No you simply fail to understand the logic and proposal. You're comparing it to a drunk driving law which is absurd, it's a alcohol prohibition law that you should compare it to. If you say that alcohol should be banned because people may drunk drive then saying it's possible to drink and not drive is a reasonable counter-argument. My argument was more specifically that using a blanket assumption to justify something is silly because a lot of people don't meet the assumption (ie: like say 90% of NYC which doesn't drive).
The problem I have with this Velocity thing is: who pays and who benefits? Seems to me a chunk of everyone's tuition will go toward it, while only some will be in a position to get in. And those who can get in will be the ones who can deal with the extra work load. You mean like how everyone pays for the introductory classes even if they don't need to take them because they're too easy for them? You know all that classroom space they take up is paid for by everyone as well and some of those classes aren't very populated. What about the counseling classes that exist for students with mental issues or study habit problems? What about the writing tutoring that probably exists as well for those who don't know how to write a resume? No of course, if it benefits you but someone else pays then it's great but god forbid you have to pay for something that benefits someone else.
In a perfect world, it would be the more clever who could handle the added work. In reality, it is the ones who have external support, like whose parents live not far away, or who come from richer families, that can focus on the work. The poor slobs who have 2 pair of pants for 4 years and who eat leftover mac & cheese for 5 days in a row wouldn't fit in. So, should people with support be forced to take classes too easy for them? Should they not be allowed to reach their own best level simply because you can't match them? Should they be screwed over to make you look better? That's apparently what you want.
I have no problem with elitism, it's a central component of hereditary capitalism, our beloved system. But not when the winners are being subsidized by the losers, that just strikes me as wrong. So others should be screwed over because you're doing worse?
I'm obviously biased, but I like the U of T approach: classical. Give everyone the same education and chuck them all into the market and let life sort them out. I hate the idea of university admins having the power to pick winners. The same education? Muahahahaha, if that's the case your university must have sucked ass. I during my undergrad took graduate classes, did research, took advantage of networking opportunities and so on. That's what gifted people usually do and only a fool believes that those people don't learn more as a result.
No, you're free to work as hard and as long as you want. If you're too incompetent to quit and find a better job or join a union then that's your failure.
Some people love to work long hours, of course they're not you so you don't care if they get what they want as long as you get what you want.
Employers of salaried employees seem to feel quite justified in requiring their employees to work without enough sleep. I'd like to see legislation passed that forbids this. I on the other hand wish the government would stay the fuck out of my life, if I don't like how long I'm working I can and will go find another job.
Even if your paid work isn't safety-critical, going without sleep needlessly puts lives at risk when you drive your car home. People are killed all the time when drivers fall asleep at the wheel. I don't drive.
That's my point, the quoted section does jack shit to describe the parts of the patent that matter. I could argue how hot linking on a large scale violates this patent but that'd of course be absurd.
The DNS aspect of this patent and how it's used is key from what I understand of a quick look at prior court cases, the rest of it is in many ways fluff (prior art and so on I think).
If you're going to argue something is non-obvious then at least know the bloody subject and how it's actually BEEN argued to be non-obvious.
You'd be "surprised", i.e. you don't know for sure. Yet I'm right and you're not, so apparently you didn't know. I on the other hand know I'm clever and usually right but don't claim to unless I'm sure, such as right now. United States Patent 5752022 filed in 1995 by IBM which mentions URL prepending in a distributed network.
A simple search of the patent database will probably find hundreds of similar patents and many are probably earlier, I'm sure the original prior art can be traced to the beginnings of the URL scheme. It's obvious, only a zealot would think otherwise.
All you are doing is guessing which was the original point of my comment of ignoramus Dr. Watson's trying to outguess Sherlock's without full knowledge of the facts. No I'm applying logic and reason to the problem based on my own knowledge of the subject, of course I can't claim to be certain so I don't.
