First of all, I'm not a "jock". I guess I should call you a "geek" since you called me that. I'm not quite sure of the social protocol here for name-calling. Maybe you can educate me. But whatever.
So you'd like to know how sports build character. Well, let you give me my own personal experience & tell you how it related to my educational ones.
In sports (mostly track & football) I learned quite a bit about what it is to set difficult goals & work to achieve them. I learned that shortcuts do not work & laziness achieves nothing. I learned that being a good sport is more important than winning or losing. I also learned what it means to be both a follower (freshman) & a leader (senior). I took victories & defeats with both dignity & absurdity. I learned that being an asshole (basketball) simply makes you look bad & feel like an idiot. Basically, I took a lot of good memories & great lessons away from my sports experiences. Lessons I didn't get in the classroom.
Now, on to my educational experience. Here I also learned what it is to work hard. However, I also "learned" that shortcuts can be found & often exploited. I found it easy to get by with laziness. I got great grades but didn't have to work hard at all.
My basic point is this: For many people sports are a great way to get some experiences that translate into positive lessons. They're not for everybody, that's for sure. But they do build character (which the parents also should do) & it does build work ethic (not ethics, ethic). I agree that there is some bad stuff as well, but I think the majority is good.
As for your rant on fathers & their children. I guess you've had some bad experiences. My parents were nothing but supportive & didn't interfere at all. My friends had the same. Of course, there were bad parents but that merely pointed out to the rest of us what a real asshole those people are (read: life lesson) me. I guess I don't know what else to say on that. Parents can be idiots, that's for sure.
Okay, I realize this only highlights the fact that I'm a male with possible ADD, but I actually enjoy watching the little featurettes placed on my TiVo home screen as advertising. They have little ads about cars & trips that I find half-way entertaining. And if I start them up & get bored I just go back to the main screen.
I for one find a lot of products & companies interesting. I mean, that's half of what/. is right, reading & talking about new products & services? So why not bundle this up into TiVo or On-Demand services? I'd bite.
The key to proper advertising is making interesting & informative information available for those who want it & will respond while minimizing "wasted" advertising on those who don't/won't.
Here's a shocker. I actually enjoyed sports & got a lot out of them.
I'm a pretty smart guy & didn't have any trouble in school until I got into graduate school. Then it became a challenge. The only place I had to work my ass off before then was on the football field or the track.
There is some value in going out to practice & working your hind-end off for 3 or 4 hours. Sure it doesn't take intelligence, but it builds character & work ethic, which is just what many people in this post have been saying the U.S. is lacking.
Now, I know people will say that jocks are jerks & pick on the smart kids. But hey, if the coaches (just like teachers) would get their head out of their butt & put a stop to this (like mine did) then there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, of our top 10 high school students, 7 of us were part of both the state champion football & state champion track teams. And you know what, we are all now sucessful & hard-working.
As far as sports being limited to a few people, this is just because schools are so darn big now. A school of 200 is able to involve a lot more kids in sports than a school of 2000. There's only so many spots on each team that can get filled.
So I know most people here think sports are useless because they aren't interested, but many of us are. I learned many lessons & built a lot of character in sports. It isn't that bad folks.
I think the main difference I see is the ability of parents to really be involved in their kids lives. Families these days tend to be either split or two-income. In either case, any parents around to care for the child are off working. And that's okay, the problem is that now someone else must care for the child.
So what happens is that the person now caring for the child doesn't feel like they have the same amount of control over that child that the parent does. They can't spank or yell or punish the children as may be necessary. The parents can do it when they get home, but are often too tired or don't even find out about their child's problem behavior.
So what happens? The child gets away with lots of little stuff here and there all the time. And that results in spoiled children. And spoiled children don't like to work hard and think things should be given to them. And this translates through to adulthood.
So now you've got kids in school who aren't disciplined properly & don't know how to work. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I sure didn't "want" to learn what the teacher was blabbing about. I wanted to go play, or read, or play a game. I sat there because my parents made me & the teacher made me. I was disciplined.
