fundamentalists.
I'd agree with "sympathises", but you need to define "caters". Because the period of the Bush presidency has represented one of the largest drawbacks of religion in government in America's history. There have been numerous court cases resulting in repeal of various religious connections in governments. I'll be curious to read your response and look over the references you will provide to support your argument.
Fact: There is a long-standing and fundamental disconnect between religion and science, and while it can be and has been crossed many times, it is very present. At the core, religion teaches you to venerate the unknown, and treat it as unknowable, while science teaches you to investigate it.
Sorry, but you're just wrong here. If anything, religion teaches investigation, searching for truth, and recognizing reality as much as science. Oh, and I don't think you truly understand the definition of "venerate".
Fact: Religious motivations have already affected public policy in several areas, including science.
I'll acknowledge the federal funding for stem cell issue... so show me these other "several areas".
The far left has practically no political power in the US.
Right, and that's why the United States spends over $0.5 Trillion dollars a year on social security... that's more than we spend on defense.
It is a simple fact that the religious right has a great deal of political power, and they have an opposition to many forms of science, and that is affecting the quality of scientific education in America. The whole "intelligent design" thing, an exercise in justification and hypocrisy if there ever was one is only one example.
Well, as I've already alluded to, it's not such a "simple fact", and whatever power they may have, it's not a "great deal of political power". It's as if you are trying to compare the "religious right" to the oil industry, or the defense industry. Sorry buddy, it's just not like that - you're just lying to yourself. And tell me, if the whole "intelligent design" is really an example, where is the legislation to support it? I never saw a bill passed through congress mandating intelligent design.
The simple fact of the matter is that religion doesn't really impact our science spending much at all. It's more likely due to massive social works projects, and all of the various industries that have their lobbyists in D.C. When new money is available, everyone tries to grab at it as quickly as possible, and science doesn't have as many lobbyists as the defense industry.
As much as I would like to agree with you, there have been several instances where I noticed an ad (online, TV, magazine, whatever) and found the substance of the ad interesting. I followed through, researched the company/product/etc and ended up finding out about a new technology, innovation, or product that I never knew was out there. I'm ok with ads as long as they are tasteful, non-intrusive, and limited. Unfortunately, most ads obey none of those rules. Having 5 minutes of tv ads embedded inbetween and around two 8 minute sections of content is not limited. Having the tv ad volume at 130% of the content volume is intrusive. And having P Diddy run around on a golf course yelling "Yo biatches, check dis bling bling." is usually not tasteful (unless you're trying to sell ring tones on MTV perhaps). Oh yeh, and I hate it when car ads bastardize yet another classic song or new hit. Although I do like the Xyience ads on SpikeTV with the sexy women in bikinis doing exercises.
Comcast needs to implement a PPV system for regular TV. Charge $10/month to have the service and box. Then charge like $0.25/hour (or a pricing scheme depending on the cost/popularity, maybe $0.50/hour for HD content). I'm sure your average moron would gobble up enough content to make Comcast more money. But at least I could just pay $20 / month for the little bit of content I want to see on Discovery HD. I don't even have DTV or HDTV right now, just regular basic cable which is about 75 channels. And I don't even know why most of that crap is on there. I watch only a handful of the channels - FoodTV, Discovery, SpikeTV, AETV - and even then half of their programming is crap, I catch like 1 or 2 shows on each channel.
Have you ever leafed through Rolling Stone? I signed up for a free subscription online just for the hell of it. When it arrived in the mail I opened it up and start leafing through. The first couple pages were ads, kept leafing. More ads, kepts leafing. More ads. After about 15 pages I started leafing backwards because I thought I had missed the table of contents. Nope, kept leafing forwards. Finally arrived at the table of contents at like page 20. At that point I thought to myself "wow, I'm glad I don't pay for this crap" and chucked the magazine.
Exactly. My first reacton when I saw that service would be cut off was "oh, crap, my bosses and several coworkers are gonna be pissed". They spend their lives bouncing from meeting to meeting and the only way anyone gets hold of them is through their BB. And once their service is cut off, they're gonna raise hell with the BB reps. And this part of the company has nothing to do with IP, IT, or CS. Once we get all those related departments involved... maybe we could have a ruckus on our hands.
Ah, ok. I was thinking in the back of my mind that Google Earth and Google Maps used the same source data. Guess not. And I don't have Google Earth on this computer, so I couldn't do a quick check even if I thought they used different source data!