And once again I never claimed to know if the patent was obvious or not. You on the other hand do as do other people in this thread, apparently with even less knowledge of the subject. False belief in one's own lack of ignorance does not make someone any less ignorant.
If it wasn't of any use then why exactly do you think the competitor was violating it? They weren't, they were violating all the other actually important parts of the patent. Just because you're too stupid to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sigh, christ your reading comprehension is worse than a rocks. I said IF the sentence you quoted was the MAIN or even REQUIRED part of the patent then the patent is worthless. Of course it obviously is not the main or even a necessary part of the patent, as the patent has a lot more to it.
The more you write the clearer it is that you know nothing about web caching, my dear Watson. Neither do you it seems my dear monkey, not do you know nothing about the English language and can't read it seems. I at least never claimed to know things I don't.
Also why are all you too inept to comprehend, even after I say so explicitly, that I am saying nothing about the patent itself (ie: how obvious or non-obvious it is) simply your incompetency at defending it?
Yet that phrase has nothing to do with web caching, is simply doing that what they patented according to you? I'd be surprised if that method wasn't already used for logging outgoing links by that time and it's unlikely that that itself is an innovation of theirs.
It may or may not be innovative in terms of web caching however in that case their patent doesn't seem to be of much practical use. In fact since if you regard THAT as their chief innovation you must have a very low opinion of their ingenuity.
See it's easy enough to simply modify the url instead of pretending text to it, in fact that seems to be done more often than not with such services nowadays (see myspace for example which uses x.myspace.com). On the other hand if you say that modifying the url does in fact count then you're simply agreeing with the original slashdot summaries description of the patent.
There are ways to argue why this is innovative, the original poster is just too inept to use them apparently.
It's even more interesting to watch the Netherlanders of Slashdot try to defend Mr. Holmes, I mean it's actually beyond hilarious just how much of an idiot you apparently are. Christ, you can't even comprehend the couple sentences in my original post much less the patent itself. You quote the most obvious part of the patent that is used by nearly any website and the one part which has NOTHING to do with web caching. It's an overall basic descriptive section pure and simple, meant to be nothing but that and contains none of the guts of the patent. It's like quoting the definitions section of a math thesis and saying they're incredibly insightful. Only an utter nitwit would even consider that instead of quoting the guts of a thesis or the overall contributions of it.
I never said the patent is (or isn't) obvious, I simply said you're a moron who couldn't defend it's lack of obviousness if your life depended on it. Judging by some of the other replies to your post this seems to be not only my own opinion.
Doesn't seem so obvious now, does it? Actually it does, just because they use many large words doesn't make what you quote anything but obvious. Christ, I mean the patent has 34 sections and you quote one of the most obvious of them.
You know what your quote says: "serve some of the parts of a webpage from other servers." In other words if you allow an easy way of hot linking of images then you meet the criteria.
I knew a place where they went to VOIP because their point-to-point telephone T1 was down for six weeks in a two months period (killed three times with two weeks to fix each time).
Yeah, because they have no idea how to visualise complex data sets./sarcasm. I've seen some lovely ways of visualizing things that would make absolutely no sense to someone who doesn't have experience with that way of visualizing things. Hell half the diagrams I make to explain things make no sense because the way I see things is apparently not how most of the rest of the world sees things. It's like making a dvorak keyboard for something (say shopping mall web terminal) because you find it faster without realizing that 99.9% of the users can only type well on a qwerty.
Also there is a difference between visualization and UI but that's less important.
If you don't try you'll never succeed. Those requirements vary in how stringent they are and likely don't matter that much (I've seen a half dozen different positions use the exact same job requirements for example). That said you will need some way to demonstrate your ability on your resume, be it experience or recommendations from well known people or simple implied insanity/genius (ie: intelligence shown in ways that are so odd people can't help but wonder).
In other words in getting a job it matters who you know, what people think you know and finally what you actually know. A degree is simply one way of getting the second (and theoretically third one) quickly although it's not the only way.
