As far as I can tell, the trick to rising to the top of the corporate ladder is to mainly to WANT to rise to the top and to be good at the skill of rising to the top.
For example, at my job, I was hired as a lowly engineer, but by staying for a while, working hard, providing good input, etc. I eventually found myself in a strong managerial role. I was bad at it. I told the people above me when their project ideas were wrong. I reported bad news, and told them how long projects would take to do well.
Since then, I've fallen back into a purely technical role, and I watch how my replacement has been handling things.
As far as I can tell, his number one priority is not to make a good product - it is to report success to his supervisors. As long as things are done on paper, his bosses are happy, and he can pretend to be doing a great job. Meanwhile, he is thinking of this position largely as a way to put a few more years of management on his resume, so he can apply to a higher job. (This isn't just a guess - he told me this directly.)
All of this makes me think that a lot of people move up the ladder just because that is their goal and they excel at that specific skill. Yes, there are competent people who are reluctantly promoted and who stick it out in the interest of having the organization do good work, but I'm thinking more and more that these folks are the oddities.
As with any consumer gadget, you have to decide on a personal level whether buying a Mac is worth the price of it - as many people on slashdot will tell you, for them they are overpriced and they can do better with a whitebox store and an afternoon building something to slap Ubuntu on.
This is exactly the right point. I have a Mac because I don't want to mess with the OS at all, and of the OS's that I've used, I've found that the Mac frustrates me the least - most of the time the computer just does what I want it to do.
If someone doesn't mind messing with things in exchange for spending less money, good for them.
I did some research through google, and after some small amount of sifting and tracing up to the what I figured should be the most authoritative source (a scientific review article), I find the following:
...despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime... Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime.
This review, freely available online, seems to confirm what I've come to believe - crime is extraordinarily complicated, and so many variables can contribute to crime rates that it is very, very hard to reach any reliable conclusions.
What makes this issue so much more complicated is that it is, as you point out, very much an emotional topic. Even in this review, there is dissent among the committee, although it is important to note that the dissent is only on the topic of whether or not right-to-carry laws impact murder. All committee members agree that there isn't enough evidence on other types of crime (eg, rape, assault, theft, etc.).
Until there can be widespread agreement among the people studying this topic, there is, by definition, debate. This is not a media-created debate as you claim. It is a scientific debate in which the evidence is so complex that nobody is able to conclusively prove this question one way or another.
If you think that I'm wrong, show me the evidence that convinced you of your position. I hope to see a clear causal link (not just a correlation) between introduction of laws and a statistically significant drop in crime. Oh, and I want that evidence to be reviewed by a large number of people who come from different political leanings with majority agreement about what the numbers show.
Maybe the issue is too political for what I'm asking, but until someone can point me at that study (or one that shows the reverse - that guns increase crime), I will keep thinking of this debate as purely philosophical.
I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research.
The trouble is that until you have shown a controlled study, it isn't science. All you have is something that a lot of people think is true. Then, if you want to expand on the study to find something more interesting, such as how far different bonds of attachment protect against aggression and the level of familiarity needed to protect against aggression, it is possible for the scientists to point to this study as the beginning of that work.
It may seem like a dumb, obvious result, but sometimes being disciplined with science requires double-checking the basics before launching into a larger, more interesting study.
I mean, they're purchasing netbooks and running Windows 7 on them instead of the lighter weight XP? Anybody else see anything wrong with this picture?
Aha, you have found one aspect of their security policy! By making the machines run sufficiently slowly, the risk of accidental malware downloads drops considerably, as nobody can be arsed to web surf with one of these.
This then would be more like those states which have enabled conceal-carry gun permits for law-abiding citizens, and as a result have seen violent crime drop significantly.
I've heard stats like these thrown around, but I haven't seen any credible sources. (Not saying that there aren't any, just that I haven't seen them.)
Those fucking monsters did their level best to end modern civilization.
Actually, it is much worse than that. These monsters nearly ended modern civilization through severely misguided attempts at protecting it.
From TFA:
Reagan... announced that the US was going to develop a shield of lasers and nuclear weapons in space to defend against Soviet warheads.... To Moscow it was the Death Star--and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack.... As we know now, Reagan was not planning a first strike. According to his private diaries and personal letters, he genuinely believed he was bringing about lasting peace.
