As being a slut and trailer-trash aren't genetical predispositions (neither is being a scientist), that's not what's going on.
Survival of the fittest links with evolution ONLY when the difference in question is genetically passed down through the generations. Otherwise it has no consequence to the species, just the individual.
In the same way that gravity purposely decides what's balanced, and what will topple. You can call it God if you want, I just call it well-documented and well-researched science:)
Only if it is passed down genetically... that's the crux. "Survival of the fittest" means "those most likely and best at passing down genetic material"
If you can't find anything on the TV to watch, DON'T WATCH TV! It's not a necessity. And, I don't happen to believe the "hardly any alternatives" line. You have PBS right there. They have intellectually stimulating shows, no live car chases.
Christ. Why do some people find taking control of their lives so damned hard?
These people are pushing THEIR agenda, not one of clean TV. If they were for clean TV, they'd be horrified by the violence. They clearly aren't. Violence is more harmful to kids than sex, yet they don't mind it continuing. They're pushing their "christian" agenda.
Fine. Sit your child down safe in the knowledge they're being educated by religious fundamentalists. have fun.
I noticed a LOT of violent TV on daytime US channels. That amazed me. I'm from Britain, where we have "adult" TV allowed after 9pm. That also includes violence. It was so strange, that in the US, violence was so permitted. Yet, boobs seem to scare the christians. So strange.
I think the level of violence in the US would decrease if kids stopped seeing such inappropriate imagery.
I'm not against porn or violence (heck, two of my favourite pasttimes), but I do know kids shouldn't see it.
Yup - I watched PBS for sanity:) When the war broke out, it had BBC News on, which was a relief.
PBS was the only channel that had documentaries, and to me is so radically different from the other channels, I don't mean it when I refer to US TV. I guess I should have made that clear;)
You can think that management is better then developing, but I sure don't. I appreciate and respect your view on this, I just don't subscribe to it.
I love coding. I love getting my hands dirty fixing stuff. I don't want to become a manager - a point I vehemently put to my boss when we have new IT starters. I know I can get everything I want from a job, right here. I just want to do what I love all day, and get paid.
If your idea of success is financially-based, then it's not necessarily a loser either. My company offers profit-sharing for our software. We're building websites, in-house sales tools, online applications, etc., and the developers get a direct cut.
So cool. If you think management is the natural progression, then fine. Good luck to you (I mean that with all sincerity - I want everyone to succeed as they wish to). Just please don't assume that being the "uber-coder" is somehow less than being a management type? I don't come home and manage people in my spare time, so I won't be doing it at work.;)
But it's not going to stop until something happens. The US is in a downward spiral. Patriotism is force-fed into US kids from a startlingly early age. All those flags everywhere, national anthems every time you go to the toilet, US-centric news, sicophantic media, pledges of allegience, etc. make many, many Americans overzealously patriotic, to a point where unless they have some external influence, they will follow "America" to the bitter end (as they've been instructed to their entire lives). That's what we're seeing. These staunch republicans and scared democrats are looking at the president, and seeing an infallible figure. Someone who unquestioningly represents good and their best interests. They get really, really uncomfortable even thinking for one second that their government might not be doing the right thing. It hurts them so much they get angry defending it. I've spoken to lots of these people (at protests, IRC, etc.) and they all have one thing in common - they won't question the president.
What can possibly dissuade these people? Whatever any person or organisation says about the president is instantly rebuffed by the whitehouse, making the devoted followers believe 100% that the new information from that person/organisation is false. How can this cycle be broken? Any suggestion to pay attention to the news and opinion from overseas is laughed off as "the rest of the world sucks - America knows best". There is simply no way at all to end it. Look what's been happening over the last 4 years. If you look at it objectively, you're seeing an absolute trampling of the classic American ideals - justice, freedom, democracy, rights. If you just look at the more professional media from the rest of the world, you'll see they have verifiable sources that they will bet their lives on. They know what they're talking about. For instance, all the fuckups in the second Iraq war. Hundreds of tons of explosives missing, stolen from under US command. That would get ANY normal president out of office in seconds. That's just incredible. Not to mention the horrific actions of US troops in Fallujah, their unscrupulous tactics in coercing the population, it all adds up. How anyone can claim to be "American" as the rest of the world sees it (as is written in your historic independence & foundation literature) AND support Bush and his administration, is just insane.
