Acceleration with ION drive is really really slow. having a large solar farm on the moon producing liquid H and O for use in an early stage booster for deep space missions could save a lot of time on such missions.
Actually thats exactly what I was thinking... sure you need to supply O to the equation to burn the H... but thats exactly what they do in rockets to get things into space in the first place.
If they can use solar energy on the moon to create liquid H and O to refuel spacecraft it could provide a much needed boost into the outer solar system. Using solar energy directly doesn't yet give a lot of thrust (as far as I understand it) so it can take a long time for a spacecraft to accelerate.
Not to mention storing energy for further surface exploration, heating and cooling during extreme temp situations, etc.
Perhaps they could even build structures from the water by melting it into panel molds, and then assembling the panels, finally sealing seams with sprays of liquid water... it would make an airtight structure that may be habitable.
Better yet... H2O has a great O element... and you can breathe it!
So, suppose you could drill down and hit a well of ice. A bit of solar energy pumped into that frozen mass yields liquid water, a bit more gives hydrogen and oxygen. Now you have fuel (fire) and air and water. Earth will be the tough element to obtain. I don't imagine that moon soil is all that good for planting, and most plants need nitrogen that may not be easy to come by on the moon.
Either way... water far more valuable when you realize that its not just water but O and H too.
I always tell my kids that "so-and-so made me do it" is no defense. And I'm sure nearly every parent has taught their children that for generations. I hope these guys roast for not listening to their parents!
Not gonna solve every problem, but a properly configured proxy server will prevent a tremendous number of issues. Couple it with OpenDNS's filters and a minimal amount of training and you can stop most of the routine malware.
Of course, I switched my family to Linux years ago... but if I absolutely had to run windows, I would use OpenDNS and some sort of proxy that will scan downloads for viruses(squid w/ clamAV?).
I agree whole heartedly... either A. these libraries are not giving them an advantage any longer due to the vast improvements in some open source libraries and they are hoping that by opening them their libraries benifit from the community like the open ones did. Or B. there is some advantage to having these libraries in use in more places.
I pick option C. the libraries are only a tiny portion of Google's dominance and offer no measurable competitive advantage, however widespread adoption of these libraries will allow Google to better tailor its browser, Chrome OS, and even its developer API's to these libraries... reducing support costs and increasing performance for anyone using them.
Of course, if everyone uses Google's tools and libraries, it makes things easier for them to optimize Chrome, which is probably the whole point.
Uhh... no.
I would imagine that Google had been developing these libraries for years prior to even thinking about building a browser. This also explains why they have their own libraries rather than using "existing" libraries... their libraries are "existing" libraries. In fact, I would wager that their libraries were more complete than many of the competing libraries were a few years ago.
I am guessing that if you were to compare Google's libraries to many of the "existing" libraries you wish they would contribute to, you might find that they are very similar in capability and likely equal or faster. Why should Google pay its folks to work on another library when they paid to build this one and their folks are familiar with it and use it every day in all of their web products.
I would say, more than anything, this release is a way of Google saying that their libraries are not so much better than competing libraries so they gain no advantage by keeping them closed. If their release results in wider adoption of Google's libraries, perhaps the additional eyes will result in some improvements, if not they haven't lost anything.
That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!
I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer. In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).
Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.
The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU's that shipped in Mac PC's. It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.
I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom. Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto. But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).
Why? Because the web is a pull only method... and therefor it is up to the client when and how the data is displayed. This is great for interactive systems, but what if one exhibit requires that each of the screens in the room be synchronized to music playing on the overhead sound system. Good luck doing that with web technologies.
I would recommend that you run HDMI and USB over Cat6 to each location. Then you have the flexibility of connecting any device you wish to the displays, and keeping it all centralized. If they want to loop a video on 4 of the displays, just hook up the four displays to a Cat 6 HDMI splitter and run your DVD or PC signal in. If you want an interactive display, connect the HDMI and USB to a PC.
Your investment in cables would still be reasonable. But the addition of HDMI over Cat6 would make your life much easier, especially for non-interactive displays and situations where hiding a computer may not be so easy.
At first I wanted to mod this... but I just had to reply.
There are at least 4 GOOD reasons for a 6mo release cycle. (maybe more but these are the ones I know).