According to the British government, there has been a 48% decrease in recorded crime since the peak in 1995, which seems to argue that the proliferation of cameras and draconian gun control have been effective in protecting the safety of Britons.
Um. No. All we have is a correlation. Crime patterns are very, very complicated, and we can't really conclude that because we saw a drop in crime after a particular program was instituted, that program was responsible for the drop in crime.
I agree with everything that you say. People have to solve their own problems, and it doesn't do anybody any good to try to help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
My point was simply that you should still be polite and respectful, even when telling them the harsh truth.
When difficult ideas are presented to someone harshly, the ideas are dismissed as being the ravings of an asshole. When these some ideas are presented calmly and respectfully, it is much harder for the listener to dismiss them.
It is very often easier to talk to the anonymous world of the internet than to a specific person.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you've been a victim of one of the biggest lies in American culture. We are all taught that if you good well at high school, you can get into a good college, and get a good job after graduation, at which point you will be Successful(TM) and Happy(TM).
It turns out, though, this is a total lie. Your reward for being good at school is a desk in a cubicle underneath some fluorescent lights next to the someone who always talks too loudly and wants to tell everyone about the inane shit that he did last weekend.
It sucks.
Is it any wonder why there is so much depression in our society or that antidepressants are one of the most popular drugs?
Right now, it sounds like you are suffering in part from what I call the burden of freedom (I have actually started writing an essay on this topic which I intend to post when finished, but it is not ready yet).
In short, one of the troubles we face is that there are just too many choices in the world. We are faced with an overwhelming set of life paths to choose from, and as we look at this pantheon of choices, we feel this incredible pressure to pick The Right Choice(TM).
This is yet another lie. There is no one right choice in life, just as there is no such thing as a "soulmate." Instead, there are many different paths in the world that will bring satisfaction and there are many people out there with whom you can build a long-term, satisfying relationship.
That said, where should you begin? Anywhere.
Seriously, it doesn't matter. Make a small change, any change. Don't try to solve the major life choice of what to do with the next 60 years. Why in the hell would you ever want to have your life planned out in that much detail?
Think about what you would like to do in a month. Too far? How about next weekend?
And please seek help. Making the decision to use all of the resources available to you to help yourself is not a sign of being weak or of being a crybaby, even though it may feel like that to you now. People go into fields like psychology, counseling, etc. because they want to help people, so you're not going to burden them with your problems, you are going to help them find meaning in their own lives by helping you.
Also, as someone who has gone down the therapy route, I can tell you that it isn't easy and you only get out of it what you put into it. There are many, many people in therapy who regard it as something they go to do once and a while. This is dead wrong. The only thing that therapy gives you is guidance of how to solve your problems.
That's it. The rest is up to you. The reward is a fulfilling life, if you put in the effort.
As a final word on the topic, I would also suggest that you be skeptical about your therapist. The first person I talked to once laughed at me when I told here I had some ideas of things to do to help myself, dismissing my ideas as "miracle cures." That was the last time I saw her.
If you can't do it, it's because you're a pussy. Sucks to be you, but it's no skin off my back. It's up to each and every man to help himself. If you are too weak to do what it takes to improve yourself, then the gene pool is better off without you buddy.
You may think he's a pussy, but I think you're way out of line here.
Did you ever think that this guy is like you were around 23 and trying to improve himself and just figuring out how?
How about trying to offer some words of encouragement instead of tearing him down? My guess is that when you tried to improve yourself, it was hard, so please show some sympathy. It is reasonable to strongly dislike the person that you used to be, but try not to take that out on others.
I dont know what to do. How am I suposed to change my interest that I have developed over the past 24 years? How am I suposed to be a more exciting person? I DONT KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO.
I don't know if there is anything that I can say that will not sound trite, stupid, simple-minded, or condescending. That said...
First of all, you do not need to change the interests that you have developed in the past 24 years. They are all fine and good. Seriously. As long as what you do doesn't hurt others, there is nothing at all wrong with it. You have an interest in something that you've cultivated and (from what it sounds like) that you're good at.
So don't try to drop this interest. Don't reject it, just add to it. Maybe once you only knew how to program in BASIC (okay, I may be dating myself here), but then you learned some C, some java, some perl, etc. finding out that although there was nothing wrong about BASIC per se, other languages offered other things and were more in demand by other people.
Okay, it is a bad analogy. Analogies usually are. They are like trying to put a glove on a dog. Sure you can do it, but the dog doesn't really understand. But I digress.
