I assume you are not trying to start a flamewar, so... (disclaimer: I am a relatively well-traveled American - spent several years of my life living in Eastern Europe and the Middle East) 1. Americans are just as dopey as anyone, hence your "spaghetti" anecdote is not particularly relevant as regards Americans in general. Also, you seem to assume Americans are more arrogant, etc. than everyone else. We believe, in my experience, that we (individually) know what is best for us. You know what is best for you. We use freedom of speech to figure things out by communicating. I am not sure how this can hurt anyone - if you don't like what is said, don't listen. I live in the US now, and if I get advice I don't want, I IGNORE IT. I am curious how speech is a weapon - it damages no one, unless it is incitement to violence, etc., which is another debate, but speech per se can do nothing but enlighten (at best), persuade, annoy or disgust. No one ever died of being spoken to, but many have died while being silenced. 2. Americans do not, in my experience, associate themselves with the UN. Generally, again in my experience, we look at it as more of a useful forum for diplomacy (see below). I doubt anyone seriously associates themselves with the UN, poster included, the same way they associate with their national government - not the administration, necessarily, but the structure itself. 3. My opinion on the UN - I may or may not like the US government administration, but I would never acknowledge the UN in its current form, as any sort of government, with police or regulatory powers. To be a government, an organization must have enforcement power, and a monopoly on the use of force. I would not like a UN force coming into my country to act as police, unless the government of my country had ceased to exist. We can argue over whether, say, the Rwandan government per se 'ceased to exist' when it allowed genocide to sweep through, hence justifying outside interference, but that brings up another objection I have to the UN as government... Like it or not, there are places on this planet who should have no say in a world government. There. I said it. Hate me. North Korea. Rwanda. Saudi Arabia. The UN cannot block or sanction members, so if these countries were members in any real way, so either A - the UN would have to interfere in their internal affairs to force them to stop the awful things they do to their own citizens or B - stand mutely by while a member state committed human rights abuses. Neither is a good option for a government. However, as a diplomatic forum, the UN is awesome - I, as an American, like the fact that there is a place that would actually dare, from its New York City headquarters, declare the US in violation of a charter agreed upon by the rest of the world via negoriation. I *like* to see such feedback. I *want* the US to be engaged constructively with the rest of the planet. I *want* outside opinions to receive a hearing in my country, and for us to respond intelligently. However, I would not tolerate a UN with a force-monopoly over my own government, which is what a true world government would require...... and I would only refer to the UN as "we" if it were such a government. Until then, the UN is 'they'.
Heck, I call the US Congress 'they', and I get to vote for some of them!
Ellison is known mostly for his 'human-centric' science fiction. Best example, IMHO, is "I have not mouth and I must scream". Not for the exclusively 'hard' sci-fi fan, but thought-provoking nonetheless. He also did some work on the original Trek, and between then and now had published a LOT of work. He's like a less-emotionally blasted, bitterer version of P. Dick. Basically, I like him because he treats his characters like people, rather than cutouts, which I see a lot in fiction in general, and Science Fiction in particular. Oh, and his rant about turning Asimovs' "I, Robot" into a screenplay (NOT the W. Smith version) in the published, illustrated screenplay is worth the purchase price. Angry, ranty - yes. Worshipful of good material, yes. 'Worthy'? IMHO, yes.
For the sake of brevity...
1. FTL and other 'impossible' technologies should have '... as far as we currently know' placed in front of the 'impossible' description. We still don't know far more than we know.
2. Science Fiction is not about gadgets or things - it is about people and societies undergoing profound change - usually as a result of or in a climate of technological change. As such, the 'science' is pretty much secondary. That said, 'bad' science can make a tale sound cheesy or ruin the tale, but still, we cut a LOT of slack for such things.
3. Dreams do not have to make sense to be compelling. If it stimulates the mind of one fat, shy, borderline-poor, socially inept kid to take out 20 library books at a time and imagine his way out of a life he doesn't like and is poweless, at the moment, to change, it doesn't matter how dumb the tale. Star Trek, the original series, is hands-down terrible science and unrealistic military culture to boot - but man, I didn't care how creepy the basement was, that's where the TV and Trek were!
The question has no answer - because it does not matter. What matters is, are we better off with or without the 'bad' science fiction. Hands down, my vote is 'with'. Your mileage may vary.