1. Build Hype. Would Slashdot and a bunch of other media sources really talk about Ubuntu if it didn't make a release every 6 months.
2. Developer Fatigue. Having a 6 month release cycle allows developers to be creative and add new features for a few months then shift to bug fixing mode for a couple of months. This prevents developers from getting too wrapped up in adding new features or from getting bored just fixing bugs. IIRC many developers left Debian due to agonizingly long cycle from unstable to stable... they had to add features to keep up with other distros, but that only prolonged the bug-fix mode that they were in.
3. Support Cycles. There is a for-profit aspect to Ubuntu that many people forget about, and in order to exploit that they must put limits upon what they are willing to support. With a regular, frequent, release cycle they can be sure that their releases are timely enough to support the customers needs and they can retire support for aged releases at a specific time as well.
4. Stability. If I install KK then I know that any package upgrades (short of upgrading to a new version) are only supposed to fix things that are broken in my current install. If there were a perpetual upgrade cycle, then I would be pulling upgrades to packages that include new features, depreciate features, or even remove entire depreciated packages. This may make my system unusable for it's intended purpose.
A prolonged, or worse perpetual, cycle is nearly impossible to support, has no guarantee of package stability, is boring to many/most developers, and generates little to no press. NONE of these thing would allow anyone to profit from the development of Ubuntu, except perhaps Apple and Microsoft.
Doesn't $3 Million seem a bit cheap. Essentially, they could clean it up for billions, but instead they are just gonna move the population away for a measly $3M and hope that everyone just forgets about the place.
I don't think that this "solution" will work in all cases, but in this case I am glad they decided to spend $3M rather than cleaning up the mess. If left alone for a couple of centuries, I'd wager that nature will take care of much of the mess.
When I set up a wifi router for someone I always simply generate a random string of letters numbers and special characters then I write it down and stick it to the router.
I figure that you can't get more secure and its not exactly something they need to remember because they type it every day.
I had a couple of favorite math professors. Here's what they did that made them so much better than the rest.
They used transparent overheads and scanned them for us at the end of class. The greatest thing about them was that there was no erasing in the middle of the lecture... they wrote in dry erase but rarely erased anything of value... instead they would just swap them.
If you can convince your prof's to give it a try... even if you must offer to digitize them and post them for the teacher... its by far the best system I know. This process kept everyones eyes on the lecture instead of down in their notes. I would take notes occasionally, but only procedural things that weren't written on the overhead.
Mod parent up... this is exactly why this study doesn't prove how this gene can separate good drivers from bad ones! All it does is favor those who drive by their memory rather than those who drive based upon what they see NOW. Toss in something unexpected and report the results.
You do realize that almost nothing is ever truly removed when you use its uninstaller. And often even if it were, the damage is already done.
Finally, what about the unsuspecting non-tech user who bought the machine at BestBuy at the advice of the salesman. Sit down sometime with one of them and help them clean up their pc. "Do you use XXX? -- I don't think so, what's it do? -- It slows down the computer. -- Maybe the kids will need it, lets just leave it alone."
Even I have a hard time determining what applications are junk and what is part of a driver or something useful.
That's partly why I no longer support Windows for friends/family. If you want free support, then be prepared to get migrated.
That was the BEST argument against what I said yet. The laws create predictability and reduce surprises, and I agree 100%.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that anarchy on the roads was a good thing. But I have yet to meet a driver who didn't disobey a traffic law occasionally. And my point was not to suggest that breaking laws makes for a good driver, I was simply suggesting that using a persons morals, ethics, and conformity to the laws is no way to judge their ability to drive safely.
The way I see it, I would much rather have my definition of a "good" driver driving me around at 10mph over the speed limit than some first time driver that can obey the laws. Sure the ideal would be my "good" driver obeying the laws.
Traffic rules are designed to balance speed and safety for the majority of drivers... if they were designed "to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes" you wouldn't be driving.
I can show you many cases, where a person is not capable of driving safely even within the confines of the law. While I can show you an equal number of cases where the laws actually restrict a driver from achieving their optimal balance between speed and safety.
I could also argue that some drivers become more complacent when they fail to drive in their optimal speed/risk range, which might actually make them less safe... but that is purely speculative.