Anyway, I'm rambling. This issue has me eaten up inside, as it's a travesty I can't see ending nicely. Bush's grip on the US through this manufactured "time of peril" is iron-tight, with all dissent swiftly removed (pardon the pun). Unless everyone on the republican side of the country grows some balls and does the right thing, the US is screwed.
I apologise from the bottom of my heart if this offends anyone, but it's my opinion. sorry.
The US is spending too much money. This project, and indeed any other "vanity" projects, should be halted. The US has a responsibility to its citizens to not piss money away. Playing a massive game of one-upmanship with the rest of the world is, quite frankly, pathetic. Most other nations guage their success by the percentage of people living in poverty, or the rise in the standard of living, not putting people on rocks for good TV and bragging rights. Even if the scientific benefits are staggering, we should wait. The returns from these missions will be years away, and will take ages to turn a profit.
I'm sure you'll find some way of justifying pissing away money that can save peoples lives, so I'll shut up now.
They'd have more success blowing up the exchange than a DDoS that might not even have enough oomph to do the business...
Don't let these government asshats tell you what to be scared off. Look at the evidence, be objective, and just think about what they're saying for 2 seconds. 99.99% of it makes NO sense.
You DO realise you're playing directly into their hands, right?
If you think Al Qaida could wreak more havoc cracking some government system and stealing some personal info, than by blowing something big up, you're grossly mistaken.
Fuck. You're seeing what the US is doing, and then going "Oh, well, if they're doing that, then there must be an enemy doing the same" - no. No, no, no, no, NO. That's how governments coerce the people. If the Army erected a massive cannon and pointed it at a hill, you'd assume that hill was dangerous. That's exactly what they're doing here. They're conjouring up threats to make their policies seem essential. If the Bush/Cheney administration doesn't hype up the enemy's potential, then they're out of a job. They fought the entire election over defense. It's their only perceived strength.
Where is the evidence that any terrorist organisation around the world is targetting the US en masse? Exactly.
Please, please, PLEASE don't buy into this. Look for some third-party information from someone not selling anything, who wants nothing in return. These guys have a vested interest in hyping danger, as more danger = more budget.
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick about this one, but from Europe, it's so blatantly obvious what your government is trying to evoke from you that it tears me up inside to see so many Americans swallowing it hook, line and sinker. I guess WWI && WW2 didn't feature too heavily in history classes over there. Or, if they did, they obviously missed out a bunch!
Seeing as the pentagon was having drills for what to do should airliners be used as weapons against them, and the previous G8 meeting earlier in the year when anti-aircraft armaments were deployed, to defend against rogue aircraft, their claim they didn't know about airplanes==weapons is just pathetic lying.
For a country that loves democracy so much, America doesn't seem to give a flying shit when their politicians lie. Unless it's about a blowjob, in which case it's TREASON, I tells ya! TREASON!
Sort it out, America. It's time for torches and pitchforks, and a nice stoll down to Washington DC... Unless you do that, the rest of the world will simply look on and laugh at the mess you've got yourself in;)
You really should qualify your use of the word "television". I fear you mean "American television":)
News and documentaries in Europe are much more intellectually challenging than in the US. Here, journalistic integrity is key, not flashy graphics and keeping sponsors happy. American media/documentaries (are there any American documentaries made for TV?)
It might sound a bit harsh, but I've seen lots of US news. It's nasty. Emotive, unobjective, cheap. Always the human angle played up, irregardless of its importance. I.E. one story about a boy's hurt puppy will get more airtime than a flood in some far-off place. In fact, ANYTHING will get more playtime than something from another nation.
Take the BBC News, for example. They have a service where you press the red button on your remote control, and a side-bar pops up on your TV. It contains background information on entities/people mentioned in the current news story. Kind of like pop-up video meets wikipedia. You can read about the people, places, countries, industries, conflicts, etc. mentioned.
I'm of the belief that American media is destroyed, that journalistic integrity under the sponsors grip is impossible, and that it's going to get a LOT worse before it improves.
So the degree is a tie-breaker? You'd spend $100,000 on a tie-breaker? You said it yourself - if Mr. Degree is up against someone with more experience, that person is more likely to get the job. The only time the degree comes into play is when the applicants are tied. sheesh.
Those 4 years spent going to lectures and studying at school teaches people lots of things, but then 1 year in industry teaches an awful lot more relevent things, as in direct lessions from your chosen sector. Lectures don't prepare you for dealing with management or office politics. They don't teach you anything about how to work in a company. They just fill you full of text books and coursework. I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I learned a lot of useful stuff at college. I'm just saying that it might not be the best way to spend 4 years and over $100,000:)
I'd rather be a good coder with lots of experience than a good coder with less experience and a need to prove oneself. and $100,000 in the hole.