Okay, y'all are creeping me out. I JUST STARTED a masters program in CS (I'm a CPA now) and reading the comments, it seems that just about everyone here is down on the job scene in CS. Now, perhaps I am missing a crucial distinction here, but every survey I read indicates that IT and CS jobs are actually hard to fill - hence all the visas for foreign workers. Is this not so? Seriously, is the IT/CS job marked hosed? Or, is this just the sunny/. psyche shining through...:)
Fair point. However, I suggest most Americans are close enough and qualified enough to get into a good to very good state school and work through, if they apply themselves. Private and Ivy schools are great - wish I was Cornell or MIT material - but not essential to getting a 'good' degree. By good, I mean it prepares you to work in your chosen field of study and fulfils your own educational goals.
And hey, If I wasn't married and did get into MIT or Harvard, I would love nothing better than to spend my entire life working and going to school part time. Beats the 9-to-5 grind. I'm happy where I am, but that makes a nice cubicle-dream.:)
At the risk of beating this to death, anyone who wants evidence of the importance of passion in learning consider the masses of foreign students in many/most technology programs (for example). I got to see the other side - in Hungary, where the students routinely do better in Math and Science than Americans, and they have no 'computers in the classroom' by the way, they have to line up and compete to come here, and boy do they. China - same deal. A friend of mine from college from China, when I gave him some static about studying *all* the time, told me that I didn't have 5,000 other students 'back home' ready to step in and take my government grant if I got 'poor' grades, which to him meant sub-3.6/4.0. We in America have it cake easy, unlimited opportunity, and for whatever reason, we take it for granted. Perhaps I'm too hard on my native land, which I love, but for whatever reason, whiny Americans raise my hackles. Now, I'll stop whining. Thanks for all the mod ups to my parent, now I'll brace for the Offtopic/Flamebait/whatever.
I see where you're going with this, but consider...
If you get a degree in a field you don't like just to "get a good job" you won't get a 'good' job - you'll get a decently-compensated job, but you will never be good enough at it to really succeed. I know several accountants and financial analysts who took accounting or finance degrees for the job - and I wouldn't pay them to shovel manure, let alone work on client financials. They make a decent living, but they are just pathetic to watch. It never occurred to them to care about anything but maximum pay, and they are already paying the price - lost human potential. I predict either lives of 'quiet desperation' or absolute unthinking dullness.
My point is only that it only makes sense to invest in your education when you can be assured of maximizing your return on investment - which is impossible if you don't care about what you are studying.
I did it from 1995-1998. I had a few advantages - I had 2 yrs of credit, so I only had to do 2.5 years of solid "gut" classes, and I had the GI bill, which while not great (much better today) helped. Still, it is possible to get a quality degree from a good state school and leave with $20k in student loans (more than 2.5 times what I incurred). Not perfect, but eminently doable, especially given the alternative.
Oh, I had ZERO familial support. All me, GI bill and loans.
Your parents, I respecfully suggest, exaggerate the 'impossibility'.
I left college after 2 years because I was bored to tears. Joined the Marines. Went back to college 6 years later *highly* motivated and enjoyed the heck out of learning - took CS classes for fun. My fellow undergrads, mostly straight from High School, hated their classes and hated me - I was the jerk who didn't listen to them whine about how hard their schedules were, or how much different classes sucked. My experience - most of them were too immature to appreciate the opportunity they had, and they had insufficient life experience to know that they should feel passionate about anything at all, let alone learning. Long story short - if you are burning up to go to school, go. If you aren't, be honest with yourself and do 'something else' until you figure out what you want to study. Don't let $ keep you back either - I worked my way through school. It is possible, but difficult - and I wouldn't have it any other way. Whatever you do, light your own ass on fire to get something worthwhile done - no one will teach you that. Hard work is it's own best reward.
Re:Science and religion are not enemies.
on
Happy Darwin Day!
·
· Score: 1
Key phrase - "commonly held interpretations of these texts". Briefly, ALL religious texts are historical documents based on oral accounts of events and ascribed meanings set down (usually) long after the events actually occurred, and not always by individuals directly present. These texts are then passed down and often edited (christian bible was in almost continuous revision from about 360 - 1611 AD, you can look it up). All the religious "scholarship" in the universe cannot get past the fact that the very foundation of religious experience is based on individual spirituality, which does not translate between people well at all, and a doctrinal foundation built on... old, secondhand folktales told by long-deceased semi-educated irrational dirt-farmers. Until god and scripture stand on their own withour relying on what some wandering nut preached back in 400 AD that somehow got written down and survived, there can be no place for religion in science - simply because religion does not accept (in its traditional form) the language of reason, nor the evidence of experiment as having any bearing on what is "true". This doesn't mean there cannot be a god of some sort, merely that humanity cannot have a real understanding of a god who created the universe - but we may be able to understand such a god's creation by studying it via... Science and its methods! As for if god exists or not, we'll all find out sooner or later. And boy, will god have some explaining to do...