In terms of what happens on the job, that really does vary depending on the people and how you act. You have to remember that an interview is as much about you learning about the company/possible co-workers/possible bosses as it is about them learning about you. If they are reasonable people then ti doesn't matter what you get hired for, if you're able to demonstrate some great ability you'll quickly be given a new position for it. Of course that requires you to do more than the bare minimum and actually go out of your way to find/solve problems (even ones you don't really need to concern yourself with). My dad has a number of such stories including one where he applied for a position he was unqualified for, bombed the interview for that position but showed such skill in what he actually knew that he was offered a much better position.
It's not exactly easy I'm assuming to find out what potential people have. Also there is a big difference between a good programmer and a superstar. There is also a big difference between someone who can be even a good programmer and someone who is intelligent (or even a genius).
Everyone is different, why do people seem to never realize this. Personally I like thinking and coming up with ideas, programing is amusing to me but gets really boring after a while.
That aside, to me money is security and time. I can pay someone else to do things I don't enjoy doing and if the shit hits the fan I have something to rely on. To be honest the later is much more important, society does not care about the little guy and I have no desire to be stepped on.
Uhhhhm, don't claim to understand the big picture better than other people when you can't. A company, for a non-core, product has several options: 1) Make it all in-house or pay some other company to make it specifically for them. 2) Use an off the shelf product. 3) Collaborate, via OSS, with other companies.
Certain things need to be kept in mind, such as: -#1 is expensive and may not justify the cost in terms of profit it generates. -Most companies don't have enough programmers on hand to make 1 feasible for many tasks, instead they may opt for an inferior in-house solution. -While 2 is what capitalism may indicate is supposed to happen (ie: demand causes new company to spring up) there is still overhead. -The companies being collaborated in #3 need not be competitors or most of the contributions need not be from competitors (if you leverage existing code). For example if it's server admin scripts then you may not have even heard of the companies you're working with and never will. -In certain cases even good products from #2 would require many specialized alterations and modifications. These would be charged for by the company providing them. -If the product is a niche one then there is a real risk that the provider in #2 goes out of business and you lose any future ability to modify the product. -The only feasible solution for a company may be between #2 and #3, and if #2 doesn't yet exist then #3 may be the only way of getting the desired product. That is short of starting a new software dev company or division, then marketing the final product to competitors, which of course has a high initial cost.
The situation is in other words complex and in certain cases OSS is probably the best solution in terms of best full filling the requirements. In other cases it's not as it does open itself up to certain abuses.
Our "hero" here just sounds bitter because FOSS shines light on the truth that highly-paid, closed source programmers are no better, as a whole, than programmers who write code with no financial compensation. How exactly do you come to that conclusion? Most FOSS programmers, of major software at least, are paid for what they do from what I understand. Their employers may pay them directly to work on the project, indirectly (ie: they need to solve problem x for their company and it involves a patch to the FOSS program or simply writing such a program) or the FOSS project may be their employer (effectively, see mozilla). The image of the lonely hacker coding valiantly from his basement while subsiding on ramen is quite far from reality in most cases.
Ah yes the lovely straw man argument. Let me follow up on it: since you consider children the same as adults I guess they'll be fine if we just dump them out on the street. If you disagree then you're a hypocrite, since I'm simply using the same logic as you are using. After all you're not required to support a dead beat relative so why should you be forced to support a dead beat child, either they work or they don't eat.
Anyway, children are not adults and they don't think quite as adults. Sometimes you need to hit them a bit to get the point across since you can't exactly argue with them logically.
In other words you're a selfish jackass who can't be bothered to read what others write and believe everyone is just like you. Sorry to break it to you but many people, unlike you, are not morons. Modern games easily use multiple cores, photoshop does as well, high res movies, video editing (a relatively popular hobby) likewise does and anyone who multitasks does better with them (within limits).