I'll forgive your excessively wide brush you're tarring all us non-degree folks:)
Some people who didn't go to college might be dicks, but they're not dicks because they didn't go to college. I can understand everything you say, but you fail to mention there is a huge amount of non-degreed-up IT professionals out there hanging with the best the college world can spew out.
I'm of the school of thought that college can't teach you about working life. It can teach you skills, but not necessarily how to apply them. I know what I learned in college was useful later on, but I could have learned it from a book or two.
I'm fed up of people who spent $100,000 on a degree try to argue for it just because if they admit they wasted that $100,000 they'll have a nervous breakdown. I'm not suggesting you're one of them, but they do exist:)
To put it bluntly, I'd rather work with someone with lots of experience (not necessarily with a degree) over someone with none, and of those with none, I'd rather work with a college grad than anyone else:)
I'm completely at a loss trying to follow your logic on this one:)
If you want to change out of your "speciality", just learn something new on your own. Get proficient. Work on projects. Code something spectacular. Demonstrate your abilities in this new technology. A bit of paper doesn't do that, or even prove you're good at it. All it does is show you're able to pass tests. Real-world experience is the ONLY thing that demonstrates your real-world abilities.
Experience in many areas makes you flexible. That can be achieved without a degree, and if you didn't go for a degree, you have an extra 4 years learning what languages you want to learn, not just what your professors want to teach you.
Also, bear in mind that colleges, by their very nature, can't teach you the latest technologies. Coursework has to be created before hand. When you're teaching yourself these languages, you get to learn the most up-to-date stuff out there.
Americans are fat because they eat too much. It's that simple. Of course, they could eat the same amount they currently do AND not weigh so much by walking around. I was in LA, staying at a hotel, and I asked where the nearest Vons/Ralphs was, and he said "Oh, it's two blocks over and 10 blocks up". He then asked if I was walking, and acted shocked when I said "yes". It seems many americans are scared shitless by the thought of walking. I was watching the crappy news when the Iraq war broke out, and went for a little walk. I ended up walking 13 miles, from silverlake to santa monica beach. Apparently, not many people walk any distances at all over there.
Oh, and if you see how much fat there is on American bacon, the sheer number of fat bastards on those disabled buggies you see riding around starts to make more sense.
Yes, it might remove an avenue of exercise, but then lots of Americans seem to remove the other avenues on their own...;)
Let me get this right - you're saying a particular file format, MP3, can't expose you to new music? Are you mad? That's like saying a book can't expose you to a new author. Madness.
Yes, you have a 2,000,000 song library. You can't choose what you listen to when you listen to it, so it's no good for a party soundtrack (unlike an iPod, where you can queue up a party mix before the party starts).
Just because you can't figure out a way to get MP3s from artists you know nothing about on your PC, don't condemn the file format. I've written scripts to rip MP3s off internet radio streams. It opens my eyes to new music fine, thanks.
As for not worrying about choosing your playlist, you can do that with your MP3 player, too. Again, just because YOU don't know how to do it, don't suggest it's an inherent failing of the format. As I mentioned before, my script downloads MP3s. It's constantly ripping tracks, which I can put on my ipod in seconds. All I have to do is turn on my iPod and hit "play", and it plays me all my brand-new, unheard MP3s, similar to a radio station, except I can pause/fast forward/rewind through the entire collection and not worry about signal strength.
I'm not knocking XM radio. I'm simply saying that the shortcomings you claim exist in MP3s and their players simply don't exist.
Shit, it's worth it to ensure no Phil Collins music goes anywhere near my ears:)
Slashdot Mirror
Survival of the fittest links with evolution ONLY when the difference in question is genetically passed down through the generations. Otherwise it has no consequence to the species, just the individual.
And that's the mentality that makes people from other countries park jet liners in your sky scrapers.
Also, Encarta has lots of stuff wikipedia doesn't have, owing to the fact it turns a profit, and has dedicated editors.
In the same way that gravity purposely decides what's balanced, and what will topple. You can call it God if you want, I just call it well-documented and well-researched science :)
Only if it is passed down genetically... that's the crux. "Survival of the fittest" means "those most likely and best at passing down genetic material"
Christ. Why do some people find taking control of their lives so damned hard?