Slashdot Mirror
This assumes that being MCSE = "qualified" for something.
/., so that is not a given...
This is
I assume you are not trying to start a flamewar, so... ... and I would only refer to the UN as "we" if it were such a government. Until then, the UN is 'they'.
(disclaimer: I am a relatively well-traveled American - spent several years of my life living in Eastern Europe and the Middle East)
1. Americans are just as dopey as anyone, hence your "spaghetti" anecdote is not particularly relevant as regards Americans in general. Also, you seem to assume Americans are more arrogant, etc. than everyone else. We believe, in my experience, that we (individually) know what is best for us. You know what is best for you. We use freedom of speech to figure things out by communicating. I am not sure how this can hurt anyone - if you don't like what is said, don't listen. I live in the US now, and if I get advice I don't want, I IGNORE IT. I am curious how speech is a weapon - it damages no one, unless it is incitement to violence, etc., which is another debate, but speech per se can do nothing but enlighten (at best), persuade, annoy or disgust. No one ever died of being spoken to, but many have died while being silenced.
2. Americans do not, in my experience, associate themselves with the UN. Generally, again in my experience, we look at it as more of a useful forum for diplomacy (see below). I doubt anyone seriously associates themselves with the UN, poster included, the same way they associate with their national government - not the administration, necessarily, but the structure itself.
3. My opinion on the UN - I may or may not like the US government administration, but I would never acknowledge the UN in its current form, as any sort of government, with police or regulatory powers. To be a government, an organization must have enforcement power, and a monopoly on the use of force. I would not like a UN force coming into my country to act as police, unless the government of my country had ceased to exist. We can argue over whether, say, the Rwandan government per se 'ceased to exist' when it allowed genocide to sweep through, hence justifying outside interference, but that brings up another objection I have to the UN as government...
Like it or not, there are places on this planet who should have no say in a world government. There. I said it. Hate me. North Korea. Rwanda. Saudi Arabia. The UN cannot block or sanction members, so if these countries were members in any real way, so either A - the UN would have to interfere in their internal affairs to force them to stop the awful things they do to their own citizens or B - stand mutely by while a member state committed human rights abuses. Neither is a good option for a government.
However, as a diplomatic forum, the UN is awesome - I, as an American, like the fact that there is a place that would actually dare, from its New York City headquarters, declare the US in violation of a charter agreed upon by the rest of the world via negoriation. I *like* to see such feedback. I *want* the US to be engaged constructively with the rest of the planet. I *want* outside opinions to receive a hearing in my country, and for us to respond intelligently. However, I would not tolerate a UN with a force-monopoly over my own government, which is what a true world government would require...
Heck, I call the US Congress 'they', and I get to vote for some of them!
Ellison is known mostly for his 'human-centric' science fiction. Best example, IMHO, is "I have not mouth and I must scream". Not for the exclusively 'hard' sci-fi fan, but thought-provoking nonetheless. He also did some work on the original Trek, and between then and now had published a LOT of work. He's like a less-emotionally blasted, bitterer version of P. Dick. Basically, I like him because he treats his characters like people, rather than cutouts, which I see a lot in fiction in general, and Science Fiction in particular. Oh, and his rant about turning Asimovs' "I, Robot" into a screenplay (NOT the W. Smith version) in the published, illustrated screenplay is worth the purchase price. Angry, ranty - yes. Worshipful of good material, yes. 'Worthy'? IMHO, yes.
For the sake of brevity... 1. FTL and other 'impossible' technologies should have '... as far as we currently know' placed in front of the 'impossible' description. We still don't know far more than we know. 2. Science Fiction is not about gadgets or things - it is about people and societies undergoing profound change - usually as a result of or in a climate of technological change. As such, the 'science' is pretty much secondary. That said, 'bad' science can make a tale sound cheesy or ruin the tale, but still, we cut a LOT of slack for such things. 3. Dreams do not have to make sense to be compelling. If it stimulates the mind of one fat, shy, borderline-poor, socially inept kid to take out 20 library books at a time and imagine his way out of a life he doesn't like and is poweless, at the moment, to change, it doesn't matter how dumb the tale. Star Trek, the original series, is hands-down terrible science and unrealistic military culture to boot - but man, I didn't care how creepy the basement was, that's where the TV and Trek were! The question has no answer - because it does not matter. What matters is, are we better off with or without the 'bad' science fiction. Hands down, my vote is 'with'. Your mileage may vary.
