Arrogance was a major reason I didn't go work for a large software development company out of college. Everybody there thought they were God's gift to humanity regardless of their true proficiency. It gets old fast. In my experience, you will be highly sought after if you can rid yourself of that arrogant attitude and treat people as if you are their humble servant. Here are some tips:
Think about all the things you don't know. Can you build a house? Can you engineer DNA? Etc.
Consider that others may come from a much worse background than you and may not have had the same opportunities or training.
Purposely associate yourself with non tech people on a regular basis before you're too far gone
Shouldn't a private company be afforded the freedom to offer a scholarship to whomever they please? On the other hand, I do question all the government sponsored programs designed to get more women in STEM fields. How many government programs target getting men in the family & consumer sciences fields or other areas where men are the underrepresented group? There's a kind of double-standard.
There's also the obvious possibility that, by and large, women just don't WANT to be in the STEM fields as much as men. Not because they aren't able or aren't smart enough, but because they don't have the desire. My wife was a 4.0 student and is very smart, but has absolutely no interest in programming. She'd probably make a better programmer than many men as she's an excellent problem solver. Why spend so much money trying to lure people into a career that they don't desire in the first place?
Reading your reply reminds me of the same mental calculations I was doing when deciding whether or not to purchase our Jeep:). My experience is that the real life numbers are a bit different, though. So I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is known for it's horrendous fuel economy. Trailblazers and the like typically do better. On the highway I get 19-20mpg (we just took a 4,000 mile trip and the overall average was something like 19.4). In town it's more like 14-15, but in town for me is never going over 30 mph and quite a bit of idling. Before the Jeep we had a 98 Camry 5spd that got about 25mpg in town and could get 33mpg on the highway. We average about 10,000 miles per year, which is probably about half in town and half highway. Using the 20mpg and 15mpg for the Jeep and figuring 5,000 miles each city & highway, the camry would use about 351 gallons in a year and the Jeep 583 gallons, a difference of 232 gallons. This past year I've been paying around $3.00 - $3.20 per gallon, so figure $3.10 and it's $719 more per year, which is a lot closer to the $500 mark. But our old camry got better fuel economy than most compact cars because it was a 5spd. So in 10 years, assuming gas prices don't skyrocket, we're looking at an extra $7,000 - $8,000 in gas. Add that to the the $7,000 and I've spent $15,000 in total. I could have purchased a new hybrid for $30,000+ but still would not come out ahead (unless gas surges to $10+ / gallon). Plus, the camry gave me back problems because it was very uncomfortable for a tall person. So I guess you could somehow factor in medical troubles. Add in all the advantages of the Jeep I mentioned earlier and it was almost a no-brainer.
I'll admit that there are a lot of people who really don't NEED an SUV. But I think that's a hard judgement to make. I really don't NEED an SUV. I don't even NEED a car. I could quit my job, live in a homeless shelter, and draw unemployment. In that case, there's very little I'd need. But I don't WANT to do that. And that's not a viable way for our society to survive. I can afford to drive my Jeep for now and it's been very helpful in many ways. I'm not generally speaking very wasteful. I save paper by doing things electronically. I save gas by burning wood fires. I conserve electricity, etc. I just don't think we should pick on the "SUV" crowd. They sell well for a reason. Perhaps we should be finding ways of making more efficient or even electric SUV & light trucks. That's what a majority of Americans seem to want, especially in more rural areas.
TV's are a complete waste of time and resources. So are latte's. So is eating out. There are tons of things that people could consider a waste of time and resources. I bet I could find quite a few things you do that I think are a waste. But I don't judge you for it. You're free to spend your money and time on the things you enjoy while others may wish to spend their efforts differently. I purchased an older SUV (Grand Cherokee) because I can't afford anything remotely new and because I like the storage space. I like being able to tow 6,500 lb. trailers, which I've done on several occasions. I like the occasional off-roading. And I like being able to climb hills covered in snow and ice. So for all these things combined I sacrifice 5-10 mpg and probably spend about $500 more per year in gas (at most). But had I bought a $30,000 car instead of a $7,000 one, I'd never have recovered that in gas savings (not to mention I could never afford that). Plus it wouldn't accomplish what I wanted it to. If you can make me an electric SUV that does all those things and that I can buy used for under $8,000, I'd take it in a heartbeat!