One thanksgiving several years back, I found myself sitting alone in my apartment watching movies by myself as the rest of the world gathered around friends and loved ones. Soon enough, I found myself laying on the floor crying and wracked with horrible loneliness.
A key turning point in my life was to make the decision to fix whatever the fuck was wrong with me, which eventually led me (very reluctantly) into therapy. At the time, it felt like defeat, like I was too weak, etc. to figure things out by myself.
What I learned is that thought is bullshit. Everybody is too weak to manage by themselves. The only difference is that some people are naturally better at getting help from others, but judging from your presence on slashdot here and from your posts, you fall into the category of people that have a hard time relating to others.
After wading through some basic, dysfunctional events in my past, I switched from one-on-one counseling to a men's group. I sarcastically called it my sensitive guy drum circle, but it helped a lot. In there, I met a lot of guys like me. They were of much different ages and backgrounds and politics, but we all had a terrible time relating to the world.
In the group, we practiced talking to other people. It sounds corny and stupid, but eventually I got the hang of it and could build relationships with other people.
So, one thing you should consider is putting your ass in a similar situation. What do you have to lose?
Meanwhile, take some classes at the community college. Learn to dance; women love a man that can dance. Look at the list and pick the least stupid thing you see. What do you have to lose?
It all takes time, and assuming that your mention of 24 years is your age, you're young. There is a lot of time left in life to add to your existing experience. You sound from your post that you're struggling. If you need a sympathetic ear, feel free to message me. I'm pretty busy, but I can try to offer what trite insights I can.
Exactly. It is very depressing that so few girls out there know anything about technology, let alone are the least bit interested in it. It would not be a proublem if it weren't for the fact everything I do for fun or I'm interested in involves technology. How are you suposed to find someone with common interest with those odds?
Reading this, I cannot help but thing that it would not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that everything you do for fun or are interested in involves technology.
The world is big, man. Are you sure that there isn't anything else out there that isn't at least a little interesting to you? There may not be a lot of women interested in technology, but there are a LOT of women you can accept that you're interested in technology if they see that there is more to you than that.
It's this kind of arrogant attitude that's kept me away from Wikipedia the last few years - anything I add ends-up rejected because some stupid kid has a hard-on for his power position.
Maybe... but judging from the tone and style of your post, perhaps it is also because you fail to meet reasonable standards for bias and objectivity?
I did a random check of one of those penis-gloating-based-pedestals you linked to, and you know what? They all seem like lists of contributions to Wikipedia, which seems down right reasonable for a personal information page on Wikipedia.
My assumption is that they ask/force people to take down images and videos that show extremely reckless illegal activity so as to keep the Powers-That-Be from having evidence to get the event shut down.
As someone who is going there for the third time this year, I strongly recommend that you try to change your attitude.
Don't get me wrong, if you ignore this advice, it won't bother me one bit. I don't need you to have fun in order to have a good time myself.
Let's be clear - there are plenty of things that are wrong with Burning Man, including your example of the double-standard of what is for sale. The physical environment is terrible. The heat during the day is intolerable, and it can get freezing cold at night. Furthermore, your skin will dry and crack and bleed if you're not careful, and by the time you get back, you are likely be coughing hard at the dust. Then, there are the people. A lot of people go there to get drunk and look at tits. There are those who come out Saturday night and steel shit. My girlfriend's backpack was stolen last year.
If you go to "satisfy your morbid curiosity," I guarantee you that will find a bunch of stupid jerks and washed out hippies hanging out in the desert.
Contrary to what anybody may tell you, Burning Man is still the real world, so it is up to you to try to have a good time. Don't like dance parties? Grab some homebrew and B-movies at the Bad Idea Theater. Want something more interactive? Try shooting a flamethrower or just go for a late night bicycle ride and enjoy the art.
The point is that there are a LOT of different things going on, and despite a lot flaws in the event, there are still a lot of really, really cool things going on (eg, 70' towers of fire). Try to put up with the crap and enjoy the good things.
Except, of course, the fact that it is not a public event. You have to buy a ticket to go, which makes a private event on land that is leased from the government.
Furthermore, one of the conditions of use by the BLM is that the entire event establishes a perimeter fence and controls access.
Am I an IDer? Am I a creationist? Am I an evolutionist?