Then again if you want to run all that on a pentium 200mhz then be my guest, unlike you I have done that (with modern apps) and have no desire to return to that world. I've also used older programs in place of newer ones and likewise have no desire to return to those times. I personally don't feel like waiting 3 minutes to alt-tab between applications because some piss-designed flash app is freezing firefox. Also firefox normally takes up 300mb of ram, open office does another 100-200mb and itunes is probably just as bad. Add in trillian, photoshop, dreamweaver, eclipse, utorrent, some media player and thunderbird then even 1gb starts to look mighty small.
Also if you don't need 6 cores then don't fucking buy something with that many. I mean call me old fashioned and all, what with how the modern American is expected to have negative self control and all, but I don't believe in buying stuff just to have a bigger e-penis.
I have no truck with better performance. The problem is we DON'T DO ANYTHING with it. No, YOU don't do anything with this. I on the other hand am able to go through an order of magnitude of data in the same amount of time, run multiple tasks at once and so on. I've run windows 2k/xp for a long time on a lot of different hardware and I can tell you that the difference is massive.
We don't use one core as a dedicated security and encryption subsystem. Why would you waste a whole core on this? Encryption will 99.9% of the time be doing jack shit and software can already do various types of encryption if you want it to. Why are you trying to FORCE people to do things your way instead of letting them choose?
We don't effectively use our 1GB baseline RAM footprints to create an out of the box virtualization enviroment. If you want that then go for it, most people don't need it and a lot of programs laugh at that 1gb of ram as it is.
We're STILL running out and buying video adapters or buying motherboards with video chips in lieu of carving out a piece of one of those cores and using that as the soft video processor. Are you a moron or something? Even the fastest cpu now will be utter crap at graphics, it's not designed to do that. Graphic cards have ram that is multiple times faster, cpus optimized for the tasks they do and so on. It's like taking a big-rig and racing it against a formula-1 car, after all he big rig has so much horsepower so it has to be just as good at racing...
1. Scientists can also work in the private industry which likely pays much better. 2. Full professors can also do consulting on the side, see point 1 about pay.
Kids don't need to learn how to deal with people from other kids, they need to learn how from adults. I learned from both, only difference is that the kids didn't lie and try to fuck over my life quite as much as the adults.
I don't want my kids learning about drugs, sex, rock and roll from their peers - they need to learn it from me. They'll learn from their peers anyway probably in college. Likewise those are all parts of life being utterly blind and brainwashed to them doesn't help your kids. Then again I guess you do want them to be obedient brainwashed little slaves instead of free thinking people. High School helped me more than anything else to understand different types people who hold different views. Of course that means my own views didn't fit my parent's views but that's life.
After all god forbid your kids learn that sex doesn't set you on fire, drugs don't turn you into a zombie, homosexuals are normal people just like everyone else, music doesn't define who you are, blacks aren't blithering idiots, jews are evil monsters, being different from you doesn't make someone evil and so on.
I don't want them in environments where they get crappy self-esteem lessons from teachers and kids with idiot parents. I guess that's the kind of parents one girl I met in college had, apparently without even trying I reduced her to tears and ripped apart her world view during a casual debate. Glass cocoons seem nice till they break and the shards hit whomever was inside them.
I don't want them sitting in a classroom going over and over again on stuff they could have learned in 10 minutes and moved on to something else and more productive. Then don't send them to a shitty school.
No thanks. Home and private education worked fine for hundreds of years before the late 1800s when public schools were invented to turn kids into wage slaves at factories. right, you instead want to turn them into your own obedient little slaves, eh? Also you mean the hundreds of years during which most people were illiterate and most kids left "school" at 12 to help on the farm?
And simply because a kid is home-schooled doesnt mean they don't have friends and get out more. We have churches and civic programs that kids need to be involved in as well. In other words you want to control their lives 24/7, how sad.
Your point? I'm smarter than 99.9% of the US I think (if bloody test scores are any indication) and that doesn't mean I'm not a mental wreck. Nothing to do with homeschooling but intelligence does not imply a lack of social issues. Granted if I was home schooled I'd have turned out much much worse but that's also a separate issue.