This idea that global warming is caused primarily by humans is speculative at best. In the past 120 years, the average surface temperature has only risen 1.2 degrees F in North America. Because measuring has not been as accurate as it is now, this may not be a totally accurate number. Plus, most of this can be attributed to things not caused by human action such as retreated glaciers, volcanos, etc. Do we really know for sure that WE are causing global warming?
Also, think of all the negatives of fighting this perceivedly harmful warming. One, the poor will become poorer because they won't be able to afford the latest fuel efficient cars, furnaces, etc. We just recently purchased a "new" (used) car and found that it was manufactured to meet california emissions standards, though we do not live in California nor was it manufactured there. Because of this, a simple $50 oxygen sensor that needs replacing is now going to cost $150. On top of that, it has not 1 but 2 catalytic converters, which are another expensive part to replace. Then think about the benefits of global warming. Warmer weather means a longer growing season, which could be a boon to agritculture in 3rd world countries. Also, more people die from cold each year than from heat, so a warmer planet could mean less deaths due to temperature.
Of course, these are assuming the warming doesn't eventually result in some sort of catastrophe, but I think the evidence for this is very shaky at best. Don't believe everything the media is spitting out currently. I think this whole catastrophe theory is a very politically motivated issue with a little bit of science behind it.
I wish I had some MOD points because this is a very important observation. I've been monitoring sites like CNN, Fox News, BBC and others and it is amazing how some extremely important stories will be completely passed-over by one or the other sites because they do not support their agenda. About the only way a person can get any semblence of reasonable news coverage today is to monitor both liberal & conservative news sources plus include a healthy dose of blogs, which oftentimes get a lot closer to the truth if you can try to read them without your own political biases.
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
I think you are mistaken in this case. It was not the legislative but the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records. While the legislators are not to be excused, the violations of our constitution today occur far more often in a judiciary that is increasingly acting according to personal opinions rather than to the intent of the law.
Uh, it's *because* we have a justice system that only innocent people are on the list. After all, by the time someone is legally guilty he's in jail or deported.
Whoah, the implication of your statement is that innocent people would not be on the list if we didn't have a justice system. What would it be like to live in a society with no justice at all? That is, I could come and take your car and you would have no right to do anything about it. Or I could kill someone and there would be no legal way of making me pay for that crime. Obviously we have a system we call a "justice system." I am simply saying that it isn't really a "justice" system because it is not JUST.
Dude, that's crap. I've gotten speeding tickets. I f___ hate them. But the reality is that lots of people need to share roads and the only way to get certain people to behave in a reasonably sociable manner is to penalize bad behavior.
Wow, so you think no officer cares more about his quota than justice!? How many examples need I provide? A friend who is an ex-cop has provided me with plenty, though I could stick to my own. One lady I know has been pulled over for speeding 10+ times but never got a ticket. She intentionally/knowingly sped but was good at crying and the officers always let her off. Yet another friend NEVER speeds, never had any tickets, and accidentally was going a few mph over on a downhill and didn't realize it. BAM, Ticket, no warning! Now in looking at these two examples together, can you honestly say that justice is being exercised? But my example was actually dealing with stealing and how it is unjust for the criminal not to pay back the one from whom he stole. Simply punishing somebody by throwing them in jail is not just because they have not righted their wrong. Obviously a wrong cannot always be repaid/righted (speeding, murder, etc.) but where it can be it should be and yet our so-called "justice" system does not seem to care at all about righting the one who was wronged.
Very well put! Exactly what I'm trying to get at. The other benefit would be greatly reduced taxes since criminals would be paying for their own system and some. I don't think it would work without some motivation to want to chose the working outside of prison option, though. Prison would have to be only where the "really bad ones" go, and would have to be more like a concentration camp except where people are well fed and treated humanely. But they would be forced to work and shot if they try to escape or attack anybody. I would imagine that such a system would also greatly reduce crimes of stealing.