Avoiding accidents is far more about being defensive, aware, practiced, and very comfortable with the capabilities of your vehicle. The first thing I do every winter is take my wife and I out to an icy parking lot to practice stopping, swerving, and spin out recovery because I know that these skills are FAR more valuable than obeying traffic laws.
Finally, your argument that accidents would be avoided if those drivers had obeyed the traffic laws is moot. I wasn't suggesting that they were disobeying when the accidents occurred... I just didn't want to say that they NEVER got into an accident as that would have been a lie. Its just as likely that the accident would have been much worse if they had been conforming.
Oh... and actually I wasn't talking about myself... though I have my fair share of traffic violations. I don't think any person can adequately judge their own driving.
I know someone is a good driver when I let go of the "oh shit" handle and stop pushing the imaginary break. I know they are a great driver when I can relax enough to sleep or read while they are driving.
I hate to respond to this kind of stuff but I will.
To make an analogy, imagine that traffic laws are like government mandated school curriculum, they are designed to be of the most benefit to the majority, they are by no means designed to define driving ability.
There are people who shouldn't drive at all, and there are those who are capable of driving in much more extreme situations.
Well I agree that disregarding traffic laws is not a 'good' thing, a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.
No... they tested memory. They even brought the group back for a second session to see who remembered the track and who didn't.
A great driver is one who responds appropriately to the unexpected and maintains focus on driving amidst distraction.
Think about it this way, play your favorite racing game on a new track... if you stay on the track the first time through it, it's not because your bad at the game its because the game makes it impossible to be successful unless you either a. drive crazy slow or b. have memorized the track. Now if you have memorized the track, there is nothing unexpected to respond to so you go much faster. I hate racing games for this very reason, I can never remember the track.
They are testing the memory of the track. Take one of the failures out and put him in a real car with genuine feedback, real handling, g-forces, etc... then see how he performs. Or simply change the track every time its driven.
A good driver by their standards will know the turn is coming and compensate before they see it.
A good driver by my standards will know how to control their vehicle when presented with an unexpected turn or a kid on a bike shooting out between parked cars.
Essentially they created a test to see the effect of this gene on practiced behaviors... but it didn't test driving at all. Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place (ie how to respond to the unexpected, or letting themselves be distracted and/or complacent).
They already knew this gene effected memory, all this test did is test memory by having them repeat the same course over and over again. Change the course regularly and the results may change, those with great memories may not be able to adapt to changes/suprises.
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?
However, there is something to be said about the social pariah's ability to focus on pursuits that many social people would never have time to invest in.
This, I believe is the source for the stereotype. Essentially, if I am smart but not very social, then I am more likely to achieve a depth of understanding that a more social, athletic, and busy person may... thus I have achieved a level of knowledge that he just didn't have time for.
The greatest thing that we can do, and are doing, to help destroy that stereotype, is to make being a nerd a highly social behavior. Already, tech has come to dominate the wish lists of teens everywhere, which has made it easy for the "nerd" type to be involved socially. Additionally, there are far more opportunities for "nerds" to find other "nerds" with similar interests and thus socialize about those interests.
Essentially, the nerds are no longer antisocial, they just spend more time socializing about the things they love... which in turn has greatly torn down the "nerd"/"jock" argument.
I was one of the first social "nerds" in my high school (class of '95). To this day, I am uninterested in sports and most of the other subjects that the highly social folks at my school were interested in... but I had a place in their social circles because tech was just becoming something that everyone needed to understand and I was knowledgeable, friendly, and not so embarrassing to be seen with. However, I did have friends who dedicated far more time to their stereotypical "nerd" hobbies and in a way I was always jealous of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Acceleration with ION drive is really really slow. having a large solar farm on the moon producing liquid H and O for use in an early stage booster for deep space missions could save a lot of time on such missions.
Actually thats exactly what I was thinking... sure you need to supply O to the equation to burn the H... but thats exactly what they do in rockets to get things into space in the first place.
If they can use solar energy on the moon to create liquid H and O to refuel spacecraft it could provide a much needed boost into the outer solar system. Using solar energy directly doesn't yet give a lot of thrust (as far as I understand it) so it can take a long time for a spacecraft to accelerate.