Ok, I read the wikipedia information on Tier 1 and Peering, so I present the following scenario. What's to stop Cogent or Level 3 from peering with AT&T, who is also peering with the other guy, and having traffic bridged through AT&T? Doesn't a peer of your peer give you access to both peer's networks? I'm wondering this, because I don't think there is anyway all the Tier 1 providers would have disagreements with every other Tier 1 provider at the same time to keep everyone partitioned. In the long run, if you had enough disagreements with all but 1 other Tier 1 provider, then you could have a problem. Because you effectively (sort of) become a Tier 2 provider since all your traffic will need to route through the 1 peer you have, and I'm sure they'll catch on to that and charge you up the wazoo for it. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Problem is, despite the cost, it seems that everyone is moving here. They just finished a project to expand US-101 in the Bay area over the last few years, and the new expansion is already filled over capacity. There are 1000s upon 1000s of new homes going up in new housing developments all over the place, and houses are still snatched off the market within a couple days of being listed; and usually for more than the asking price.
I really don't complain about the situation, I was mainly trying to give legitimacy to other's complaints. I've accepted the fact that I won't buy a house in California (not that I really even want to live here for the long term anyhow, it's quite crowded). So I'm saving up until I can afford to leave my job here and take up a position somewhere else.
Boeing has a commercial plant where they pump out loads of commercial airliners. In the aerospace industry, that's called grunt work. It's not advanved technology. The last major innovation to come out of Boeing's commercial development was the 777... in 1995, 10 years ago. And even then, all their engineers did was design the same thing that's been designed 50 times before, but with a little more finesse this time around. If you want a large concentration of national labs, research facilities, advanced technology centers, test facilities, and technology companies to pool from, you go to California, not Washington. Even though, like I said before, Washington does have some cool stuff going on.
That's actually very easy to get around. And that is the most common argument against a single sale tax. The solution is to just tax items based on their value (or use).
Examples: Food, usage = eating, so tax will be 0%. Ferrari, usage = extreme luxury, so tax will be 25%
Ok, but that presents problems on how to classify items. Is a caviar luncheon considered food or luxury? Well, we can also introduce a per cost system. Cost is less than $5 per item, probably means it is some sort of daily necessity, so tax will be 0%. Cost is more than $10,000 per item, probably means it is a luxury, so tax will be 25%
Ok, but what if a company is buying 10,000 microchips at $10/microchip? That's not a daily necessity, that's not a luxury, but that seems like a reasonable item to be taxed? Well, there are a couple options for this. First, you could still apply an income tax to companies, just get rid of income tax for individuals. Or, living in the spirit of no income tax whatsoever, you could complete the purpose and cost equation by adding in another variable: units bought. So you end up with situations like this...
This is just an example. But, there could be all sorts of schemes and If-Then conditions for purpose, price, and quantity. And you could have a board that does taxing reviews of items all year long. Even with all this, it would be a million times less complicated than our current system. And it would be a million times more fair as well. People who use society more, take up more resources, pollute more, will ultimately end up spending more and will pay more taxes. The basic necessities would not be taxed much, so poor people would be fine. And if a middle income family wants to purchase a $2000 HDTV, then they have to pay the same taxes as the big boys who make millions a year. I see no problem with that. Sure, it's a larger % of their income, but it's a luxury, so quit whining. The only thing people have a right to whine about is basic necessities. Rent, food, water.
The problem is, California is where a lot of stuff happens. If you think aerospace companies in the USA, what do you think of? California. They are located all over the place, up and down the coast of California. Sure, there are some launch facilities in other states. Washington, Colorado, and Utah have some aerospace in-roads. But the majority of the advanced aerospace technology occurs in California. And their work base is composed of a helluva lot of EEs, MEs, and AEs. Where else is an aerospace engineer that specializes in satellite thermal systems supposed to work? Iowa? New York? Michigan? Wyoming? Right... There are only a few options, and some people don't want to live in the fattest state in the USA or get hit by 20 hurricanes every year, so they end up in California. Some of us are here by choice, others really have no choice. Not that California is a horrible place to live (in fact, it's quite nice), it's just expensive.