I never said the treatment was fantastic nor do I argue that now. I simply made that point that it is not JUST. Our ideas of what is just are so warped that we think putting somebody in a cage would be just recompense for them stealing $100,000. What about the person from whom that money was stolen? Is it just for them to not receive the money back? Or is it just for others to pay them back (via insurance companies)? I say, NO. Justice demands that the one who stole it repay it, and not just repay it but repay it 3 - 4 times again. But in America we just throw them into increasingly overcrowded prisons, spend more money building more prisons (which are some of the most expensive structures to build) and never require true recompense. So in the end, I get money stolen from me and I then pay taxes to "punish" those who stole it. Please explain to me how that is just!
Because they must pay it back 3 times - $6,000 and are under strict rules and a timeline in which to pay it. They would basically be on a more strict form of probation where if they didn't pay back 3x (or 4x, whatever) within a set period of time, then they must go to prison. Except this is a prison nobody wants to go to. You must labor all day (chain gangs? I don't know, but this would need to be thought out) and guards cary big guns and know how to use them. Yes, they are fed and given an uncomfortable bed to sleep on, but they are made to work.
OK, but is that even justice? How does that make recompense for the crime committed? Instead of locking somebody up for stealing $2,000 worth of equipment, they should be forced to work a job until they can pay the offended party back 2 or 3-fold. No need to lock them up, just use modern GPS tracking technology. If they are unwilling to work or try to escape, THEN stick them in the hardcore prison where guards are trained to actually shoot people who try to get out or get in fights, etc. Make that a place that nobody wants to be, and even then make them do some sort of labor (I'm not thinking concentration camp, but probably something closer to that than what we have now). Oh, and the person who committed the crime should be made to pay for the court / legal fees as well. Perhaps our justice system could start paying for itself.
What would you expect? It's not as if we have a true justice system here in America. A criminal breaks into a home and causes $2,000 worth of damage and what do we do? Feed him and take car of him in a jail while the homeowner is left to clean up the mess and insurance money (paid by the homeowner) takes care of the losses. Or, more often than not, simply let the criminal go with a warning. Then we spend our money falsely accusing innocent people just to keep up a "quota". Greed then drives what we like to think of as justice. It happens more than you think: e.g. officer's needing quotas for traffic violations & arrests and so caring more about their quota than justice in a certain situation.
I know, it's not all bad and there are cops and agents that really DO care about justice. It's just the system that is messed up...
How can matter come from non-matter? How is this even conceivable? The best explanation I've heard from philosophers is that there was an eternal matter (that has always been / had no beginning). If that is true, how can science ever prove that? The next question would be, how can life, rationality, and existence come from matter alone? What is matter? Are these even scientific questions?
Aside from the annoyance of all the requirements, this was a somewhat interesting test and it only took about 5 minutes to take. A few of the ones I got wrong I realized right away (for some they gave the exact same sound again). I could see how doing this for a while *might* increase our mental fucntion. Then again, I can think of a lot better was of doing that..
The original intent of separation of church and state was to ensure that there would be no state mandated religion. That's what happens in communist countries where there is an official state church and any who wish to have religion must believe as the state church or they are persecuted. Look at China and the former Soviet Union.
Atheism is then as much a religion as Islam, Christianity, and others. I find it ironic that the ACLU in fighting for separation of church and state is actually fighting against it by trying to keep the atheistic view of evolution at the core of our science curriculums. Intelligent design is such an open ended idea that it could even include the possibility of evolution that started with a creator. By requiring teachers to suggest that the atheistic view of evolution is not 100% fact, the school board is actually trying to uphold the idea of separation of church and state.
True, but the parent was claiming "overwhelming" evidence. Claiming that something is merely "possible" and might be shown eventually is not overwhelming evidence. Sure, there are other things that seem to align with an evolutionary system, but this piece of evidence is the crux on which the whole system rests. If it is impossible for genetic information to increase then evolution as we describe it is impossible. And the fact that in all the countless scientific experiments that have been done this vastly important process is never observed, is quite overwhelming to me!
I think you are mis-representing many well-educated and scientists who are creationists. The one simple piece of evidence that they keep asking for and has not yet been found is an observable example of a mutation or genetic variation that has actually increased the amount of genetic information in an organism. A vast amount of such mutations would be necessary for evolution to hold water. But not a single one has yet been demonstrated. The question was put to Richard Dawkins who was dumbfounded and reverted to the old - "well it takes a lot of time, you know" argument. You can see it here.