I don't see how a hard-working & disciplined adult could possibly result from this situation. And it gets worse with more money & more stuff. How do we fix it? I don't know. Maybe ship everybody to the farm for some good ol' hard work.:)
You're right, he should have instantly become defensive and come up with some lame response. Nope.
A wise person is smart enough to keep their mouth shut when they don't know the answer to something. It's a good thing that he wanted to investigate it further and address a response later. Only idiots argue about that which they are ignorant of.
However, this is definitely something he should have been aware of previously if he is in fact the all-knowing, all-seeing lobbyist that people claim he is. So, smart for keeping his mouth shut when he really didn't know anything, dumb for not being knowledgeable about it in the first place.
Exactly. Eventually rogue nations will begin acquiring (either by purchasing or developing) ballistic missles capable of hitting the U.S. or our allies. Eventually someone will try to use them.
So, should we continue down the path of no missle defense system at all? No.
It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far. Since the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires a proactive approach (defense & offense) we had better get on the horse and start developing defenses such as this.
One of governments primary responsibilities is protection of the people. Even if spending 500 billion on this only saves one city, it's worth it. Plus, there is a deterrent factor there for those nations with only a couple of shots. With a system in place, they can't be sure if they will successfully strike or not. If they don't, they're doubly screwed.
I've seen those viewpoints both ways as well. Quite frankly, I don't think we are quite smart enough to know exactly what the effects of our human activities will be (yet).
But here's how I look at it: Does it seem like a "good" thing that we pump all kinds of toxins & pollutants into the air? No. Does it seem like a "good" idea to limit (within reason) the amount of crap we pump into the air? Yes.
Okay, so even if we can't agree on whether or not the earth will warm 0.02 degrees next year, we should still keep improving vehicle emissions & such.
It's the same crap I hear about smoking. We don't know if second hand smoke causes cancer so we shouldn't do anything about it. But does anybody really think it's a good thing to blow smoke in a kid's face. No. So quit bitchin' and do the right thing.
A little less science and a little more common sense would go a long way around here.
And I'd rather have an newer, more advanced car with lots of features that make me comfortable. And I think most people in the nation would agree with me.
What is this "average" you speak of? As I see it, I'm now able to buy a very nicely equipped & roomy car with excellent gas mileage. Where as, 10 or 15 years ago all I could get was a shoebox with wheels for the same mileage. I'll take the former.
Sure, the "average" might have gone up, but this is only because people are buying bigger cars.
Listen, if Mrs. Mom sits down and runs the numbers here's what she might see. At 12,000 miles per year & $2 per gallon of gas I can pay around $800 a year if my car gets 30 mpg. Of course, I can get a big SUV and only pay $800 more than that in a year. Wow, for $800 a year I get tons of room & I can haul around the kids, pick up tons of stuff, & not have to worry about being crushed when I get T-boned by a Hummer when I run a red light! Seems like a pretty easy choice.
Besides, people are willing to pay $10,000 more for an SUV than a car in the first place. Do you think they care about $800 a year in gas?
But MUST todays processors run hotter than that? I was under the impression that this temperature is more of a "best we can do" limit than an ideal temperature for processor operation. If that's the case, then using this liquid would appear to present an excellent solution to the ever-worsening cooling problem.
Liquids present much higher heat capacities as well as much higher heat-transfer coefficients than gas counterparts. Hence, flowing a modest amount of this liquid around a chip and then dumping that heat to a separate air/fluid heat exchanger seems to me to be an excellent idea. Low fluid speeds = low noise as well.
By keeping the chip's operational temperature below 49.2 C you remove the gas problem. Although all us good heat transfer engineers know how much heat is absorbed in liquid vaporization.
Wanna really get chips movin', just run the coolant through small tubes imbedded in the chip itself!!
But this is just an engineering problem. Steering wheel input force is markedly different when comparing a user-desired turn or lane-change to a unspecified drift.
