"Some of us can control our cars so well that we can slide the ass end out, pick a daisy off the side of the road, spin it around, pick a daisy from the other side, and then keep going never breaking a sweat."
In the mean time, causing untold amounts of panic and side cause accidents. Plus, I don't believe you for a moment. Tuff.
"We understand the freedom to drive is the freedom to travel however and whenever we want."
No. You may not take a rocket-car down the street. No, you may not take an unmuffled car down a residential street at 2AM. Tuff.
Because, you can have that privilege removed if you abuse it. Or, would you rather that someone who plows into a bus stop load of people for the umpteenth time still have the "right" to drive?
"Sometimes", but mostly not. Usually the go-fasties are go-fastying just to get there, not from some innate love of the handling of the car. They are also drinking their coffee, changing their radios, dialing their cell-phones, and doing other distractive stuff.
Really? Here is what you wrote, in toto:
"Unless you are retard, what do you expect with 30 YEARS MORE life experience than your class mates?
I would hope that after 30 years you can do college in a breeze and would know more than some of your professors in some subjects."
I note with interest that you are presuming there was a difference between me and the others in my classes. I went at night with a bunch of other middle-aged folks. Everyone had 20-30 years experience over entry-level students. I don't recall mentioning the level of the other students *at all*, just the sad level of the cirriculum and instructors. I do not believe that all but three constitutes "some".
Remember, the parent to this thread said "...where they teach you how to think, and focus on wisdom, rather than straight up knowledge...go to a university". I do not believe this to be any more than wishful thinking. I found the material and the instructors to be "dumbed down", and I mean for the courses they were, not for me. There is no excuse for that.
To answer your reflections:
"Why do you think you know more about a subject than the instructor?"
Because I was correcting them (mostly not in front of class). Also, I was bringing them current information pertinent to their field that they did not know existed, and they were also unable to follow some of the discussions I had with them.
"You may...didn't know more."
I made Dean's list each and every semester. It was not a question of my not knowing.
"But I usually explained what was wrong..."
Had that happened, I would not have the opinion I do. It did not happen (except with those three I mentioned, oddly enough), much the pity.
"Maybe your instructors..."
I didn't and don't just complain. I laid out their mistakes in b/w and gave them the corrections with references. I too, have taught before.
"It doesn't mean they aren't knowledgable in their subject area."
When they are incapable of discussing their subject area in depth and with current information, yes it does.
"You may have just gone to a crap school."
Well, that would have been my initial point, wouldn't it? Reading other posts on this topic, it seems I was nowhere near alone.
Had you actually read what I wrote, you would have learned that I found the instructors, not the students to be less experienced than I.
I found that *only three* instructors knew their subjects better than I. That is a sad state of affairs, regardless of my age. The instructors are *supposed* to be at the top of their subjects.
The instructors at the university I recently attended actually were proud that they hadn't learned how to read their friggin' e-mail!
The CS courses I took were trivial and moronic. The database class was no more than using (not learning) the C API. No theory, not even discussion as to what was behind the curtain.
They were at a disadvantage, as I had 3 more years experience in IT than the most senior member of their faculty. Not being some wide-eyed new student, I could spot the smoke and bullshit within seconds, and didn't have a problem pointing out the short-comings in their agenda.
It was probably not a nice experience for them, but tuff noogies. They were the ones charging extreme prices for shoddy merchandise.
Well, having just completed a degree after a thirty year hiatus from college -- in which I made a very nice career in IT -- all I have to say to "well-rounded education" is, puh-lease!
I found today's university experience to be no more than high-schooler baby-sitting. The classes were dumbed down and the "instructors" (except for three) knew less about *every* subject than I did.
Yet another bogus attempt to inject some credence to that hoary ghost of ID. No, there is no "message" in our DNA other than the message of how to make and use cell parts.
This is the last friggin' retreat the ID'ers can have. The last bastion of that stupid concept of "irreducible complexity". Couldn't have your way with the eye? Couldn't make the flagellum work for you? Now, trying to encode some decipherable message in the DNA? Yeesh.
Been watching that Star Trek movie too many times.
"a resteurant can't put fake stuff on it's adverts to get customers into the resteurant..."
Bzzzzt! Does not follow. A web-page does not charge you for entering. Leave if you're miffed. "would you be very pleased to buy a newspaper...adverts for xxx lines and nothing else?
Any tech advanced enough to come here/go there would be advanced enough to manufacture fatty foods, and would have more advanced robotics than we do now.
"...electronic voting...is just such a case."
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
An opinions only, not truths. And, one I don't share.
"Sometimes men must take justice into their own hands."
Feel free to come on down to our voting country and try to take something into your own hands. Just don't whine and complain when you have your ass handed to you be people who aren't taking kindly to your presumption that you should determine that they shouldn't vote.