Now, I fully agree that there is potential for going overboard. In fact, I'll assert that going overboard is inevitable. People are flawed, and sometimes the laws won't go far enough, and sometimes they will go to far. That's a risk I'm willing to take because the alternative, no such laws at all, would be worse. I think the founding fathers of the US did a fairly good job of placing safeguards to help mitigate the risks of tyranny, as well as making correcting from tyranny fairly easy and quick. Tyranny is only tyranny for 10 years, then it becomes the norm and no longer tyranny. Not many people after all mind drug laws, after all we all know that anyone carrying over $10k in cash must be a drug dealer and the police are perfectly right in taking the money (without any other cause).
Have you actually seen all the bloody warning labels on everything? Coffee is hot apparently...and that one had a very large and successful lawsuit behind it. I think almost every building in California has a label saying there are carcinogens inside. In the end it become less than worthless as people ignore the warnings and assume they are safe anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
No you simply fail to understand the logic and proposal. You're comparing it to a drunk driving law which is absurd, it's a alcohol prohibition law that you should compare it to. If you say that alcohol should be banned because people may drunk drive then saying it's possible to drink and not drive is a reasonable counter-argument. My argument was more specifically that using a blanket assumption to justify something is silly because a lot of people don't meet the assumption (ie: like say 90% of NYC which doesn't drive).
No, you're free to work as hard and as long as you want. If you're too incompetent to quit and find a better job or join a union then that's your failure.
Some people love to work long hours, of course they're not you so you don't care if they get what they want as long as you get what you want.
That's my point, the quoted section does jack shit to describe the parts of the patent that matter. I could argue how hot linking on a large scale violates this patent but that'd of course be absurd.
The DNS aspect of this patent and how it's used is key from what I understand of a quick look at prior court cases, the rest of it is in many ways fluff (prior art and so on I think).
If you're going to argue something is non-obvious then at least know the bloody subject and how it's actually BEEN argued to be non-obvious.
A simple search of the patent database will probably find hundreds of similar patents and many are probably earlier, I'm sure the original prior art can be traced to the beginnings of the URL scheme. It's obvious, only a zealot would think otherwise. All you are doing is guessing which was the original point of my comment of ignoramus Dr. Watson's trying to outguess Sherlock's without full knowledge of the facts. No I'm applying logic and reason to the problem based on my own knowledge of the subject, of course I can't claim to be certain so I don't.
And once again I never claimed to know if the patent was obvious or not. You on the other hand do as do other people in this thread, apparently with even less knowledge of the subject. False belief in one's own lack of ignorance does not make someone any less ignorant. If it wasn't of any use then why exactly do you think the competitor was violating it? They weren't, they were violating all the other actually important parts of the patent. Just because you're too stupid to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sigh, christ your reading comprehension is worse than a rocks. I said IF the sentence you quoted was the MAIN or even REQUIRED part of the patent then the patent is worthless. Of course it obviously is not the main or even a necessary part of the patent, as the patent has a lot more to it. The more you write the clearer it is that you know nothing about web caching, my dear Watson. Neither do you it seems my dear monkey, not do you know nothing about the English language and can't read it seems. I at least never claimed to know things I don't.
Also why are all you too inept to comprehend, even after I say so explicitly, that I am saying nothing about the patent itself (ie: how obvious or non-obvious it is) simply your incompetency at defending it?
Yet that phrase has nothing to do with web caching, is simply doing that what they patented according to you? I'd be surprised if that method wasn't already used for logging outgoing links by that time and it's unlikely that that itself is an innovation of theirs.
It may or may not be innovative in terms of web caching however in that case their patent doesn't seem to be of much practical use. In fact since if you regard THAT as their chief innovation you must have a very low opinion of their ingenuity.