Okay, y'all are creeping me out. I JUST STARTED a masters program in CS (I'm a CPA now) and reading the comments, it seems that just about everyone here is down on the job scene in CS. Now, perhaps I am missing a crucial distinction here, but every survey I read indicates that IT and CS jobs are actually hard to fill - hence all the visas for foreign workers. Is this not so? Seriously, is the IT/CS job marked hosed? Or, is this just the sunny /. psyche shining through... :)
Fair point. However, I suggest most Americans are close enough and qualified enough to get into a good to very good state school and work through, if they apply themselves. Private and Ivy schools are great - wish I was Cornell or MIT material - but not essential to getting a 'good' degree. By good, I mean it prepares you to work in your chosen field of study and fulfils your own educational goals. And hey, If I wasn't married and did get into MIT or Harvard, I would love nothing better than to spend my entire life working and going to school part time. Beats the 9-to-5 grind. I'm happy where I am, but that makes a nice cubicle-dream. :)
At the risk of beating this to death, anyone who wants evidence of the importance of passion in learning consider the masses of foreign students in many/most technology programs (for example). I got to see the other side - in Hungary, where the students routinely do better in Math and Science than Americans, and they have no 'computers in the classroom' by the way, they have to line up and compete to come here, and boy do they. China - same deal. A friend of mine from college from China, when I gave him some static about studying *all* the time, told me that I didn't have 5,000 other students 'back home' ready to step in and take my government grant if I got 'poor' grades, which to him meant sub-3.6/4.0. We in America have it cake easy, unlimited opportunity, and for whatever reason, we take it for granted. Perhaps I'm too hard on my native land, which I love, but for whatever reason, whiny Americans raise my hackles. Now, I'll stop whining. Thanks for all the mod ups to my parent, now I'll brace for the Offtopic/Flamebait/whatever.
I see where you're going with this, but consider... If you get a degree in a field you don't like just to "get a good job" you won't get a 'good' job - you'll get a decently-compensated job, but you will never be good enough at it to really succeed. I know several accountants and financial analysts who took accounting or finance degrees for the job - and I wouldn't pay them to shovel manure, let alone work on client financials. They make a decent living, but they are just pathetic to watch. It never occurred to them to care about anything but maximum pay, and they are already paying the price - lost human potential. I predict either lives of 'quiet desperation' or absolute unthinking dullness. My point is only that it only makes sense to invest in your education when you can be assured of maximizing your return on investment - which is impossible if you don't care about what you are studying.
I did it from 1995-1998. I had a few advantages - I had 2 yrs of credit, so I only had to do 2.5 years of solid "gut" classes, and I had the GI bill, which while not great (much better today) helped. Still, it is possible to get a quality degree from a good state school and leave with $20k in student loans (more than 2.5 times what I incurred). Not perfect, but eminently doable, especially given the alternative. Oh, I had ZERO familial support. All me, GI bill and loans. Your parents, I respecfully suggest, exaggerate the 'impossibility'.
I left college after 2 years because I was bored to tears. Joined the Marines. Went back to college 6 years later *highly* motivated and enjoyed the heck out of learning - took CS classes for fun. My fellow undergrads, mostly straight from High School, hated their classes and hated me - I was the jerk who didn't listen to them whine about how hard their schedules were, or how much different classes sucked. My experience - most of them were too immature to appreciate the opportunity they had, and they had insufficient life experience to know that they should feel passionate about anything at all, let alone learning. Long story short - if you are burning up to go to school, go. If you aren't, be honest with yourself and do 'something else' until you figure out what you want to study. Don't let $ keep you back either - I worked my way through school. It is possible, but difficult - and I wouldn't have it any other way. Whatever you do, light your own ass on fire to get something worthwhile done - no one will teach you that. Hard work is it's own best reward.
Key phrase - "commonly held interpretations of these texts". Briefly, ALL religious texts are historical documents based on oral accounts of events and ascribed meanings set down (usually) long after the events actually occurred, and not always by individuals directly present. These texts are then passed down and often edited (christian bible was in almost continuous revision from about 360 - 1611 AD, you can look it up). All the religious "scholarship" in the universe cannot get past the fact that the very foundation of religious experience is based on individual spirituality, which does not translate between people well at all, and a doctrinal foundation built on ... old, secondhand folktales told by long-deceased semi-educated irrational dirt-farmers. Until god and scripture stand on their own withour relying on what some wandering nut preached back in 400 AD that somehow got written down and survived, there can be no place for religion in science - simply because religion does not accept (in its traditional form) the language of reason, nor the evidence of experiment as having any bearing on what is "true". This doesn't mean there cannot be a god of some sort, merely that humanity cannot have a real understanding of a god who created the universe - but we may be able to understand such a god's creation by studying it via... Science and its methods! As for if god exists or not, we'll all find out sooner or later. And boy, will god have some explaining to do...