I think it's more a question of using "steps" to get to Mars rather than trying it all at once. There are numerous extra challenges we must face to go to Mars over and above what we must face to go to the Moon. Increased cosmic radiation, long travel times, increased communication lag, etc., etc. Establishing at least a preliminary base on the Moon would allow us to sort out some of those challenges before sorting out the rest.
Is it more expensive to do things in steps? Of course. But then, it's more expensive to develop computer chips in small increment improvements if all you're trying to do is get to 100 GHz. Why waste all that time & money on the steps in between? Because they are value added & achievable goals.
That's how I think of a return to the Moon, just a value added & achievable goal on the way to further space exploration. Mars is really the same way. It is probably the most difficult goal we have set for ourselves right now, but I'm sure it will be just another stepping stone to something greater.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but American engineering skill & drive in the aerospace field is not what it used to be (trust me, I'm one of them). Most intelligent and driven young people are now going into the technology or computer sector, which is fine. We also don't have the USSR breathing down our neck trying to beat us to Mars. Bottom line, we don't have the ability to pull off another Apollo type engineering miracle. Some steps might just be a good idea, even if they are expensive.
But hey, I'm just a rocket scientist, what do I know.
I have often said that there are two kinds of environmentalists: California Stupid & Common-Sense Smart.
The "Common-Sense Smart" environmentalist realizes that electric cars receive their electricity from a coal plant & that much of it is wasted by the time the rubber hits the road. He also realizes even if we can't specifically define why pumping carbon-monoxide (& such) into the air is bad, it sure as hell doesn't seem good. She also realizes that there are bigger battles to be fought than saving some damn tree in the middle of Bloomington, Indiana.
The "California Stupid" environmentalist thinks nuclear = disaster = death. He doesn't realize that power must come from somewhere and where we're getting it now sure does more damage that the nuclear alternative. She also thinks saving a whale actually matters. They take a city vote on banning dihydrogen monoxide. Pretty soon both Carbon Monoxide & Dihydrogen Monoxide will be banned. Sure we breath out the first & 70% of us is the second, but they're greenhouse gases damn it!
In reality, I haven't been able to figure out if the second group is actually stupid or just has an agenda. But, then again, I'm not quite sure why you would be considered intelligent if the agenda you are pushing contains so many stupid points.
For quite a while now I've wished that I could buy HBO at $12 a month without buying all the other stuff. Granted, I enjoy many other channels but not $60 worth of other channels.
I would be perfectly content receiving the digitally broadcast major networks over the air & then paying 15 bucks a month for HBO. I would also consider adding some other channels for a couple bucks here or there. Basically, if I could remove all the junk off of my channel list and save even $10 a month I would take it.
But here's a question: Given the penetration of PVR's & their ability to remove advertising, will more channels be moving toward the ad-free, pay-to-view format of HBO anyway? I think the trend seems to be going this way. But hey, I'm just a couch potato!
This is why I don't use IM, why I don't own a pager, and why I don't own a cell phone. I have had each of those and quite frankly they all ruin productivity and increase my stress level. I thought I "needed" them at first, but then once I got them I realized it was only a hassle. Sure, there are instances where they can be useful, but I would say the cons far outweight the pros. Once I realized that I just canceled all that stuff & I'm happy I did. I find it somewhat funny that I used to pay people money to make it easier for people to annoy me. I'll take some peace & quiet along with $50 a month back in my pocket any day.
I kind of like the idea, just not the implementation.
When I was rehabilitating an ACL reconstruction they had this stupid little game on the console of the exercise bike. It was just an LCD light moving around a circle according to how fast I pedalled. I was racing another LCD light that was controlled by the speed setting. It was incredibly simple but somehow darn entertaining as well.
It would seem to me that some sort of simple yet well done game hooked up to a bike could be mildly entertaining. Perhaps a specialized wheel speed reader that sends data through the standard Xbox controller port? Anyway, I'm obviously easily entertained.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I'm not a "jock". I guess I should call you a "geek" since you called me that. I'm not quite sure of the social protocol here for name-calling. Maybe you can educate me. But whatever.
So you'd like to know how sports build character. Well, let you give me my own personal experience & tell you how it related to my educational ones.