Or we might do a little thinking. The g-forces are a construct of someone's imagination (sans black box), but can be explained because the terrorist didn't give a crap about losing control and dying. The radar disappearance can be explained by low-fly.
People who are against black boxes in cars should logically be against black boxes in airplanes.
Exactly the same arguments are present pro and con. The automobile is a passenger vehicle. Note the word "passenger". These are people who rely on the driver for safe conduct.
You also insanely lower the stats in a pallid attempt to make your argument. It's much more like "now we need black boxes in cars because 10,000 people died." than 60. Unless, of course, you're talking about one accident, in which case you make the case for black boxes.
Like most hysteria mongers, you drag in unrelated subjects, as if they support your fear of black boxes (bill signed, guns illegal, war, drugs).
"Unfortunately, because we have voided our personal responsibility in accidents to insurance companies..."
No. We have made it more difficult for some ass-hat to get behind the wheel without the ability to execute that personal responsibility of covering the mistakes they make.
The only time I've been screwed in a non-injury accident is when some dick-weed has hit my car and has no insurance, no job, and no desire to compensate me for his lack of ability.
One of the differences is that left or right, the radical right is condemed, but the current left seems bent of justifying or at least excusing the violence of the radicl left.
There is no justification. Especially the "but, they did it too" phrase.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some of us can control our cars so well that we can slide the ass end out, pick a daisy off the side of the road, spin it around, pick a daisy from the other side, and then keep going never breaking a sweat."
In the mean time, causing untold amounts of panic and side cause accidents. Plus, I don't believe you for a moment. Tuff.
"We understand the freedom to drive is the freedom to travel however and whenever we want."
No. You may not take a rocket-car down the street. No, you may not take an unmuffled car down a residential street at 2AM. Tuff.
Because, you can have that privilege removed if you abuse it. Or, would you rather that someone who plows into a bus stop load of people for the umpteenth time still have the "right" to drive?
"Sometimes", but mostly not. Usually the go-fasties are go-fastying just to get there, not from some innate love of the handling of the car. They are also drinking their coffee, changing their radios, dialing their cell-phones, and doing other distractive stuff.
All while go-fastying.
"Apparently you didn't read everything I wrote."
Really? Here is what you wrote, in toto:
"Unless you are retard, what do you expect with 30 YEARS MORE life experience than your class mates?
I would hope that after 30 years you can do college in a breeze and would know more than some of your professors in some subjects."
I note with interest that you are presuming there was a difference between me and the others in my classes. I went at night with a bunch of other middle-aged folks. Everyone had 20-30 years experience over entry-level students. I don't recall mentioning the level of the other students *at all*, just the sad level of the cirriculum and instructors. I do not believe that all but three constitutes "some".
Remember, the parent to this thread said "...where they teach you how to think, and focus on wisdom, rather than straight up knowledge...go to a university". I do not believe this to be any more than wishful thinking. I found the material and the instructors to be "dumbed down", and I mean for the courses they were, not for me. There is no excuse for that.
To answer your reflections:
"Why do you think you know more about a subject than the instructor?"
Because I was correcting them (mostly not in front of class). Also, I was bringing them current information pertinent to their field that they did not know existed, and they were also unable to follow some of the discussions I had with them.
"You may...didn't know more."
I made Dean's list each and every semester. It was not a question of my not knowing.
"But I usually explained what was wrong..."
Had that happened, I would not have the opinion I do. It did not happen (except with those three I mentioned, oddly enough), much the pity.
"Maybe your instructors..."
I didn't and don't just complain. I laid out their mistakes in b/w and gave them the corrections with references. I too, have taught before.
"It doesn't mean they aren't knowledgable in their subject area."
When they are incapable of discussing their subject area in depth and with current information, yes it does.
"You may have just gone to a crap school."
Well, that would have been my initial point, wouldn't it? Reading other posts on this topic, it seems I was nowhere near alone.
Had you actually read what I wrote, you would have learned that I found the instructors, not the students to be less experienced than I.
I found that *only three* instructors knew their subjects better than I. That is a sad state of affairs, regardless of my age. The instructors are *supposed* to be at the top of their subjects.
Hear, hear!!
The instructors at the university I recently attended actually were proud that they hadn't learned how to read their friggin' e-mail!
The CS courses I took were trivial and moronic. The database class was no more than using (not learning) the C API. No theory, not even discussion as to what was behind the curtain.
They were at a disadvantage, as I had 3 more years experience in IT than the most senior member of their faculty. Not being some wide-eyed new student, I could spot the smoke and bullshit within seconds, and didn't have a problem pointing out the short-comings in their agenda.
It was probably not a nice experience for them, but tuff noogies. They were the ones charging extreme prices for shoddy merchandise.