The whole basis for Christianity is in the first few chapters of Genesis. To sum up, God created man perfectly in his image. He created the world and afterward saw that it "was very good". Man fell into sin and thus deserves condemnation and eternal separation from God. BUT, God promised a savior from that separation, Jesus. So a Christian believes that Jesus saved him/her from condemnation and separation from God.
Now, if you believe macro-evolution, then you must believe that there was death and suffering BEFORE sin entered the world. You must also believe that God created a world full of death, disease, and suffering and said that it was "very good". It goes deeper. Man had to evolve over a period of millions of years of death and suffering. So, what then did sin bring into the world?
I would challenge you to look into this matter more. Despite what evolutionists tell you, there is a plethora of information about current creation research on the web. Try Answers In Genesis for starters.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't a private company be afforded the freedom to offer a scholarship to whomever they please? On the other hand, I do question all the government sponsored programs designed to get more women in STEM fields. How many government programs target getting men in the family & consumer sciences fields or other areas where men are the underrepresented group? There's a kind of double-standard. There's also the obvious possibility that, by and large, women just don't WANT to be in the STEM fields as much as men. Not because they aren't able or aren't smart enough, but because they don't have the desire. My wife was a 4.0 student and is very smart, but has absolutely no interest in programming. She'd probably make a better programmer than many men as she's an excellent problem solver. Why spend so much money trying to lure people into a career that they don't desire in the first place?
All your domain are belong to U.S.!
OK, then I call the unix timestamp patent! I'll be out until 1326267061 and not a second later.
I'll admit that there are a lot of people who really don't NEED an SUV. But I think that's a hard judgement to make. I really don't NEED an SUV. I don't even NEED a car. I could quit my job, live in a homeless shelter, and draw unemployment. In that case, there's very little I'd need. But I don't WANT to do that. And that's not a viable way for our society to survive. I can afford to drive my Jeep for now and it's been very helpful in many ways. I'm not generally speaking very wasteful. I save paper by doing things electronically. I save gas by burning wood fires. I conserve electricity, etc. I just don't think we should pick on the "SUV" crowd. They sell well for a reason. Perhaps we should be finding ways of making more efficient or even electric SUV & light trucks. That's what a majority of Americans seem to want, especially in more rural areas.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
TV's are a complete waste of time and resources. So are latte's. So is eating out. There are tons of things that people could consider a waste of time and resources. I bet I could find quite a few things you do that I think are a waste. But I don't judge you for it. You're free to spend your money and time on the things you enjoy while others may wish to spend their efforts differently. I purchased an older SUV (Grand Cherokee) because I can't afford anything remotely new and because I like the storage space. I like being able to tow 6,500 lb. trailers, which I've done on several occasions. I like the occasional off-roading. And I like being able to climb hills covered in snow and ice. So for all these things combined I sacrifice 5-10 mpg and probably spend about $500 more per year in gas (at most). But had I bought a $30,000 car instead of a $7,000 one, I'd never have recovered that in gas savings (not to mention I could never afford that). Plus it wouldn't accomplish what I wanted it to. If you can make me an electric SUV that does all those things and that I can buy used for under $8,000, I'd take it in a heartbeat!
This idea that global warming is caused primarily by humans is speculative at best. In the past 120 years, the average surface temperature has only risen 1.2 degrees F in North America. Because measuring has not been as accurate as it is now, this may not be a totally accurate number. Plus, most of this can be attributed to things not caused by human action such as retreated glaciers, volcanos, etc. Do we really know for sure that WE are causing global warming?
Also, think of all the negatives of fighting this perceivedly harmful warming. One, the poor will become poorer because they won't be able to afford the latest fuel efficient cars, furnaces, etc. We just recently purchased a "new" (used) car and found that it was manufactured to meet california emissions standards, though we do not live in California nor was it manufactured there. Because of this, a simple $50 oxygen sensor that needs replacing is now going to cost $150. On top of that, it has not 1 but 2 catalytic converters, which are another expensive part to replace. Then think about the benefits of global warming. Warmer weather means a longer growing season, which could be a boon to agritculture in 3rd world countries. Also, more people die from cold each year than from heat, so a warmer planet could mean less deaths due to temperature.