On a side note, has anyone else notice that the "Submit" and "Preview" buttons for posting comments have switched since the Slashdot upgrade? I didn't notice it initially, but twice now I have hit submit when I meant to hit preview. And it happens because I'm not actually reading the text on the button, but just remembering that left button = submit, right button = preview. Kinda pisses me off, because I've submitting two comments so far that were not finished. The parent comment and another one.
Lesson to companies and everyone: when you have a f'king user interface in place for 8 years (9? 10?), don't just randomly switch shit around because you feel like it works better this new way. Everyone is used to the old format, just leave it the hell alone.
You know, when I saw this story, I initially thought "Cool, deleted scenes!"
But then I went on and thought "Wait, did I see episode III?"
And I continued thinking... "Of course I saw episode III, I've seen all the Star Wars movies, it would be weird if I hadn't seen them."
But then I headed into the comments, and people were talking about Yoda being exiled and I was like "Wtf? I don't remember that."
Then it dawned on me... "Oh yeh, I didn't see episode III because it looked like it sucked beforehand. And then afterwards, everybody said it sucked. So I just kinda forgot to see it."
And so I posted this comment then closed the Firefox window because I don't care about a sucky movie on DVD.
That, or I'll just borrow it from a friend once they get it as a birthday gift from that crazy aunt that said "Look, there's a movie called Star Wars, I'm sure Jimmy will love this, he is always into these kinds of things."
Oops, I hit submit instead of preview. I wasn't done editing and writing.
Anyways, just to conclude... assuming you are some sort of programmer by trade (if not, we may have to change the following conditions around), do you know how the beam steering mechanism in the back of a CRT works? Not just the theory of electromagnetic forces pointing the beam, but what the exact mechanism looks like, and how the magnetic field is shaped, and the path of current flow through each component?
Or, even more basic, if you were dropped in the middile of nowhere, 100 miles from any civilization, with nothing but the clothes on your back, would you be able to survive? That's effectively what a lot of mountain men did back in the day, although they did have some equipment (a gun or bow, and a few tools), but not much.
Some people could survive, simply because the outdoors is now their hobby. But that is another thing to be thankful for. Since we as humans have separated our tasks, we have become more efficient, and now have free time in which to explore "hobbies".
Although you are right that most people are stupid, that is not the right premise for not understanding cell phones.
People don't understand cell phones because as humans have advanced, we've divided up the required tasks to survive and succeed and assigned them separately to different people. This way, each person can concentrate on their task, become an expert at it, and humans are better off.
Back in the day (1700s, 1800s), your average person knew how to build a home, milk a cow, sow seeds, harvest crops, ride horses, hunt animals, and cook basic meals. Today, a chef doesn't need to know how to hunt. A contractor doesn't need to know how to chop wood. A farmer doesn't need to know how to ride a horse. Because we've split up the tasks and become more efficient.
Some people's entire job is figuring out how to chop wood more efficiently. And they don't need to know anything else to earn a living. But that's a good thing. Since the rest of us take care of their other tasks for him (for something in return), he is able to become a more efficient wood chopper than he would have otherwise.
I think most people who eat calamari are stupid. They either deep fry it to hell and dip it in some sauce, or smother it with garlic, butter, and lemon. In either situation, it's to the point that all you are tasting is the oil and sauce or the garlic, butter, and lemon. And the only reason they eat calamari is tell other people that they eat calamari. Merely for shock value, not for the taste of it at all. In fact, the few times that I've been with others and calamari was served, I tried to remove all the covering to get at the bare calamari and see what it tasted like... and it was basically nothing. Just blandness. It's not like a nice piece of elk or something that has a distinctly different taste than other meats, that you can enjoy as a bare steak (with minimal seasoning).
I had a great professor once that said he never saw a class that actually fit a bell curve. He was great for other reasons, but would never grade to a bell curve. His argument? No matter the class, multiple humps would always exist in the distribution. His reasoning for the humps was that going into a homework, quiz, or test, each student's level of preparedness was not entirely random. There may have been a game the previous night, so 15% of the students may have gotten 1 hour less sleep the night before. So we have a non-random factor that directly affects only a certain portion of the population. Over a 5 year run of the course, these anomalies might be assimilated into a bell curve (excluding a year with a natural disaster or something). But in the short run of a single instance of the course, attempting to squeeze the distribution under a bell only serves to distort the real performance of the class to make the statistics look better.
Just looking around on google, it seems that there are quite a few professors around that have realized this as well.