Not to mention storing energy for further surface exploration, heating and cooling during extreme temp situations, etc.
Perhaps they could even build structures from the water by melting it into panel molds, and then assembling the panels, finally sealing seams with sprays of liquid water... it would make an airtight structure that may be habitable.
Better yet... H2O has a great O element... and you can breathe it!
So, suppose you could drill down and hit a well of ice. A bit of solar energy pumped into that frozen mass yields liquid water, a bit more gives hydrogen and oxygen. Now you have fuel (fire) and air and water. Earth will be the tough element to obtain. I don't imagine that moon soil is all that good for planting, and most plants need nitrogen that may not be easy to come by on the moon.
Either way... water far more valuable when you realize that its not just water but O and H too.
I always tell my kids that "so-and-so made me do it" is no defense. And I'm sure nearly every parent has taught their children that for generations. I hope these guys roast for not listening to their parents!
Not gonna solve every problem, but a properly configured proxy server will prevent a tremendous number of issues. Couple it with OpenDNS's filters and a minimal amount of training and you can stop most of the routine malware.
Of course, I switched my family to Linux years ago... but if I absolutely had to run windows, I would use OpenDNS and some sort of proxy that will scan downloads for viruses(squid w/ clamAV?).
I agree whole heartedly... either A. these libraries are not giving them an advantage any longer due to the vast improvements in some open source libraries and they are hoping that by opening them their libraries benifit from the community like the open ones did. Or B. there is some advantage to having these libraries in use in more places.
I pick option C. the libraries are only a tiny portion of Google's dominance and offer no measurable competitive advantage, however widespread adoption of these libraries will allow Google to better tailor its browser, Chrome OS, and even its developer API's to these libraries... reducing support costs and increasing performance for anyone using them.
Of course, if everyone uses Google's tools and libraries, it makes things easier for them to optimize Chrome, which is probably the whole point.
Uhh... no.
I would imagine that Google had been developing these libraries for years prior to even thinking about building a browser. This also explains why they have their own libraries rather than using "existing" libraries... their libraries are "existing" libraries. In fact, I would wager that their libraries were more complete than many of the competing libraries were a few years ago.
I am guessing that if you were to compare Google's libraries to many of the "existing" libraries you wish they would contribute to, you might find that they are very similar in capability and likely equal or faster. Why should Google pay its folks to work on another library when they paid to build this one and their folks are familiar with it and use it every day in all of their web products.
I would say, more than anything, this release is a way of Google saying that their libraries are not so much better than competing libraries so they gain no advantage by keeping them closed. If their release results in wider adoption of Google's libraries, perhaps the additional eyes will result in some improvements, if not they haven't lost anything.
That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!
I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer. In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).
Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.
The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU's that shipped in Mac PC's. It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.
I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom. Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto. But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).
at least not exclusively.
Why? Because the web is a pull only method... and therefor it is up to the client when and how the data is displayed. This is great for interactive systems, but what if one exhibit requires that each of the screens in the room be synchronized to music playing on the overhead sound system. Good luck doing that with web technologies.
I would recommend that you run HDMI and USB over Cat6 to each location. Then you have the flexibility of connecting any device you wish to the displays, and keeping it all centralized. If they want to loop a video on 4 of the displays, just hook up the four displays to a Cat 6 HDMI splitter and run your DVD or PC signal in. If you want an interactive display, connect the HDMI and USB to a PC.
The HDMI over Cat6 stuff is not cheap, but for your needs it would be worth every penny. http://www.firefold.com/HDMI-Splitters-One-Source-Multiple-TVs-C134.aspx
Your investment in cables would still be reasonable. But the addition of HDMI over Cat6 would make your life much easier, especially for non-interactive displays and situations where hiding a computer may not be so easy.
At first I wanted to mod this... but I just had to reply.
There are at least 4 GOOD reasons for a 6mo release cycle. (maybe more but these are the ones I know).
1. Build Hype. Would Slashdot and a bunch of other media sources really talk about Ubuntu if it didn't make a release every 6 months.