In sports (mostly track & football) I learned quite a bit about what it is to set difficult goals & work to achieve them. I learned that shortcuts do not work & laziness achieves nothing. I learned that being a good sport is more important than winning or losing. I also learned what it means to be both a follower (freshman) & a leader (senior). I took victories & defeats with both dignity & absurdity. I learned that being an asshole (basketball) simply makes you look bad & feel like an idiot. Basically, I took a lot of good memories & great lessons away from my sports experiences. Lessons I didn't get in the classroom.
Now, on to my educational experience. Here I also learned what it is to work hard. However, I also "learned" that shortcuts can be found & often exploited. I found it easy to get by with laziness. I got great grades but didn't have to work hard at all.
My basic point is this: For many people sports are a great way to get some experiences that translate into positive lessons. They're not for everybody, that's for sure. But they do build character (which the parents also should do) & it does build work ethic (not ethics, ethic). I agree that there is some bad stuff as well, but I think the majority is good.
As for your rant on fathers & their children. I guess you've had some bad experiences. My parents were nothing but supportive & didn't interfere at all. My friends had the same. Of course, there were bad parents but that merely pointed out to the rest of us what a real asshole those people are (read: life lesson) me. I guess I don't know what else to say on that. Parents can be idiots, that's for sure.
Jealous or bitter?
Okay, I realize this only highlights the fact that I'm a male with possible ADD, but I actually enjoy watching the little featurettes placed on my TiVo home screen as advertising. They have little ads about cars & trips that I find half-way entertaining. And if I start them up & get bored I just go back to the main screen.
/. is right, reading & talking about new products & services? So why not bundle this up into TiVo or On-Demand services? I'd bite.
I for one find a lot of products & companies interesting. I mean, that's half of what
The key to proper advertising is making interesting & informative information available for those who want it & will respond while minimizing "wasted" advertising on those who don't/won't.
Here's a shocker. I actually enjoyed sports & got a lot out of them.
I'm a pretty smart guy & didn't have any trouble in school until I got into graduate school. Then it became a challenge. The only place I had to work my ass off before then was on the football field or the track.
There is some value in going out to practice & working your hind-end off for 3 or 4 hours. Sure it doesn't take intelligence, but it builds character & work ethic, which is just what many people in this post have been saying the U.S. is lacking.
Now, I know people will say that jocks are jerks & pick on the smart kids. But hey, if the coaches (just like teachers) would get their head out of their butt & put a stop to this (like mine did) then there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, of our top 10 high school students, 7 of us were part of both the state champion football & state champion track teams. And you know what, we are all now sucessful & hard-working.
As far as sports being limited to a few people, this is just because schools are so darn big now. A school of 200 is able to involve a lot more kids in sports than a school of 2000. There's only so many spots on each team that can get filled.
So I know most people here think sports are useless because they aren't interested, but many of us are. I learned many lessons & built a lot of character in sports. It isn't that bad folks.
Ahhh, but we have found a way to defeat them. Just put on your little tin-foil hat & move to Canada.
I think the main difference I see is the ability of parents to really be involved in their kids lives. Families these days tend to be either split or two-income. In either case, any parents around to care for the child are off working. And that's okay, the problem is that now someone else must care for the child.
:)
So what happens is that the person now caring for the child doesn't feel like they have the same amount of control over that child that the parent does. They can't spank or yell or punish the children as may be necessary. The parents can do it when they get home, but are often too tired or don't even find out about their child's problem behavior.
So what happens? The child gets away with lots of little stuff here and there all the time. And that results in spoiled children. And spoiled children don't like to work hard and think things should be given to them. And this translates through to adulthood.
So now you've got kids in school who aren't disciplined properly & don't know how to work. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I sure didn't "want" to learn what the teacher was blabbing about. I wanted to go play, or read, or play a game. I sat there because my parents made me & the teacher made me. I was disciplined.
I don't see how a hard-working & disciplined adult could possibly result from this situation. And it gets worse with more money & more stuff. How do we fix it? I don't know. Maybe ship everybody to the farm for some good ol' hard work.