Depends on the type of engineering you are talking about. When you're talking about getting PE certification, that's more indicative of someone becoming a structural engineer and giving advice directly to contractors or homeowners about the structure in their houses. Or becoming a water works engineer and advising the local township on pump sizing and laying pipes. A PE certification is really only applicable in those kinds of situations where you give advice directly to the end consumer, where your decision is not reviewed by boards of peers, and it is not subject to Preliminary Design Reviews or Critical Design Reviews.
If you're going to work designing parts on fighter jets, a PE certification doesn't do squat for ya. Because you usually have 20 people looking over your shoulder and it's quite obvious if you have a major screw-up. The goal here is not to design something that'll work at all (like a PE does), but to make the most efficient design possible.
Someone's house and a fighter jet are opposite ends of the spectrum, and as you move between the ends, a PE cert applies less or more. Because in the end, does it really matter if some guy at Los Alamos or Lawrence that is designing nuclear weapons has a PE cert? Not really.
Anyone check out WSC's usage of the Google Map api? Worst. Implementation. Ever. The thing is so f'ing broken and buggy. It tries to crash Firefox every 2 seconds. Gives 10 different errors whenever you click somewhere. Piece of utter shit. Ticks me off, because it looks like the only place where you can really see the locations of the cars.
I realize the point of such increases without calling them increases would be to keep up with inflation. However, the point still remains, only in congress could an increase in a budget be called a decrease. Sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact: Religious fundamentalism exists in America, and is growing.
... so are Islamic Fundamentalists, so are Jewish fundamentalists, so are science fundamentalists.
...
... so show me these other "several areas".
... that's more than we spend on defense.
True. Just to be clear, Christian fundamentalists are growing
Fact: Religions fundamentalists, because they are (by definition) vocal and passionate, command a very strong political powerbase.
I wouldn't characterize it as "very strong", but yes, they do command some political base. But so do white supremacists, black supremacists, Neo Nazi groups
Fact: The Bush administration, more than any president in recent memory, caters to and sympathises with religious fundamentalists.
I'd agree with "sympathises", but you need to define "caters". Because the period of the Bush presidency has represented one of the largest drawbacks of religion in government in America's history. There have been numerous court cases resulting in repeal of various religious connections in governments. I'll be curious to read your response and look over the references you will provide to support your argument.
Fact: There is a long-standing and fundamental disconnect between religion and science, and while it can be and has been crossed many times, it is very present. At the core, religion teaches you to venerate the unknown, and treat it as unknowable, while science teaches you to investigate it.
Sorry, but you're just wrong here. If anything, religion teaches investigation, searching for truth, and recognizing reality as much as science. Oh, and I don't think you truly understand the definition of "venerate".
Fact: Religious motivations have already affected public policy in several areas, including science.
I'll acknowledge the federal funding for stem cell issue
The far left has practically no political power in the US.
Right, and that's why the United States spends over $0.5 Trillion dollars a year on social security
It is a simple fact that the religious right has a great deal of political power, and they have an opposition to many forms of science, and that is affecting the quality of scientific education in America. The whole "intelligent design" thing, an exercise in justification and hypocrisy if there ever was one is only one example.
Well, as I've already alluded to, it's not such a "simple fact", and whatever power they may have, it's not a "great deal of political power". It's as if you are trying to compare the "religious right" to the oil industry, or the defense industry. Sorry buddy, it's just not like that - you're just lying to yourself. And tell me, if the whole "intelligent design" is really an example, where is the legislation to support it? I never saw a bill passed through congress mandating intelligent design.
The simple fact of the matter is that religion doesn't really impact our science spending much at all. It's more likely due to massive social works projects, and all of the various industries that have their lobbyists in D.C. When new money is available, everyone tries to grab at it as quickly as possible, and science doesn't have as many lobbyists as the defense industry.
As much as I would like to agree with you, there have been several instances where I noticed an ad (online, TV, magazine, whatever) and found the substance of the ad interesting. I followed through, researched the company/product/etc and ended up finding out about a new technology, innovation, or product that I never knew was out there. I'm ok with ads as long as they are tasteful, non-intrusive, and limited. Unfortunately, most ads obey none of those rules. Having 5 minutes of tv ads embedded inbetween and around two 8 minute sections of content is not limited. Having the tv ad volume at 130% of the content volume is intrusive. And having P Diddy run around on a golf course yelling "Yo biatches, check dis bling bling." is usually not tasteful (unless you're trying to sell ring tones on MTV perhaps). Oh yeh, and I hate it when car ads bastardize yet another classic song or new hit. Although I do like the Xyience ads on SpikeTV with the sexy women in bikinis doing exercises.