Of course, these are assuming the warming doesn't eventually result in some sort of catastrophe, but I think the evidence for this is very shaky at best. Don't believe everything the media is spitting out currently. I think this whole catastrophe theory is a very politically motivated issue with a little bit of science behind it.
I wish I had some MOD points because this is a very important observation. I've been monitoring sites like CNN, Fox News, BBC and others and it is amazing how some extremely important stories will be completely passed-over by one or the other sites because they do not support their agenda. About the only way a person can get any semblence of reasonable news coverage today is to monitor both liberal & conservative news sources plus include a healthy dose of blogs, which oftentimes get a lot closer to the truth if you can try to read them without your own political biases.
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
I think you are mistaken in this case. It was not the legislative but the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records. While the legislators are not to be excused, the violations of our constitution today occur far more often in a judiciary that is increasingly acting according to personal opinions rather than to the intent of the law.
Uh, it's *because* we have a justice system that only innocent people are on the list. After all, by the time someone is legally guilty he's in jail or deported.
Whoah, the implication of your statement is that innocent people would not be on the list if we didn't have a justice system. What would it be like to live in a society with no justice at all? That is, I could come and take your car and you would have no right to do anything about it. Or I could kill someone and there would be no legal way of making me pay for that crime. Obviously we have a system we call a "justice system." I am simply saying that it isn't really a "justice" system because it is not JUST.
Dude, that's crap. I've gotten speeding tickets. I f___ hate them. But the reality is that lots of people need to share roads and the only way to get certain people to behave in a reasonably sociable manner is to penalize bad behavior.
Wow, so you think no officer cares more about his quota than justice!? How many examples need I provide? A friend who is an ex-cop has provided me with plenty, though I could stick to my own. One lady I know has been pulled over for speeding 10+ times but never got a ticket. She intentionally/knowingly sped but was good at crying and the officers always let her off. Yet another friend NEVER speeds, never had any tickets, and accidentally was going a few mph over on a downhill and didn't realize it. BAM, Ticket, no warning! Now in looking at these two examples together, can you honestly say that justice is being exercised? But my example was actually dealing with stealing and how it is unjust for the criminal not to pay back the one from whom he stole. Simply punishing somebody by throwing them in jail is not just because they have not righted their wrong. Obviously a wrong cannot always be repaid/righted (speeding, murder, etc.) but where it can be it should be and yet our so-called "justice" system does not seem to care at all about righting the one who was wronged.
Very well put! Exactly what I'm trying to get at. The other benefit would be greatly reduced taxes since criminals would be paying for their own system and some. I don't think it would work without some motivation to want to chose the working outside of prison option, though. Prison would have to be only where the "really bad ones" go, and would have to be more like a concentration camp except where people are well fed and treated humanely. But they would be forced to work and shot if they try to escape or attack anybody. I would imagine that such a system would also greatly reduce crimes of stealing.
I never said the treatment was fantastic nor do I argue that now. I simply made that point that it is not JUST. Our ideas of what is just are so warped that we think putting somebody in a cage would be just recompense for them stealing $100,000. What about the person from whom that money was stolen? Is it just for them to not receive the money back? Or is it just for others to pay them back (via insurance companies)? I say, NO. Justice demands that the one who stole it repay it, and not just repay it but repay it 3 - 4 times again. But in America we just throw them into increasingly overcrowded prisons, spend more money building more prisons (which are some of the most expensive structures to build) and never require true recompense. So in the end, I get money stolen from me and I then pay taxes to "punish" those who stole it. Please explain to me how that is just!
Because they must pay it back 3 times - $6,000 and are under strict rules and a timeline in which to pay it. They would basically be on a more strict form of probation where if they didn't pay back 3x (or 4x, whatever) within a set period of time, then they must go to prison. Except this is a prison nobody wants to go to. You must labor all day (chain gangs? I don't know, but this would need to be thought out) and guards cary big guns and know how to use them. Yes, they are fed and given an uncomfortable bed to sleep on, but they are made to work.
OK, but is that even justice? How does that make recompense for the crime committed? Instead of locking somebody up for stealing $2,000 worth of equipment, they should be forced to work a job until they can pay the offended party back 2 or 3-fold. No need to lock them up, just use modern GPS tracking technology. If they are unwilling to work or try to escape, THEN stick them in the hardcore prison where guards are trained to actually shoot people who try to get out or get in fights, etc. Make that a place that nobody wants to be, and even then make them do some sort of labor (I'm not thinking concentration camp, but probably something closer to that than what we have now). Oh, and the person who committed the crime should be made to pay for the court / legal fees as well. Perhaps our justice system could start paying for itself.