Well, having just completed a degree after a thirty year hiatus from college -- in which I made a very nice career in IT -- all I have to say to "well-rounded education" is, puh-lease !
I found today's university experience to be no more than high-schooler baby-sitting. The classes were dumbed down and the "instructors" (except for three) knew less about *every* subject than I did.
Yet another bogus attempt to inject some credence to that hoary ghost of ID. No, there is no "message" in our DNA other than the message of how to make and use cell parts.
This is the last friggin' retreat the ID'ers can have. The last bastion of that stupid concept of "irreducible complexity". Couldn't have your way with the eye? Couldn't make the flagellum work for you? Now, trying to encode some decipherable message in the DNA? Yeesh.
Been watching that Star Trek movie too many times.
"We don't outlaw gun manufacturers, although the overwhelming usage is for criminal purposes."
I have to concur with this parent. Overwhelming usage is hunting for rifles, and target practice/self defence for pistols, fool.
"a resteurant can't put fake stuff on it's adverts to get customers into the resteurant..."
:= nothing.
Bzzzzt! Does not follow. A web-page does not charge you for entering. Leave if you're miffed. "would you be very pleased to buy a newspaper...adverts for xxx lines and nothing else?
Bzzzzt! Same error.
Cost
Uh, no.
Any tech advanced enough to come here/go there would be advanced enough to manufacture fatty foods, and would have more advanced robotics than we do now.
Pets , maybe.
"Maybe I wouldnt be so annoyed if the public domain still existed."
Maybe you would speak less gibberish if you knew what you were talking about. Public domain exists.
"Personally I've never found it useful to learn to type."
"...electronic voting ...is just such a case."
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
An opinions only, not truths. And, one I don't share.
"Sometimes men must take justice into their own hands."
Feel free to come on down to our voting country and try to take something into your own hands. Just don't whine and complain when you have your ass handed to you be people who aren't taking kindly to your presumption that you should determine that they shouldn't vote.
Companies who are comprised of individuals. Many of which have no more than their single or couple owner(s).
"Companies" is such a meaningless word in this context.
I think you meant those companies who have banded together as an evil empire to rape and plunder the innocent serfs such as yourself.
Summary invalid in some cases.
/.
NYT has forums, same as
Some media provide abbreviated articles or just some aritcles for free, as bait.
Register "Anonymous Coward" or some variant. Just like here.
Or we might do a little thinking. The g-forces are a construct of someone's imagination (sans black box), but can be explained because the terrorist didn't give a crap about losing control and dying. The radar disappearance can be explained by low-fly.
Was that so hard? We only don't know for certain.
Baloney. Sensors can indeed judge that scale of impact.
This was insightful?
People who are against black boxes in cars should logically be against black boxes in airplanes.
Exactly the same arguments are present pro and con. The automobile is a passenger vehicle. Note the word "passenger". These are people who rely on the driver for safe conduct.
You also insanely lower the stats in a pallid attempt to make your argument. It's much more like "now we need black boxes in cars because 10,000 people died." than 60. Unless, of course, you're talking about one accident, in which case you make the case for black boxes.
Like most hysteria mongers, you drag in unrelated subjects, as if they support your fear of black boxes (bill signed, guns illegal, war, drugs).
"This is just one step away from the monitoring devices they are tagging onto convicts these days."
And you don't want convicts monitored, why?
"Unfortunately, because we have voided our personal responsibility in accidents to insurance companies..."
No. We have made it more difficult for some ass-hat to get behind the wheel without the ability to execute that personal responsibility of covering the mistakes they make.
The only time I've been screwed in a non-injury accident is when some dick-weed has hit my car and has no insurance, no job, and no desire to compensate me for his lack of ability.
Little boys in their late teens who can't, just can't, give up their on-line porn for a short while are alreadly psychologically damaged.
Guess what the cure for such addictions is, hmmm?
Deprivation of the addicting substance.
Funny how he couldn't provide any more than lip-service to that notion, though.
Sure will dinglebutt.
"...Republicats are guilty of treason..."
Definition of Repubilicats is too vague and encompasses perfectly law-abiding Republicans.
"...for misleading Americans into war..."
Current information indicates that Americans weren't "meslead", as that implies deceit.
"...selling the country to the Chinese..."
As pointed out by another, it was the Dem's, if anybody.
"...passing the Patriot Act..."
Read the act and refer to the sections that are in contention, not just the entire act decried as "the worst..."
I didn't mention my hippiness to gain points from you, rather to indicate my non-Rightist leanings.
Your turn to do more than empty rhetoric.
One of the differences is that left or right, the radical right is condemed, but the current left seems bent of justifying or at least excusing the violence of the radicl left.
There is no justification. Especially the "but, they did it too" phrase.