Comcast needs to implement a PPV system for regular TV. Charge $10/month to have the service and box. Then charge like $0.25/hour (or a pricing scheme depending on the cost/popularity, maybe $0.50/hour for HD content). I'm sure your average moron would gobble up enough content to make Comcast more money. But at least I could just pay $20 / month for the little bit of content I want to see on Discovery HD. I don't even have DTV or HDTV right now, just regular basic cable which is about 75 channels. And I don't even know why most of that crap is on there. I watch only a handful of the channels - FoodTV, Discovery, SpikeTV, AETV - and even then half of their programming is crap, I catch like 1 or 2 shows on each channel.
Have you ever leafed through Rolling Stone? I signed up for a free subscription online just for the hell of it. When it arrived in the mail I opened it up and start leafing through. The first couple pages were ads, kept leafing. More ads, kepts leafing. More ads. After about 15 pages I started leafing backwards because I thought I had missed the table of contents. Nope, kept leafing forwards. Finally arrived at the table of contents at like page 20. At that point I thought to myself "wow, I'm glad I don't pay for this crap" and chucked the magazine.
Exactly. My first reacton when I saw that service would be cut off was "oh, crap, my bosses and several coworkers are gonna be pissed". They spend their lives bouncing from meeting to meeting and the only way anyone gets hold of them is through their BB. And once their service is cut off, they're gonna raise hell with the BB reps. And this part of the company has nothing to do with IP, IT, or CS. Once we get all those related departments involved ... maybe we could have a ruckus on our hands.
Ah, ok. I was thinking in the back of my mind that Google Earth and Google Maps used the same source data. Guess not. And I don't have Google Earth on this computer, so I couldn't do a quick check even if I thought they used different source data!
Ok, I read the wikipedia information on Tier 1 and Peering, so I present the following scenario. What's to stop Cogent or Level 3 from peering with AT&T, who is also peering with the other guy, and having traffic bridged through AT&T? Doesn't a peer of your peer give you access to both peer's networks? I'm wondering this, because I don't think there is anyway all the Tier 1 providers would have disagreements with every other Tier 1 provider at the same time to keep everyone partitioned. In the long run, if you had enough disagreements with all but 1 other Tier 1 provider, then you could have a problem. Because you effectively (sort of) become a Tier 2 provider since all your traffic will need to route through the 1 peer you have, and I'm sure they'll catch on to that and charge you up the wazoo for it. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Problem is, despite the cost, it seems that everyone is moving here. They just finished a project to expand US-101 in the Bay area over the last few years, and the new expansion is already filled over capacity. There are 1000s upon 1000s of new homes going up in new housing developments all over the place, and houses are still snatched off the market within a couple days of being listed; and usually for more than the asking price.
I really don't complain about the situation, I was mainly trying to give legitimacy to other's complaints. I've accepted the fact that I won't buy a house in California (not that I really even want to live here for the long term anyhow, it's quite crowded). So I'm saving up until I can afford to leave my job here and take up a position somewhere else.
Dunno what everyone is talking about. When I go to maps.google.com it shows up as Taiwan.
Boeing has a commercial plant where they pump out loads of commercial airliners. In the aerospace industry, that's called grunt work. It's not advanved technology. The last major innovation to come out of Boeing's commercial development was the 777 ... in 1995, 10 years ago. And even then, all their engineers did was design the same thing that's been designed 50 times before, but with a little more finesse this time around. If you want a large concentration of national labs, research facilities, advanced technology centers, test facilities, and technology companies to pool from, you go to California, not Washington. Even though, like I said before, Washington does have some cool stuff going on.
That's actually very easy to get around. And that is the most common argument against a single sale tax. The solution is to just tax items based on their value (or use).
...
... Purpose = daily food. Price = $0.50. Quantity/year = 150. ... Purpose = 0%. Price = 0%. Quantity/year = 0%. Total = 0%.
... Purpose = luxury. Price = $100.00. ... Purpose = 10% Price = 1%. Quantity/year = 0% Total = 11%.