I would say that you are a thinking person who uses faith to fill in the knowledge gaps in the scientific view of the world.
There is a lot of knowledge about specific ways of evolving (eg, point mutations, trans-locations, recombination, etc.) that explain how genetic diversity can be created, and there is widespread evidence of how the process of natural selection sorts through this genetic diversity. At the same time, no scientist worth their salt would claim that the full picture of step-by-step evolution from simple organic molecules into Cindy Lauper is fully understood. The fossil record incomplete and will always be incomplete.
So, we hit a question of faith and logic. In light of the scientific evidence, it is a reasonable extrapolation to believe in the mechanism of evolution and to believe that this is the way by which life changes.
Currently, though, science has nothing very satisfying to say about why, in a random world, some things happen and some things don't. Yes, we can describe very well the probabilities of this and that, etc., and if I flip a fair coin 100 times, you expect that I will get about 50 heads and about 50 tails. At the same time, we can't say why I get a sequence of four heads followed by 3 tails and two heads. Yes, we can make statements about subtle air currents, minor differences in flipping forces, etc. but as the systems get more complex and the sizes get smaller and smaller, we eventually hit molecular events which behave truly randomly.
Now, for a truly random system (like is the case for many the molecular interactions that make up life), you can choose to believe that God or some such force is driving the specifics of these random events, which is fine, especially if you recognize that this is a religious belief and not a scientific one.
It sounds like you realize this distinction.
The trouble with ID, is that when confronted with any hole in the evolutionary theory, they immediately jump to the conclusion of a God, which is absurd and is much different from using faith to explain things that are (currently?) outside of the scientific understanding of the universe.
W's eight years in power may well have ended America's ascendancy and may have started a decline which may prove irreversible.
Multiple times during Bush's presidency, I joined rallies in the street protesting what he did. I found him to be a pig-headed moron with his head so far up his ass he could taste his own scalp, but I think you're overstating things just a little bit.
Despite how much fun it is to bash Bush, presidents just don't have that much power. Much of the financial woes facing the U.S. are due to a lot of the land gold rush and rampant, short term materialism that started post WWII. Although he certainly didn't do anything to help stop it from happening, the bubble would have burst no matter who was president.
Then, throw in the fact that almost everybody was itching for war post 9-11, it is hard to put all of the bad things on him.
Trying to lay all of the US's troubles at his feet is just as bad as those who decry all of Obama's actions as the fast track to socialism.
...you will both know intuitively what is unacceptable/hurtful/undermining behaviour.
Eeek!
Please, gentle reader do not take this advice too literally. I think what the poster was saying is that your gut has a good idea of when your being an ass, which is very true.
At the same time, it is very possible to accidentally do something that hurts your partner. In these cases, the best possible thing is to apologize the very moment that you notice your partner is upset. Don't find out why. Don't try to make excuses for yourself.
Instead, remind your partner that you love her/him and state that you are sorry for hurting them.
Once that is done, you can have a calm, respectful discussion of what happened to try to keep it from happening again.
Slashdot Mirror
And even if they managed to control all of the points you asked about, the only thing they would have shown is that citrus windex has this effect.
The leap from citrus windex to anything that has a "clean smell" is way too far of a leap.
I'm skeptical, especially as you failed to provide any references or video documentation of such a system.
As far as I can tell, the trick to rising to the top of the corporate ladder is to mainly to WANT to rise to the top and to be good at the skill of rising to the top.
For example, at my job, I was hired as a lowly engineer, but by staying for a while, working hard, providing good input, etc. I eventually found myself in a strong managerial role. I was bad at it. I told the people above me when their project ideas were wrong. I reported bad news, and told them how long projects would take to do well.
Since then, I've fallen back into a purely technical role, and I watch how my replacement has been handling things.
As far as I can tell, his number one priority is not to make a good product - it is to report success to his supervisors. As long as things are done on paper, his bosses are happy, and he can pretend to be doing a great job. Meanwhile, he is thinking of this position largely as a way to put a few more years of management on his resume, so he can apply to a higher job. (This isn't just a guess - he told me this directly.)
All of this makes me think that a lot of people move up the ladder just because that is their goal and they excel at that specific skill. Yes, there are competent people who are reluctantly promoted and who stick it out in the interest of having the organization do good work, but I'm thinking more and more that these folks are the oddities.
