If that was their college experience, how can you qualify them as smarter? By that quote I'd have to say they exemplify the anti-intellectuals in college. Or they think it's cute to hate. Neither option makes one smart.
Passing a class and chasing a degree should be one-and-the-same as being intellectual. That was my college experience. We had to think outside the box in every engineering class I took to achieve an A. Those who struggled with intellectualism also struggled with grades. I hope you will help kids find these pursuits rather than spoil them with horror stories.
Nope. You are defining what I believe as a nerd (I also self identify). I say that as I cannot find common ground with my geek friends. Geeks are weirdos who are passionate about culturally unacceptable pursuits. I have played DnD with many people who couldn't even read a dictionary let alone understand why one should be questioned.
Intellectual and college educated are so closely coupled that saying they are non-equivalent is an issue of semantics rather than practicality. College may not make someone a geek, but it absolutely can make them an intellectual.
It isn't ignored at all. You completely missed couchslug's point. He listed 3 real jobs that are comparable in a socioeconomic sense. Of course we all want a good job with intelligent and responsible management, but how about we stick to the discuss instead of bringing up random tangents?
There is a scarcity of talented musicians with free-time. Not all music is created equal. I don't support the current copyright laws, but let's not pretend good music is an infinite commodity.
The point being that he lost his passion for coding. Same thing happened to me once I left college. I bought a mega-workstation to get involved in open source projects as my skills grew, only to find that sitting in front of my home computer was as soul-sucking as work. I've since downgraded to a low power system that servers as a news reader and little else.
You didn't refute anything the GP was saying. Refuse all you want, but genetics strongly states that if we select for appearance, other factors will suffer.
You do not fully grasp the issue. GMO crops are not sustainable. Current farming practices are not sustainable. If everyone switched to organic products (hate all you want. it is the technical term), this would be a drastic change that neither you nor I could truly account for. I would gladly welcome the shift. Please read up on proper economics and how organic farming actually works and you'll understand that it is better than what we are doing now. I understand the fight only because my generation is waiting for the day when we can stop our parent's ruining the family farm by doing what they always have done. That's something I hate.
There's nothing lazy about it. It's a confusing topic and the manufacturers and reviewers both seem to be on board with aiding the confusion. No, most people with a real budget that I know really do research. It may not be good research, but knowing where good research comes from is in itself a complex task.
Ignorant is the correct word. Most people don't have time to obtain working knowledge of computer hardware and must rely on other factors. Sadly, most consumers don't have anyone to turn to who does have such knowledge, so shiny becomes the key ingredient in what is purchased.
Your desired level of proof is absurd. Your test is not falsifiable.
Also, stats are unable to lie or tell the truth. They are data, nothing more, but also nothing less. It is we humans who accept 1 interpretation of the data that are at fault.
I'm going to admit that my understanding of the situation is also based on me "recall[ing] there being scientists" saying certain things, one of which is that the ozone hole was directly caused by massive CFC usage. That directly refutes you and is the status quo belief. You are the one with the burden of proof.
The ozone disappearing was a much more pressing and obvious issue than global warming. I understand that we replaced one problem with another, but that's engineering. We went with the issue that would give us more time to solve. Besides, it would have been an issue anyway.
No, abuse of governmental power is the exception in our nation. The problem is one of perspective and that any abuse is a very terrible thing. Check African nations if you want to see countries where abuse is the rule. Also, don't confuse government powers that are disagreeable with abuse of power. The Department of Homeland Security, although the number 1 contender for my list of most corrupt agencies, is not itself governmental abuse. Warrentless phone tapping is, but that's ultimately a tiny part of what our government or the DoHS actually does.
Why sink to such a low level? There are plenty reasons why they would move from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. I did the same, because I had the option of keeping my old standard monitor or taking the only monitor IT offered me. Those were the highest resolutions I could use. I have no plans to spend my own money (work will not pay for something I already have) for a larger monitor.
There are excellent technical reasons as well. My desk has a bookshelf and I couldn't go over that limit anyway. Should I purchase a new desk as well to accomodate a new monitor?
Also the screen real estate is not a huge deal. I have eventually acquired 3 of these wide screen monitors and have plenty of real estate. But that only gives me ample horizontal space. For large pages, worksheets, source code, etc. vertical space is quite important, but again not worth spending my money, especially if I must have a new desk.
It'd be greatly appreciated if you could realize that other people have real needs that do not fit your own. It would add greater civility to your conversations, enabling greater technical depth and breadth.
Slashdot Mirror
If that was their college experience, how can you qualify them as smarter? By that quote I'd have to say they exemplify the anti-intellectuals in college. Or they think it's cute to hate. Neither option makes one smart.
You sound just like so many anti-intellectual Randians that I find it difficult to take you seriously.