2. Developer Fatigue. Having a 6 month release cycle allows developers to be creative and add new features for a few months then shift to bug fixing mode for a couple of months. This prevents developers from getting too wrapped up in adding new features or from getting bored just fixing bugs. IIRC many developers left Debian due to agonizingly long cycle from unstable to stable... they had to add features to keep up with other distros, but that only prolonged the bug-fix mode that they were in.
3. Support Cycles. There is a for-profit aspect to Ubuntu that many people forget about, and in order to exploit that they must put limits upon what they are willing to support. With a regular, frequent, release cycle they can be sure that their releases are timely enough to support the customers needs and they can retire support for aged releases at a specific time as well.
4. Stability. If I install KK then I know that any package upgrades (short of upgrading to a new version) are only supposed to fix things that are broken in my current install. If there were a perpetual upgrade cycle, then I would be pulling upgrades to packages that include new features, depreciate features, or even remove entire depreciated packages. This may make my system unusable for it's intended purpose.
A prolonged, or worse perpetual, cycle is nearly impossible to support, has no guarantee of package stability, is boring to many/most developers, and generates little to no press. NONE of these thing would allow anyone to profit from the development of Ubuntu, except perhaps Apple and Microsoft.
Doesn't $3 Million seem a bit cheap. Essentially, they could clean it up for billions, but instead they are just gonna move the population away for a measly $3M and hope that everyone just forgets about the place.
I don't think that this "solution" will work in all cases, but in this case I am glad they decided to spend $3M rather than cleaning up the mess. If left alone for a couple of centuries, I'd wager that nature will take care of much of the mess.
Whoever modded this as troll is unfair... I think it was kinda witty and should have at least got a Funny or two.
It is kinda funny to see an individual taken to the cleaners by a corporation and the /. crowd being pleased about it.
When I set up a wifi router for someone I always simply generate a random string of letters numbers and special characters then I write it down and stick it to the router.
I figure that you can't get more secure and its not exactly something they need to remember because they type it every day.
I had a couple of favorite math professors. Here's what they did that made them so much better than the rest.
They used transparent overheads and scanned them for us at the end of class. The greatest thing about them was that there was no erasing in the middle of the lecture... they wrote in dry erase but rarely erased anything of value... instead they would just swap them.
If you can convince your prof's to give it a try... even if you must offer to digitize them and post them for the teacher... its by far the best system I know. This process kept everyones eyes on the lecture instead of down in their notes. I would take notes occasionally, but only procedural things that weren't written on the overhead.
Mod parent up... this is exactly why this study doesn't prove how this gene can separate good drivers from bad ones! All it does is favor those who drive by their memory rather than those who drive based upon what they see NOW. Toss in something unexpected and report the results.
You do realize that almost nothing is ever truly removed when you use its uninstaller. And often even if it were, the damage is already done.
Finally, what about the unsuspecting non-tech user who bought the machine at BestBuy at the advice of the salesman. Sit down sometime with one of them and help them clean up their pc. "Do you use XXX? -- I don't think so, what's it do? -- It slows down the computer. -- Maybe the kids will need it, lets just leave it alone."
Even I have a hard time determining what applications are junk and what is part of a driver or something useful.
That's partly why I no longer support Windows for friends/family. If you want free support, then be prepared to get migrated.
That was the BEST argument against what I said yet. The laws create predictability and reduce surprises, and I agree 100%.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that anarchy on the roads was a good thing. But I have yet to meet a driver who didn't disobey a traffic law occasionally. And my point was not to suggest that breaking laws makes for a good driver, I was simply suggesting that using a persons morals, ethics, and conformity to the laws is no way to judge their ability to drive safely.
The way I see it, I would much rather have my definition of a "good" driver driving me around at 10mph over the speed limit than some first time driver that can obey the laws. Sure the ideal would be my "good" driver obeying the laws.
Traffic rules are designed to balance speed and safety for the majority of drivers... if they were designed "to minimize the impact of drivers' mistakes" you wouldn't be driving.
I can show you many cases, where a person is not capable of driving safely even within the confines of the law. While I can show you an equal number of cases where the laws actually restrict a driver from achieving their optimal balance between speed and safety.
I could also argue that some drivers become more complacent when they fail to drive in their optimal speed/risk range, which might actually make them less safe... but that is purely speculative.