I'm the same way. I had to get a small fan to turn on at night just so I had some white noise.
The wife says she's a fan of the fan but not a fan of the computer......???
You're right, he should have instantly become defensive and come up with some lame response. Nope.
A wise person is smart enough to keep their mouth shut when they don't know the answer to something. It's a good thing that he wanted to investigate it further and address a response later. Only idiots argue about that which they are ignorant of.
However, this is definitely something he should have been aware of previously if he is in fact the all-knowing, all-seeing lobbyist that people claim he is. So, smart for keeping his mouth shut when he really didn't know anything, dumb for not being knowledgeable about it in the first place.
Exactly. Eventually rogue nations will begin acquiring (either by purchasing or developing) ballistic missles capable of hitting the U.S. or our allies. Eventually someone will try to use them.
So, should we continue down the path of no missle defense system at all? No.
It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far. Since the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires a proactive approach (defense & offense) we had better get on the horse and start developing defenses such as this.
One of governments primary responsibilities is protection of the people. Even if spending 500 billion on this only saves one city, it's worth it. Plus, there is a deterrent factor there for those nations with only a couple of shots. With a system in place, they can't be sure if they will successfully strike or not. If they don't, they're doubly screwed.
I've seen those viewpoints both ways as well. Quite frankly, I don't think we are quite smart enough to know exactly what the effects of our human activities will be (yet).
But here's how I look at it: Does it seem like a "good" thing that we pump all kinds of toxins & pollutants into the air? No. Does it seem like a "good" idea to limit (within reason) the amount of crap we pump into the air? Yes.
Okay, so even if we can't agree on whether or not the earth will warm 0.02 degrees next year, we should still keep improving vehicle emissions & such.
It's the same crap I hear about smoking. We don't know if second hand smoke causes cancer so we shouldn't do anything about it. But does anybody really think it's a good thing to blow smoke in a kid's face. No. So quit bitchin' and do the right thing.
A little less science and a little more common sense would go a long way around here.
And I'd rather have an newer, more advanced car with lots of features that make me comfortable. And I think most people in the nation would agree with me.
What is this "average" you speak of? As I see it, I'm now able to buy a very nicely equipped & roomy car with excellent gas mileage. Where as, 10 or 15 years ago all I could get was a shoebox with wheels for the same mileage. I'll take the former.
Sure, the "average" might have gone up, but this is only because people are buying bigger cars.
Listen, if Mrs. Mom sits down and runs the numbers here's what she might see. At 12,000 miles per year & $2 per gallon of gas I can pay around $800 a year if my car gets 30 mpg. Of course, I can get a big SUV and only pay $800 more than that in a year. Wow, for $800 a year I get tons of room & I can haul around the kids, pick up tons of stuff, & not have to worry about being crushed when I get T-boned by a Hummer when I run a red light! Seems like a pretty easy choice.
Besides, people are willing to pay $10,000 more for an SUV than a car in the first place. Do you think they care about $800 a year in gas?
But MUST todays processors run hotter than that? I was under the impression that this temperature is more of a "best we can do" limit than an ideal temperature for processor operation. If that's the case, then using this liquid would appear to present an excellent solution to the ever-worsening cooling problem.
Liquids present much higher heat capacities as well as much higher heat-transfer coefficients than gas counterparts. Hence, flowing a modest amount of this liquid around a chip and then dumping that heat to a separate air/fluid heat exchanger seems to me to be an excellent idea. Low fluid speeds = low noise as well.
By keeping the chip's operational temperature below 49.2 C you remove the gas problem. Although all us good heat transfer engineers know how much heat is absorbed in liquid vaporization.
Wanna really get chips movin', just run the coolant through small tubes imbedded in the chip itself!!
Ahhhhh, too many ideas at once!