What would you expect? It's not as if we have a true justice system here in America. A criminal breaks into a home and causes $2,000 worth of damage and what do we do? Feed him and take car of him in a jail while the homeowner is left to clean up the mess and insurance money (paid by the homeowner) takes care of the losses. Or, more often than not, simply let the criminal go with a warning. Then we spend our money falsely accusing innocent people just to keep up a "quota". Greed then drives what we like to think of as justice. It happens more than you think: e.g. officer's needing quotas for traffic violations & arrests and so caring more about their quota than justice in a certain situation. I know, it's not all bad and there are cops and agents that really DO care about justice. It's just the system that is messed up...
How can matter come from non-matter? How is this even conceivable? The best explanation I've heard from philosophers is that there was an eternal matter (that has always been / had no beginning). If that is true, how can science ever prove that? The next question would be, how can life, rationality, and existence come from matter alone? What is matter? Are these even scientific questions?
Aside from the annoyance of all the requirements, this was a somewhat interesting test and it only took about 5 minutes to take. A few of the ones I got wrong I realized right away (for some they gave the exact same sound again). I could see how doing this for a while *might* increase our mental fucntion. Then again, I can think of a lot better was of doing that..
We are getting closer to the end of the world every day. That is true no matter what your religious convictions.
Atheism is then as much a religion as Islam, Christianity, and others. I find it ironic that the ACLU in fighting for separation of church and state is actually fighting against it by trying to keep the atheistic view of evolution at the core of our science curriculums. Intelligent design is such an open ended idea that it could even include the possibility of evolution that started with a creator. By requiring teachers to suggest that the atheistic view of evolution is not 100% fact, the school board is actually trying to uphold the idea of separation of church and state.
True, but the parent was claiming "overwhelming" evidence. Claiming that something is merely "possible" and might be shown eventually is not overwhelming evidence. Sure, there are other things that seem to align with an evolutionary system, but this piece of evidence is the crux on which the whole system rests. If it is impossible for genetic information to increase then evolution as we describe it is impossible. And the fact that in all the countless scientific experiments that have been done this vastly important process is never observed, is quite overwhelming to me!
I think you are mis-representing many well-educated and scientists who are creationists. The one simple piece of evidence that they keep asking for and has not yet been found is an observable example of a mutation or genetic variation that has actually increased the amount of genetic information in an organism. A vast amount of such mutations would be necessary for evolution to hold water. But not a single one has yet been demonstrated. The question was put to Richard Dawkins who was dumbfounded and reverted to the old - "well it takes a lot of time, you know" argument. You can see it here.
Wow, how is that different from America? I was taught evolution as fact in my public high school.
The whole basis for Christianity is in the first few chapters of Genesis. To sum up, God created man perfectly in his image. He created the world and afterward saw that it "was very good". Man fell into sin and thus deserves condemnation and eternal separation from God. BUT, God promised a savior from that separation, Jesus. So a Christian believes that Jesus saved him/her from condemnation and separation from God.
Now, if you believe macro-evolution, then you must believe that there was death and suffering BEFORE sin entered the world. You must also believe that God created a world full of death, disease, and suffering and said that it was "very good". It goes deeper. Man had to evolve over a period of millions of years of death and suffering. So, what then did sin bring into the world?
I would challenge you to look into this matter more. Despite what evolutionists tell you, there is a plethora of information about current creation research on the web. Try Answers In Genesis for starters.
Doh! That didn't format very well. Too many distractions & not enough time to preview.
a good page listing arguments that creation scientists should NOT use anymore. Just like any scientific discipline, ideas must be tested and re-evaluated, then rejected as false if the data does not coincide with the theory. Still the biggest argument for creation/against evolution is that never have scientists witnessed an INCREASE in genetic information between generations of organisms. In fact, genetic information always tends to decrease, which fits better with the creation model of organisms being created perfectly and gradually degenerating & speciating over time. In all my discussions and research, I haven't found a good evolutionist response to that claim.