Avoiding accidents is far more about being defensive, aware, practiced, and very comfortable with the capabilities of your vehicle. The first thing I do every winter is take my wife and I out to an icy parking lot to practice stopping, swerving, and spin out recovery because I know that these skills are FAR more valuable than obeying traffic laws.
Finally, your argument that accidents would be avoided if those drivers had obeyed the traffic laws is moot. I wasn't suggesting that they were disobeying when the accidents occurred... I just didn't want to say that they NEVER got into an accident as that would have been a lie. Its just as likely that the accident would have been much worse if they had been conforming.
Sure... but memorizing your route home from work does nothing to make you a good driver.
Oh... and actually I wasn't talking about myself... though I have my fair share of traffic violations. I don't think any person can adequately judge their own driving.
I know someone is a good driver when I let go of the "oh shit" handle and stop pushing the imaginary break. I know they are a great driver when I can relax enough to sleep or read while they are driving.
I hate to respond to this kind of stuff but I will.
To make an analogy, imagine that traffic laws are like government mandated school curriculum, they are designed to be of the most benefit to the majority, they are by no means designed to define driving ability.
There are people who shouldn't drive at all, and there are those who are capable of driving in much more extreme situations.
Well I agree that disregarding traffic laws is not a 'good' thing, a persons ability to conform to them will never dictate to me their ability to drive.
No... they tested memory. They even brought the group back for a second session to see who remembered the track and who didn't.
A great driver is one who responds appropriately to the unexpected and maintains focus on driving amidst distraction.
Think about it this way, play your favorite racing game on a new track... if you stay on the track the first time through it, it's not because your bad at the game its because the game makes it impossible to be successful unless you either a. drive crazy slow or b. have memorized the track. Now if you have memorized the track, there is nothing unexpected to respond to so you go much faster. I hate racing games for this very reason, I can never remember the track.
They are testing the memory of the track. Take one of the failures out and put him in a real car with genuine feedback, real handling, g-forces, etc... then see how he performs. Or simply change the track every time its driven.
A good driver by their standards will know the turn is coming and compensate before they see it.
A good driver by my standards will know how to control their vehicle when presented with an unexpected turn or a kid on a bike shooting out between parked cars.
Essentially they created a test to see the effect of this gene on practiced behaviors... but it didn't test driving at all. Few accidents are the result of a driver forgetting how to drive, they are the result of a driver not knowing how to really drive in the first place (ie how to respond to the unexpected, or letting themselves be distracted and/or complacent).
They already knew this gene effected memory, all this test did is test memory by having them repeat the same course over and over again. Change the course regularly and the results may change, those with great memories may not be able to adapt to changes/suprises.
Some of the best drivers I know are the ones who can't obey speed limits, make illegal turns, and ultimately are deemed as "bad" drivers. However these same folks maintain superior control of their vehicles and never get into accidents unless they are caused by another driver's lack of control.
So, perhaps this gene is more of a "disrespect for authority" gene?
Agreed.
However, there is something to be said about the social pariah's ability to focus on pursuits that many social people would never have time to invest in.
This, I believe is the source for the stereotype. Essentially, if I am smart but not very social, then I am more likely to achieve a depth of understanding that a more social, athletic, and busy person may... thus I have achieved a level of knowledge that he just didn't have time for.
The greatest thing that we can do, and are doing, to help destroy that stereotype, is to make being a nerd a highly social behavior. Already, tech has come to dominate the wish lists of teens everywhere, which has made it easy for the "nerd" type to be involved socially. Additionally, there are far more opportunities for "nerds" to find other "nerds" with similar interests and thus socialize about those interests.
Essentially, the nerds are no longer antisocial, they just spend more time socializing about the things they love... which in turn has greatly torn down the "nerd"/"jock" argument.
I was one of the first social "nerds" in my high school (class of '95). To this day, I am uninterested in sports and most of the other subjects that the highly social folks at my school were interested in... but I had a place in their social circles because tech was just becoming something that everyone needed to understand and I was knowledgeable, friendly, and not so embarrassing to be seen with. However, I did have friends who dedicated far more time to their stereotypical "nerd" hobbies and in a way I was always jealous of them.