See it's easy enough to simply modify the url instead of pretending text to it, in fact that seems to be done more often than not with such services nowadays (see myspace for example which uses x.myspace.com). On the other hand if you say that modifying the url does in fact count then you're simply agreeing with the original slashdot summaries description of the patent.
There are ways to argue why this is innovative, the original poster is just too inept to use them apparently.
It's even more interesting to watch the Netherlanders of Slashdot try to defend Mr. Holmes, I mean it's actually beyond hilarious just how much of an idiot you apparently are. Christ, you can't even comprehend the couple sentences in my original post much less the patent itself. You quote the most obvious part of the patent that is used by nearly any website and the one part which has NOTHING to do with web caching. It's an overall basic descriptive section pure and simple, meant to be nothing but that and contains none of the guts of the patent. It's like quoting the definitions section of a math thesis and saying they're incredibly insightful. Only an utter nitwit would even consider that instead of quoting the guts of a thesis or the overall contributions of it.
I never said the patent is (or isn't) obvious, I simply said you're a moron who couldn't defend it's lack of obviousness if your life depended on it. Judging by some of the other replies to your post this seems to be not only my own opinion.
You know what your quote says: "serve some of the parts of a webpage from other servers." In other words if you allow an easy way of hot linking of images then you meet the criteria.
I knew a place where they went to VOIP because their point-to-point telephone T1 was down for six weeks in a two months period (killed three times with two weeks to fix each time).
Also there is a difference between visualization and UI but that's less important.
If you don't try you'll never succeed. Those requirements vary in how stringent they are and likely don't matter that much (I've seen a half dozen different positions use the exact same job requirements for example). That said you will need some way to demonstrate your ability on your resume, be it experience or recommendations from well known people or simple implied insanity/genius (ie: intelligence shown in ways that are so odd people can't help but wonder).
In other words in getting a job it matters who you know, what people think you know and finally what you actually know. A degree is simply one way of getting the second (and theoretically third one) quickly although it's not the only way.
In terms of what happens on the job, that really does vary depending on the people and how you act. You have to remember that an interview is as much about you learning about the company/possible co-workers/possible bosses as it is about them learning about you. If they are reasonable people then ti doesn't matter what you get hired for, if you're able to demonstrate some great ability you'll quickly be given a new position for it. Of course that requires you to do more than the bare minimum and actually go out of your way to find/solve problems (even ones you don't really need to concern yourself with). My dad has a number of such stories including one where he applied for a position he was unqualified for, bombed the interview for that position but showed such skill in what he actually knew that he was offered a much better position.
It's not exactly easy I'm assuming to find out what potential people have. Also there is a big difference between a good programmer and a superstar. There is also a big difference between someone who can be even a good programmer and someone who is intelligent (or even a genius).
Everyone is different, why do people seem to never realize this. Personally I like thinking and coming up with ideas, programing is amusing to me but gets really boring after a while.
That aside, to me money is security and time. I can pay someone else to do things I don't enjoy doing and if the shit hits the fan I have something to rely on. To be honest the later is much more important, society does not care about the little guy and I have no desire to be stepped on.
Uhhhhm, don't claim to understand the big picture better than other people when you can't. A company, for a non-core, product has several options:
1) Make it all in-house or pay some other company to make it specifically for them.
2) Use an off the shelf product.
3) Collaborate, via OSS, with other companies.
Certain things need to be kept in mind, such as:
-#1 is expensive and may not justify the cost in terms of profit it generates.
-Most companies don't have enough programmers on hand to make 1 feasible for many tasks, instead they may opt for an inferior in-house solution.
-While 2 is what capitalism may indicate is supposed to happen (ie: demand causes new company to spring up) there is still overhead.
-The companies being collaborated in #3 need not be competitors or most of the contributions need not be from competitors (if you leverage existing code). For example if it's server admin scripts then you may not have even heard of the companies you're working with and never will.