But this is just an engineering problem. Steering wheel input force is markedly different when comparing a user-desired turn or lane-change to a unspecified drift.
if(steering_force < min_turn_force && drift > max_acceptable_drift)
oh_shit
else
turn_car
I think it's more a question of using "steps" to get to Mars rather than trying it all at once. There are numerous extra challenges we must face to go to Mars over and above what we must face to go to the Moon. Increased cosmic radiation, long travel times, increased communication lag, etc., etc. Establishing at least a preliminary base on the Moon would allow us to sort out some of those challenges before sorting out the rest.
Is it more expensive to do things in steps? Of course. But then, it's more expensive to develop computer chips in small increment improvements if all you're trying to do is get to 100 GHz. Why waste all that time & money on the steps in between? Because they are value added & achievable goals.
That's how I think of a return to the Moon, just a value added & achievable goal on the way to further space exploration. Mars is really the same way. It is probably the most difficult goal we have set for ourselves right now, but I'm sure it will be just another stepping stone to something greater.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but American engineering skill & drive in the aerospace field is not what it used to be (trust me, I'm one of them). Most intelligent and driven young people are now going into the technology or computer sector, which is fine. We also don't have the USSR breathing down our neck trying to beat us to Mars. Bottom line, we don't have the ability to pull off another Apollo type engineering miracle. Some steps might just be a good idea, even if they are expensive.
But hey, I'm just a rocket scientist, what do I know.
I have often said that there are two kinds of environmentalists: California Stupid & Common-Sense Smart.
The "Common-Sense Smart" environmentalist realizes that electric cars receive their electricity from a coal plant & that much of it is wasted by the time the rubber hits the road. He also realizes even if we can't specifically define why pumping carbon-monoxide (& such) into the air is bad, it sure as hell doesn't seem good. She also realizes that there are bigger battles to be fought than saving some damn tree in the middle of Bloomington, Indiana.
The "California Stupid" environmentalist thinks nuclear = disaster = death. He doesn't realize that power must come from somewhere and where we're getting it now sure does more damage that the nuclear alternative. She also thinks saving a whale actually matters. They take a city vote on banning dihydrogen monoxide. Pretty soon both Carbon Monoxide & Dihydrogen Monoxide will be banned. Sure we breath out the first & 70% of us is the second, but they're greenhouse gases damn it!
In reality, I haven't been able to figure out if the second group is actually stupid or just has an agenda. But, then again, I'm not quite sure why you would be considered intelligent if the agenda you are pushing contains so many stupid points.
For quite a while now I've wished that I could buy HBO at $12 a month without buying all the other stuff. Granted, I enjoy many other channels but not $60 worth of other channels.
I would be perfectly content receiving the digitally broadcast major networks over the air & then paying 15 bucks a month for HBO. I would also consider adding some other channels for a couple bucks here or there. Basically, if I could remove all the junk off of my channel list and save even $10 a month I would take it.
But here's a question: Given the penetration of PVR's & their ability to remove advertising, will more channels be moving toward the ad-free, pay-to-view format of HBO anyway? I think the trend seems to be going this way. But hey, I'm just a couch potato!
This is why I don't use IM, why I don't own a pager, and why I don't own a cell phone. I have had each of those and quite frankly they all ruin productivity and increase my stress level. I thought I "needed" them at first, but then once I got them I realized it was only a hassle. Sure, there are instances where they can be useful, but I would say the cons far outweight the pros. Once I realized that I just canceled all that stuff & I'm happy I did. I find it somewhat funny that I used to pay people money to make it easier for people to annoy me. I'll take some peace & quiet along with $50 a month back in my pocket any day.
And here I thought solar energy failed because it costs too much and is incredibly inefficient. It must have been the man all along. Dang it!
I kind of like the idea, just not the implementation. When I was rehabilitating an ACL reconstruction they had this stupid little game on the console of the exercise bike. It was just an LCD light moving around a circle according to how fast I pedalled. I was racing another LCD light that was controlled by the speed setting. It was incredibly simple but somehow darn entertaining as well. It would seem to me that some sort of simple yet well done game hooked up to a bike could be mildly entertaining. Perhaps a specialized wheel speed reader that sends data through the standard Xbox controller port? Anyway, I'm obviously easily entertained.