Examples:
Food, usage = eating, so tax will be 0%.
Ferrari, usage = extreme luxury, so tax will be 25%
Ok, but that presents problems on how to classify items. Is a caviar luncheon considered food or luxury? Well, we can also introduce a per cost system.
Cost is less than $5 per item, probably means it is some sort of daily necessity, so tax will be 0%.
Cost is more than $10,000 per item, probably means it is a luxury, so tax will be 25%
Ok, but what if a company is buying 10,000 microchips at $10/microchip? That's not a daily necessity, that's not a luxury, but that seems like a reasonable item to be taxed? Well, there are a couple options for this. First, you could still apply an income tax to companies, just get rid of income tax for individuals. Or, living in the spirit of no income tax whatsoever, you could complete the purpose and cost equation by adding in another variable: units bought. So you end up with situations like this
Yogurt Cup
Tax breakdown
Game Cube
Quantity/year = 1.
Tax breakdown
This is just an example. But, there could be all sorts of schemes and If-Then conditions for purpose, price, and quantity. And you could have a board that does taxing reviews of items all year long. Even with all this, it would be a million times less complicated than our current system. And it would be a million times more fair as well. People who use society more, take up more resources, pollute more, will ultimately end up spending more and will pay more taxes. The basic necessities would not be taxed much, so poor people would be fine. And if a middle income family wants to purchase a $2000 HDTV, then they have to pay the same taxes as the big boys who make millions a year. I see no problem with that. Sure, it's a larger % of their income, but it's a luxury, so quit whining. The only thing people have a right to whine about is basic necessities. Rent, food, water.
The problem is, California is where a lot of stuff happens. If you think aerospace companies in the USA, what do you think of? California. They are located all over the place, up and down the coast of California. Sure, there are some launch facilities in other states. Washington, Colorado, and Utah have some aerospace in-roads. But the majority of the advanced aerospace technology occurs in California. And their work base is composed of a helluva lot of EEs, MEs, and AEs. Where else is an aerospace engineer that specializes in satellite thermal systems supposed to work? Iowa? New York? Michigan? Wyoming? Right ... There are only a few options, and some people don't want to live in the fattest state in the USA or get hit by 20 hurricanes every year, so they end up in California. Some of us are here by choice, others really have no choice. Not that California is a horrible place to live (in fact, it's quite nice), it's just expensive.
"$100 windup-powered laptop targeted at children in developing nations"
Forget that! I want one. And I'll pay $105 for it.
On a side note, has anyone else notice that the "Submit" and "Preview" buttons for posting comments have switched since the Slashdot upgrade? I didn't notice it initially, but twice now I have hit submit when I meant to hit preview. And it happens because I'm not actually reading the text on the button, but just remembering that left button = submit, right button = preview. Kinda pisses me off, because I've submitting two comments so far that were not finished. The parent comment and another one.
Lesson to companies and everyone: when you have a f'king user interface in place for 8 years (9? 10?), don't just randomly switch shit around because you feel like it works better this new way. Everyone is used to the old format, just leave it the hell alone.
That's very true. It is only as efficient as the process of combining our individual efforts.
You know, when I saw this story, I initially thought "Cool, deleted scenes!"
... "Of course I saw episode III, I've seen all the Star Wars movies, it would be weird if I hadn't seen them."
... "Oh yeh, I didn't see episode III because it looked like it sucked beforehand. And then afterwards, everybody said it sucked. So I just kinda forgot to see it."
But then I went on and thought "Wait, did I see episode III?"
And I continued thinking
But then I headed into the comments, and people were talking about Yoda being exiled and I was like "Wtf? I don't remember that."
Then it dawned on me
And so I posted this comment then closed the Firefox window because I don't care about a sucky movie on DVD.
That, or I'll just borrow it from a friend once they get it as a birthday gift from that crazy aunt that said "Look, there's a movie called Star Wars, I'm sure Jimmy will love this, he is always into these kinds of things."
Oops, I hit submit instead of preview. I wasn't done editing and writing.
... assuming you are some sort of programmer by trade (if not, we may have to change the following conditions around), do you know how the beam steering mechanism in the back of a CRT works? Not just the theory of electromagnetic forces pointing the beam, but what the exact mechanism looks like, and how the magnetic field is shaped, and the path of current flow through each component?