These people are pushing THEIR agenda, not one of clean TV. If they were for clean TV, they'd be horrified by the violence. They clearly aren't. Violence is more harmful to kids than sex, yet they don't mind it continuing. They're pushing their "christian" agenda.
Fine. Sit your child down safe in the knowledge they're being educated by religious fundamentalists. have fun.
I think the level of violence in the US would decrease if kids stopped seeing such inappropriate imagery.
I'm not against porn or violence (heck, two of my favourite pasttimes), but I do know kids shouldn't see it.
PBS was the only channel that had documentaries, and to me is so radically different from the other channels, I don't mean it when I refer to US TV. I guess I should have made that clear ;)
whatever gets you through the night, buddy.
I love coding. I love getting my hands dirty fixing stuff. I don't want to become a manager - a point I vehemently put to my boss when we have new IT starters. I know I can get everything I want from a job, right here. I just want to do what I love all day, and get paid.
If your idea of success is financially-based, then it's not necessarily a loser either. My company offers profit-sharing for our software. We're building websites, in-house sales tools, online applications, etc., and the developers get a direct cut.
So cool. If you think management is the natural progression, then fine. Good luck to you (I mean that with all sincerity - I want everyone to succeed as they wish to). Just please don't assume that being the "uber-coder" is somehow less than being a management type? I don't come home and manage people in my spare time, so I won't be doing it at work. ;)
What can possibly dissuade these people? Whatever any person or organisation says about the president is instantly rebuffed by the whitehouse, making the devoted followers believe 100% that the new information from that person/organisation is false. How can this cycle be broken? Any suggestion to pay attention to the news and opinion from overseas is laughed off as "the rest of the world sucks - America knows best". There is simply no way at all to end it. Look what's been happening over the last 4 years. If you look at it objectively, you're seeing an absolute trampling of the classic American ideals - justice, freedom, democracy, rights. If you just look at the more professional media from the rest of the world, you'll see they have verifiable sources that they will bet their lives on. They know what they're talking about. For instance, all the fuckups in the second Iraq war. Hundreds of tons of explosives missing, stolen from under US command. That would get ANY normal president out of office in seconds. That's just incredible. Not to mention the horrific actions of US troops in Fallujah, their unscrupulous tactics in coercing the population, it all adds up. How anyone can claim to be "American" as the rest of the world sees it (as is written in your historic independence & foundation literature) AND support Bush and his administration, is just insane.
Anyway, I'm rambling. This issue has me eaten up inside, as it's a travesty I can't see ending nicely. Bush's grip on the US through this manufactured "time of peril" is iron-tight, with all dissent swiftly removed (pardon the pun). Unless everyone on the republican side of the country grows some balls and does the right thing, the US is screwed.
I apologise from the bottom of my heart if this offends anyone, but it's my opinion. sorry.
I'm sure you'll find some way of justifying pissing away money that can save peoples lives, so I'll shut up now.
thanks.
Do Americans realise just how patheticly childish your naming conventions/schemes look to the rest of the world? :) "PATRIOT" - hahaha!
"It's not terrorism when we do it!"
Don't let these government asshats tell you what to be scared off. Look at the evidence, be objective, and just think about what they're saying for 2 seconds. 99.99% of it makes NO sense.
If you think Al Qaida could wreak more havoc cracking some government system and stealing some personal info, than by blowing something big up, you're grossly mistaken.
Fuck. You're seeing what the US is doing, and then going "Oh, well, if they're doing that, then there must be an enemy doing the same" - no. No, no, no, no, NO. That's how governments coerce the people. If the Army erected a massive cannon and pointed it at a hill, you'd assume that hill was dangerous. That's exactly what they're doing here. They're conjouring up threats to make their policies seem essential. If the Bush/Cheney administration doesn't hype up the enemy's potential, then they're out of a job. They fought the entire election over defense. It's their only perceived strength.
Where is the evidence that any terrorist organisation around the world is targetting the US en masse? Exactly.
Please, please, PLEASE don't buy into this. Look for some third-party information from someone not selling anything, who wants nothing in return. These guys have a vested interest in hyping danger, as more danger = more budget.
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick about this one, but from Europe, it's so blatantly obvious what your government is trying to evoke from you that it tears me up inside to see so many Americans swallowing it hook, line and sinker. I guess WWI && WW2 didn't feature too heavily in history classes over there. Or, if they did, they obviously missed out a bunch!
For a country that loves democracy so much, America doesn't seem to give a flying shit when their politicians lie. Unless it's about a blowjob, in which case it's TREASON, I tells ya! TREASON!