This is exactly the right point. I have a Mac because I don't want to mess with the OS at all, and of the OS's that I've used, I've found that the Mac frustrates me the least - most of the time the computer just does what I want it to do.
If someone doesn't mind messing with things in exchange for spending less money, good for them.
I did some research through google, and after some small amount of sifting and tracing up to the what I figured should be the most authoritative source (a scientific review article), I find the following:
This review, freely available online, seems to confirm what I've come to believe - crime is extraordinarily complicated, and so many variables can contribute to crime rates that it is very, very hard to reach any reliable conclusions.
What makes this issue so much more complicated is that it is, as you point out, very much an emotional topic. Even in this review, there is dissent among the committee, although it is important to note that the dissent is only on the topic of whether or not right-to-carry laws impact murder. All committee members agree that there isn't enough evidence on other types of crime (eg, rape, assault, theft, etc.).
Until there can be widespread agreement among the people studying this topic, there is, by definition, debate. This is not a media-created debate as you claim. It is a scientific debate in which the evidence is so complex that nobody is able to conclusively prove this question one way or another.
If you think that I'm wrong, show me the evidence that convinced you of your position. I hope to see a clear causal link (not just a correlation) between introduction of laws and a statistically significant drop in crime. Oh, and I want that evidence to be reviewed by a large number of people who come from different political leanings with majority agreement about what the numbers show.
Maybe the issue is too political for what I'm asking, but until someone can point me at that study (or one that shows the reverse - that guns increase crime), I will keep thinking of this debate as purely philosophical.
The trouble is that until you have shown a controlled study, it isn't science. All you have is something that a lot of people think is true. Then, if you want to expand on the study to find something more interesting, such as how far different bonds of attachment protect against aggression and the level of familiarity needed to protect against aggression, it is possible for the scientists to point to this study as the beginning of that work.
It may seem like a dumb, obvious result, but sometimes being disciplined with science requires double-checking the basics before launching into a larger, more interesting study.
Aha, you have found one aspect of their security policy! By making the machines run sufficiently slowly, the risk of accidental malware downloads drops considerably, as nobody can be arsed to web surf with one of these.
I've heard stats like these thrown around, but I haven't seen any credible sources. (Not saying that there aren't any, just that I haven't seen them.)
Can you point us at the stats?
Actually, it is much worse than that. These monsters nearly ended modern civilization through severely misguided attempts at protecting it.
From TFA:
Modded funny and true! Reality is sometimes the best joke.
Um. No. All we have is a correlation. Crime patterns are very, very complicated, and we can't really conclude that because we saw a drop in crime after a particular program was instituted, that program was responsible for the drop in crime.
I agree with everything that you say. People have to solve their own problems, and it doesn't do anybody any good to try to help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
My point was simply that you should still be polite and respectful, even when telling them the harsh truth.
When difficult ideas are presented to someone harshly, the ideas are dismissed as being the ravings of an asshole. When these some ideas are presented calmly and respectfully, it is much harder for the listener to dismiss them.
It is very often easier to talk to the anonymous world of the internet than to a specific person.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you've been a victim of one of the biggest lies in American culture. We are all taught that if you good well at high school, you can get into a good college, and get a good job after graduation, at which point you will be Successful(TM) and Happy(TM).
It turns out, though, this is a total lie. Your reward for being good at school is a desk in a cubicle underneath some fluorescent lights next to the someone who always talks too loudly and wants to tell everyone about the inane shit that he did last weekend.
It sucks.
Is it any wonder why there is so much depression in our society or that antidepressants are one of the most popular drugs?
Right now, it sounds like you are suffering in part from what I call the burden of freedom (I have actually started writing an essay on this topic which I intend to post when finished, but it is not ready yet).
In short, one of the troubles we face is that there are just too many choices in the world. We are faced with an overwhelming set of life paths to choose from, and as we look at this pantheon of choices, we feel this incredible pressure to pick The Right Choice(TM).
This is yet another lie. There is no one right choice in life, just as there is no such thing as a "soulmate." Instead, there are many different paths in the world that will bring satisfaction and there are many people out there with whom you can build a long-term, satisfying relationship.
That said, where should you begin? Anywhere.
Seriously, it doesn't matter. Make a small change, any change. Don't try to solve the major life choice of what to do with the next 60 years. Why in the hell would you ever want to have your life planned out in that much detail?
Think about what you would like to do in a month. Too far? How about next weekend?