-In certain cases even good products from #2 would require many specialized alterations and modifications. These would be charged for by the company providing them.
-If the product is a niche one then there is a real risk that the provider in #2 goes out of business and you lose any future ability to modify the product.
-The only feasible solution for a company may be between #2 and #3, and if #2 doesn't yet exist then #3 may be the only way of getting the desired product. That is short of starting a new software dev company or division, then marketing the final product to competitors, which of course has a high initial cost.
The situation is in other words complex and in certain cases OSS is probably the best solution in terms of best full filling the requirements. In other cases it's not as it does open itself up to certain abuses.
Ah yes the lovely straw man argument. Let me follow up on it: since you consider children the same as adults I guess they'll be fine if we just dump them out on the street. If you disagree then you're a hypocrite, since I'm simply using the same logic as you are using. After all you're not required to support a dead beat relative so why should you be forced to support a dead beat child, either they work or they don't eat.
Anyway, children are not adults and they don't think quite as adults. Sometimes you need to hit them a bit to get the point across since you can't exactly argue with them logically.
In other words you're a selfish jackass who can't be bothered to read what others write and believe everyone is just like you. Sorry to break it to you but many people, unlike you, are not morons. Modern games easily use multiple cores, photoshop does as well, high res movies, video editing (a relatively popular hobby) likewise does and anyone who multitasks does better with them (within limits).
Then again if you want to run all that on a pentium 200mhz then be my guest, unlike you I have done that (with modern apps) and have no desire to return to that world. I've also used older programs in place of newer ones and likewise have no desire to return to those times. I personally don't feel like waiting 3 minutes to alt-tab between applications because some piss-designed flash app is freezing firefox. Also firefox normally takes up 300mb of ram, open office does another 100-200mb and itunes is probably just as bad. Add in trillian, photoshop, dreamweaver, eclipse, utorrent, some media player and thunderbird then even 1gb starts to look mighty small.
Also if you don't need 6 cores then don't fucking buy something with that many. I mean call me old fashioned and all, what with how the modern American is expected to have negative self control and all, but I don't believe in buying stuff just to have a bigger e-penis.
1. Scientists can also work in the private industry which likely pays much better.
2. Full professors can also do consulting on the side, see point 1 about pay.
After all god forbid your kids learn that sex doesn't set you on fire, drugs don't turn you into a zombie, homosexuals are normal people just like everyone else, music doesn't define who you are, blacks aren't blithering idiots, jews are evil monsters, being different from you doesn't make someone evil and so on. I don't want them in environments where they get crappy self-esteem lessons from teachers and kids with idiot parents. I guess that's the kind of parents one girl I met in college had, apparently without even trying I reduced her to tears and ripped apart her world view during a casual debate. Glass cocoons seem nice till they break and the shards hit whomever was inside them. I don't want them sitting in a classroom going over and over again on stuff they could have learned in 10 minutes and moved on to something else and more productive. Then don't send them to a shitty school. No thanks. Home and private education worked fine for hundreds of years before the late 1800s when public schools were invented to turn kids into wage slaves at factories. right, you instead want to turn them into your own obedient little slaves, eh? Also you mean the hundreds of years during which most people were illiterate and most kids left "school" at 12 to help on the farm? And simply because a kid is home-schooled doesnt mean they don't have friends and get out more. We have churches and civic programs that kids need to be involved in as well. In other words you want to control their lives 24/7, how sad.
Your point? I'm smarter than 99.9% of the US I think (if bloody test scores are any indication) and that doesn't mean I'm not a mental wreck. Nothing to do with homeschooling but intelligence does not imply a lack of social issues. Granted if I was home schooled I'd have turned out much much worse but that's also a separate issue.
Have you actually seen all the bloody warning labels on everything? Coffee is hot apparently...and that one had a very large and successful lawsuit behind it. I think almost every building in California has a label saying there are carcinogens inside. In the end it become less than worthless as people ignore the warnings and assume they are safe anyways.