Sort it out, America. It's time for torches and pitchforks, and a nice stoll down to Washington DC... Unless you do that, the rest of the world will simply look on and laugh at the mess you've got yourself in ;)
According to my calculations, that would make it feel like july, 1961...
News and documentaries in Europe are much more intellectually challenging than in the US. Here, journalistic integrity is key, not flashy graphics and keeping sponsors happy. American media/documentaries (are there any American documentaries made for TV?)
It might sound a bit harsh, but I've seen lots of US news. It's nasty. Emotive, unobjective, cheap. Always the human angle played up, irregardless of its importance. I.E. one story about a boy's hurt puppy will get more airtime than a flood in some far-off place. In fact, ANYTHING will get more playtime than something from another nation.
Take the BBC News, for example. They have a service where you press the red button on your remote control, and a side-bar pops up on your TV. It contains background information on entities/people mentioned in the current news story. Kind of like pop-up video meets wikipedia. You can read about the people, places, countries, industries, conflicts, etc. mentioned.
I'm of the belief that American media is destroyed, that journalistic integrity under the sponsors grip is impossible, and that it's going to get a LOT worse before it improves.
go go gadget flame-retardant codpiece!
Those 4 years spent going to lectures and studying at school teaches people lots of things, but then 1 year in industry teaches an awful lot more relevent things, as in direct lessions from your chosen sector. Lectures don't prepare you for dealing with management or office politics. They don't teach you anything about how to work in a company. They just fill you full of text books and coursework. I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I learned a lot of useful stuff at college. I'm just saying that it might not be the best way to spend 4 years and over $100,000 :)
I'd rather be a good coder with lots of experience than a good coder with less experience and a need to prove oneself. and $100,000 in the hole.
Some people who didn't go to college might be dicks, but they're not dicks because they didn't go to college. I can understand everything you say, but you fail to mention there is a huge amount of non-degreed-up IT professionals out there hanging with the best the college world can spew out.
I'm of the school of thought that college can't teach you about working life. It can teach you skills, but not necessarily how to apply them. I know what I learned in college was useful later on, but I could have learned it from a book or two.
I'm fed up of people who spent $100,000 on a degree try to argue for it just because if they admit they wasted that $100,000 they'll have a nervous breakdown. I'm not suggesting you're one of them, but they do exist :)
To put it bluntly, I'd rather work with someone with lots of experience (not necessarily with a degree) over someone with none, and of those with none, I'd rather work with a college grad than anyone else :)
If you want to change out of your "speciality", just learn something new on your own. Get proficient. Work on projects. Code something spectacular. Demonstrate your abilities in this new technology. A bit of paper doesn't do that, or even prove you're good at it. All it does is show you're able to pass tests. Real-world experience is the ONLY thing that demonstrates your real-world abilities.
Experience in many areas makes you flexible. That can be achieved without a degree, and if you didn't go for a degree, you have an extra 4 years learning what languages you want to learn, not just what your professors want to teach you.
Also, bear in mind that colleges, by their very nature, can't teach you the latest technologies. Coursework has to be created before hand. When you're teaching yourself these languages, you get to learn the most up-to-date stuff out there.
Oh, and if you see how much fat there is on American bacon, the sheer number of fat bastards on those disabled buggies you see riding around starts to make more sense.
Yes, it might remove an avenue of exercise, but then lots of Americans seem to remove the other avenues on their own... ;)
Yes, you have a 2,000,000 song library. You can't choose what you listen to when you listen to it, so it's no good for a party soundtrack (unlike an iPod, where you can queue up a party mix before the party starts).
Just because you can't figure out a way to get MP3s from artists you know nothing about on your PC, don't condemn the file format. I've written scripts to rip MP3s off internet radio streams. It opens my eyes to new music fine, thanks.
As for not worrying about choosing your playlist, you can do that with your MP3 player, too. Again, just because YOU don't know how to do it, don't suggest it's an inherent failing of the format. As I mentioned before, my script downloads MP3s. It's constantly ripping tracks, which I can put on my ipod in seconds. All I have to do is turn on my iPod and hit "play", and it plays me all my brand-new, unheard MP3s, similar to a radio station, except I can pause/fast forward/rewind through the entire collection and not worry about signal strength.
I'm not knocking XM radio. I'm simply saying that the shortcomings you claim exist in MP3s and their players simply don't exist.
Shit, it's worth it to ensure no Phil Collins music goes anywhere near my ears :)