And please seek help. Making the decision to use all of the resources available to you to help yourself is not a sign of being weak or of being a crybaby, even though it may feel like that to you now. People go into fields like psychology, counseling, etc. because they want to help people, so you're not going to burden them with your problems, you are going to help them find meaning in their own lives by helping you.
Also, as someone who has gone down the therapy route, I can tell you that it isn't easy and you only get out of it what you put into it. There are many, many people in therapy who regard it as something they go to do once and a while. This is dead wrong. The only thing that therapy gives you is guidance of how to solve your problems.
That's it. The rest is up to you. The reward is a fulfilling life, if you put in the effort.
As a final word on the topic, I would also suggest that you be skeptical about your therapist. The first person I talked to once laughed at me when I told here I had some ideas of things to do to help myself, dismissing my ideas as "miracle cures." That was the last time I saw her.
You may think he's a pussy, but I think you're way out of line here.
Did you ever think that this guy is like you were around 23 and trying to improve himself and just figuring out how?
How about trying to offer some words of encouragement instead of tearing him down? My guess is that when you tried to improve yourself, it was hard, so please show some sympathy. It is reasonable to strongly dislike the person that you used to be, but try not to take that out on others.
I don't know if there is anything that I can say that will not sound trite, stupid, simple-minded, or condescending. That said...
First of all, you do not need to change the interests that you have developed in the past 24 years. They are all fine and good. Seriously. As long as what you do doesn't hurt others, there is nothing at all wrong with it. You have an interest in something that you've cultivated and (from what it sounds like) that you're good at.
So don't try to drop this interest. Don't reject it, just add to it. Maybe once you only knew how to program in BASIC (okay, I may be dating myself here), but then you learned some C, some java, some perl, etc. finding out that although there was nothing wrong about BASIC per se, other languages offered other things and were more in demand by other people.
Okay, it is a bad analogy. Analogies usually are. They are like trying to put a glove on a dog. Sure you can do it, but the dog doesn't really understand. But I digress.
One thanksgiving several years back, I found myself sitting alone in my apartment watching movies by myself as the rest of the world gathered around friends and loved ones. Soon enough, I found myself laying on the floor crying and wracked with horrible loneliness.
A key turning point in my life was to make the decision to fix whatever the fuck was wrong with me, which eventually led me (very reluctantly) into therapy. At the time, it felt like defeat, like I was too weak, etc. to figure things out by myself.
What I learned is that thought is bullshit. Everybody is too weak to manage by themselves. The only difference is that some people are naturally better at getting help from others, but judging from your presence on slashdot here and from your posts, you fall into the category of people that have a hard time relating to others.
After wading through some basic, dysfunctional events in my past, I switched from one-on-one counseling to a men's group. I sarcastically called it my sensitive guy drum circle, but it helped a lot. In there, I met a lot of guys like me. They were of much different ages and backgrounds and politics, but we all had a terrible time relating to the world.
In the group, we practiced talking to other people. It sounds corny and stupid, but eventually I got the hang of it and could build relationships with other people.
So, one thing you should consider is putting your ass in a similar situation. What do you have to lose?
Meanwhile, take some classes at the community college. Learn to dance; women love a man that can dance. Look at the list and pick the least stupid thing you see. What do you have to lose?
It all takes time, and assuming that your mention of 24 years is your age, you're young. There is a lot of time left in life to add to your existing experience. You sound from your post that you're struggling. If you need a sympathetic ear, feel free to message me. I'm pretty busy, but I can try to offer what trite insights I can.
Your view of the world is depressing.
A lot of what I do when I'm not at my job is what I consider to be "living my life," not passing time until I get to work again.
Reading this, I cannot help but thing that it would not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that everything you do for fun or are interested in involves technology.
The world is big, man. Are you sure that there isn't anything else out there that isn't at least a little interesting to you? There may not be a lot of women interested in technology, but there are a LOT of women you can accept that you're interested in technology if they see that there is more to you than that.
Maybe... but judging from the tone and style of your post, perhaps it is also because you fail to meet reasonable standards for bias and objectivity?
I did a random check of one of those penis-gloating-based-pedestals you linked to, and you know what? They all seem like lists of contributions to Wikipedia, which seems down right reasonable for a personal information page on Wikipedia.
Except, of course the fact that there are cops at Burning Man already.