Because then GP would have to understand how anti-intellectual he is.
Passing a class and chasing a degree should be one-and-the-same as being intellectual. That was my college experience. We had to think outside the box in every engineering class I took to achieve an A. Those who struggled with intellectualism also struggled with grades. I hope you will help kids find these pursuits rather than spoil them with horror stories.
Nope. You are defining what I believe as a nerd (I also self identify). I say that as I cannot find common ground with my geek friends. Geeks are weirdos who are passionate about culturally unacceptable pursuits. I have played DnD with many people who couldn't even read a dictionary let alone understand why one should be questioned.
GP might be refering to ITT Tech as college...
Intellectual and college educated are so closely coupled that saying they are non-equivalent is an issue of semantics rather than practicality. College may not make someone a geek, but it absolutely can make them an intellectual.
It isn't ignored at all. You completely missed couchslug's point. He listed 3 real jobs that are comparable in a socioeconomic sense. Of course we all want a good job with intelligent and responsible management, but how about we stick to the discuss instead of bringing up random tangents?
There is a scarcity of talented musicians with free-time. Not all music is created equal. I don't support the current copyright laws, but let's not pretend good music is an infinite commodity.
The point being that he lost his passion for coding. Same thing happened to me once I left college. I bought a mega-workstation to get involved in open source projects as my skills grew, only to find that sitting in front of my home computer was as soul-sucking as work. I've since downgraded to a low power system that servers as a news reader and little else.
You are not the typical user. You were in doubt why?
You didn't refute anything the GP was saying. Refuse all you want, but genetics strongly states that if we select for appearance, other factors will suffer.
You do not fully grasp the issue. GMO crops are not sustainable. Current farming practices are not sustainable. If everyone switched to organic products (hate all you want. it is the technical term), this would be a drastic change that neither you nor I could truly account for. I would gladly welcome the shift. Please read up on proper economics and how organic farming actually works and you'll understand that it is better than what we are doing now. I understand the fight only because my generation is waiting for the day when we can stop our parent's ruining the family farm by doing what they always have done. That's something I hate.
There are those cashing in on early adopters, but Slashdot is hardly the place to nitpick about early adopters paying more.
There's nothing lazy about it. It's a confusing topic and the manufacturers and reviewers both seem to be on board with aiding the confusion. No, most people with a real budget that I know really do research. It may not be good research, but knowing where good research comes from is in itself a complex task.
Ignorant is the correct word. Most people don't have time to obtain working knowledge of computer hardware and must rely on other factors. Sadly, most consumers don't have anyone to turn to who does have such knowledge, so shiny becomes the key ingredient in what is purchased.
Your desired level of proof is absurd. Your test is not falsifiable.
Also, stats are unable to lie or tell the truth. They are data, nothing more, but also nothing less. It is we humans who accept 1 interpretation of the data that are at fault.
Alright, two informative posts, way to go science!
I'm going to admit that my understanding of the situation is also based on me "recall[ing] there being scientists" saying certain things, one of which is that the ozone hole was directly caused by massive CFC usage. That directly refutes you and is the status quo belief. You are the one with the burden of proof.
The ozone disappearing was a much more pressing and obvious issue than global warming. I understand that we replaced one problem with another, but that's engineering. We went with the issue that would give us more time to solve. Besides, it would have been an issue anyway.
No, abuse of governmental power is the exception in our nation. The problem is one of perspective and that any abuse is a very terrible thing. Check African nations if you want to see countries where abuse is the rule. Also, don't confuse government powers that are disagreeable with abuse of power. The Department of Homeland Security, although the number 1 contender for my list of most corrupt agencies, is not itself governmental abuse. Warrentless phone tapping is, but that's ultimately a tiny part of what our government or the DoHS actually does.
I believe hubris is a better word choice than futile.
Why sink to such a low level? There are plenty reasons why they would move from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. I did the same, because I had the option of keeping my old standard monitor or taking the only monitor IT offered me. Those were the highest resolutions I could use. I have no plans to spend my own money (work will not pay for something I already have) for a larger monitor. There are excellent technical reasons as well. My desk has a bookshelf and I couldn't go over that limit anyway. Should I purchase a new desk as well to accomodate a new monitor? Also the screen real estate is not a huge deal. I have eventually acquired 3 of these wide screen monitors and have plenty of real estate. But that only gives me ample horizontal space. For large pages, worksheets, source code, etc. vertical space is quite important, but again not worth spending my money, especially if I must have a new desk. It'd be greatly appreciated if you could realize that other people have real needs that do not fit your own. It would add greater civility to your conversations, enabling greater technical depth and breadth.
And I'm excited to not have to look at it when I don't need to. It seems we are at an impasse.
A very small number of atheists "crucified" you. You would do well to correct yourself.