Anyways, just to conclude
Or, even more basic, if you were dropped in the middile of nowhere, 100 miles from any civilization, with nothing but the clothes on your back, would you be able to survive? That's effectively what a lot of mountain men did back in the day, although they did have some equipment (a gun or bow, and a few tools), but not much.
Some people could survive, simply because the outdoors is now their hobby. But that is another thing to be thankful for. Since we as humans have separated our tasks, we have become more efficient, and now have free time in which to explore "hobbies".
Although you are right that most people are stupid, that is not the right premise for not understanding cell phones.
People don't understand cell phones because as humans have advanced, we've divided up the required tasks to survive and succeed and assigned them separately to different people. This way, each person can concentrate on their task, become an expert at it, and humans are better off.
Back in the day (1700s, 1800s), your average person knew how to build a home, milk a cow, sow seeds, harvest crops, ride horses, hunt animals, and cook basic meals. Today, a chef doesn't need to know how to hunt. A contractor doesn't need to know how to chop wood. A farmer doesn't need to know how to ride a horse. Because we've split up the tasks and become more efficient.
Some people's entire job is figuring out how to chop wood more efficiently. And they don't need to know anything else to earn a living. But that's a good thing. Since the rest of us take care of their other tasks for him (for something in return), he is able to become a more efficient wood chopper than he would have otherwise.
For most topics ...
Statistically, more than half of the people you meet are below the average.
Unless that topic happens to be "What's on TV tonight?"
That would be a "Hey Day" thankyouverymuch.
I think most people who eat calamari are stupid. They either deep fry it to hell and dip it in some sauce, or smother it with garlic, butter, and lemon. In either situation, it's to the point that all you are tasting is the oil and sauce or the garlic, butter, and lemon. And the only reason they eat calamari is tell other people that they eat calamari. Merely for shock value, not for the taste of it at all. In fact, the few times that I've been with others and calamari was served, I tried to remove all the covering to get at the bare calamari and see what it tasted like ... and it was basically nothing. Just blandness. It's not like a nice piece of elk or something that has a distinctly different taste than other meats, that you can enjoy as a bare steak (with minimal seasoning).
I had a great professor once that said he never saw a class that actually fit a bell curve. He was great for other reasons, but would never grade to a bell curve. His argument? No matter the class, multiple humps would always exist in the distribution. His reasoning for the humps was that going into a homework, quiz, or test, each student's level of preparedness was not entirely random. There may have been a game the previous night, so 15% of the students may have gotten 1 hour less sleep the night before. So we have a non-random factor that directly affects only a certain portion of the population. Over a 5 year run of the course, these anomalies might be assimilated into a bell curve (excluding a year with a natural disaster or something). But in the short run of a single instance of the course, attempting to squeeze the distribution under a bell only serves to distort the real performance of the class to make the statistics look better.
Just looking around on google, it seems that there are quite a few professors around that have realized this as well.
Depends on the type of engineering you are talking about. When you're talking about getting PE certification, that's more indicative of someone becoming a structural engineer and giving advice directly to contractors or homeowners about the structure in their houses. Or becoming a water works engineer and advising the local township on pump sizing and laying pipes. A PE certification is really only applicable in those kinds of situations where you give advice directly to the end consumer, where your decision is not reviewed by boards of peers, and it is not subject to Preliminary Design Reviews or Critical Design Reviews.
If you're going to work designing parts on fighter jets, a PE certification doesn't do squat for ya. Because you usually have 20 people looking over your shoulder and it's quite obvious if you have a major screw-up. The goal here is not to design something that'll work at all (like a PE does), but to make the most efficient design possible.
Someone's house and a fighter jet are opposite ends of the spectrum, and as you move between the ends, a PE cert applies less or more. Because in the end, does it really matter if some guy at Los Alamos or Lawrence that is designing nuclear weapons has a PE cert? Not really.
Anyone check out WSC's usage of the Google Map api? Worst. Implementation. Ever. The thing is so f'ing broken and buggy. It tries to crash Firefox every 2 seconds. Gives 10 different errors whenever you click somewhere. Piece of utter shit. Ticks me off, because it looks like the only place where you can really see the locations of the cars.
I realize the point of such increases without calling them increases would be to keep up with inflation. However, the point still remains, only in congress could an increase in a budget be called a decrease. Sheesh.