As someone who is going there for the third time this year, I strongly recommend that you try to change your attitude.
Don't get me wrong, if you ignore this advice, it won't bother me one bit. I don't need you to have fun in order to have a good time myself.
Let's be clear - there are plenty of things that are wrong with Burning Man, including your example of the double-standard of what is for sale. The physical environment is terrible. The heat during the day is intolerable, and it can get freezing cold at night. Furthermore, your skin will dry and crack and bleed if you're not careful, and by the time you get back, you are likely be coughing hard at the dust. Then, there are the people. A lot of people go there to get drunk and look at tits. There are those who come out Saturday night and steel shit. My girlfriend's backpack was stolen last year.
If you go to "satisfy your morbid curiosity," I guarantee you that will find a bunch of stupid jerks and washed out hippies hanging out in the desert.
Contrary to what anybody may tell you, Burning Man is still the real world, so it is up to you to try to have a good time. Don't like dance parties? Grab some homebrew and B-movies at the Bad Idea Theater. Want something more interactive? Try shooting a flamethrower or just go for a late night bicycle ride and enjoy the art.
The point is that there are a LOT of different things going on, and despite a lot flaws in the event, there are still a lot of really, really cool things going on (eg, 70' towers of fire). Try to put up with the crap and enjoy the good things.
Except, of course, the fact that it is not a public event. You have to buy a ticket to go, which makes a private event on land that is leased from the government.
Furthermore, one of the conditions of use by the BLM is that the entire event establishes a perimeter fence and controls access.
I would say that you are a thinking person who uses faith to fill in the knowledge gaps in the scientific view of the world.
There is a lot of knowledge about specific ways of evolving (eg, point mutations, trans-locations, recombination, etc.) that explain how genetic diversity can be created, and there is widespread evidence of how the process of natural selection sorts through this genetic diversity. At the same time, no scientist worth their salt would claim that the full picture of step-by-step evolution from simple organic molecules into Cindy Lauper is fully understood. The fossil record incomplete and will always be incomplete.
So, we hit a question of faith and logic. In light of the scientific evidence, it is a reasonable extrapolation to believe in the mechanism of evolution and to believe that this is the way by which life changes.
Currently, though, science has nothing very satisfying to say about why, in a random world, some things happen and some things don't. Yes, we can describe very well the probabilities of this and that, etc., and if I flip a fair coin 100 times, you expect that I will get about 50 heads and about 50 tails. At the same time, we can't say why I get a sequence of four heads followed by 3 tails and two heads. Yes, we can make statements about subtle air currents, minor differences in flipping forces, etc. but as the systems get more complex and the sizes get smaller and smaller, we eventually hit molecular events which behave truly randomly.
Now, for a truly random system (like is the case for many the molecular interactions that make up life), you can choose to believe that God or some such force is driving the specifics of these random events, which is fine, especially if you recognize that this is a religious belief and not a scientific one.
It sounds like you realize this distinction.
The trouble with ID, is that when confronted with any hole in the evolutionary theory, they immediately jump to the conclusion of a God, which is absurd and is much different from using faith to explain things that are (currently?) outside of the scientific understanding of the universe.
Multiple times during Bush's presidency, I joined rallies in the street protesting what he did. I found him to be a pig-headed moron with his head so far up his ass he could taste his own scalp, but I think you're overstating things just a little bit.
Despite how much fun it is to bash Bush, presidents just don't have that much power. Much of the financial woes facing the U.S. are due to a lot of the land gold rush and rampant, short term materialism that started post WWII. Although he certainly didn't do anything to help stop it from happening, the bubble would have burst no matter who was president.
Then, throw in the fact that almost everybody was itching for war post 9-11, it is hard to put all of the bad things on him.
Trying to lay all of the US's troubles at his feet is just as bad as those who decry all of Obama's actions as the fast track to socialism.
Only on /. would a response like these be modded "Informative"....
Eeek!
Please, gentle reader do not take this advice too literally. I think what the poster was saying is that your gut has a good idea of when your being an ass, which is very true.
At the same time, it is very possible to accidentally do something that hurts your partner. In these cases, the best possible thing is to apologize the very moment that you notice your partner is upset. Don't find out why. Don't try to make excuses for yourself.
Instead, remind your partner that you love her/him and state that you are sorry for hurting them.
Once that is done, you can have a calm, respectful discussion of what happened to try to keep it from happening again.