I do understand that not all rural communities are like mine. But I suspect that a much larger percentage of them are like mine than the many citified snobs could possibly imagine. The fact that my community isn't like yours actually serves to emphasize my point, which was that people on the coasts shouldn't lump everyone together as hicks just because they're in "flyover country".
There is a serious drug culture here where I live, and what crime there is here seems in large part (though not entirely) to be tied in with that. However, I have not observed that it is significantly more prevalent here than it was in the cities where I used to live, and it does seem as though the police force here is significantly less corrupt and more efficacious in coping with the drug situation than it was in either of the two cities where I lived.
As for whether I "really" live in a rural area, I suppose that depends on your definition of "rural". I grew up on a farm 5 miles outside of the nearest town, which had pop. 800. The nearest town over 10,000 was 25 miles away. The nearest city over 50,000 was almost 50 miles away.
Ohio's overall population density is about 107 people per square kilometer; you are correct that this is roughly comparable to the p.d. of Europe. (Interestingly enough, the population density of California --- ca. 84 -- is lower than Ohio's.) The county I live in has a p.d. of about 56 people per km2 -- closer to Ireland (considered rural by European standards) or Lithuania than to Europe as a whole. By contrast, British Columbia has a p.d. of about 4.3 people per km2, significantly lower than any European country excepting Iceland. No contest here -- clearly, B.C. is much more rural than where I live.
The town (technically a city) where I now live has a population of about 20,000. By the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, this town itself is not rural. But the rest of the surrounding county is almost entirely farmland, much of it still small family farms (though there's a very strong trend toward big corporate farms in recent years, and we are just beginning to see the development of some bedroom-community mentality in the fringes of the county that are on the Cleveland side, which will eventually turn us into a sort of extended suburbia.)
So depending on your definition of "rural", I suppose you could exclude where I live from "rural America". But my point remains -- the "Red states" are not the geographic equivalent of an American Dark Ages, and those on the coasts have no right to sneer at and stereotype the rest of us just because of where we choose to live.
I wonder why Ohio is unable to retain skilled college graduates, or anyone with an advanced degree...
Ohio retains me. I fit both of these categories. Many of the people I work with every day do so, as well. Many of my friends outside of work likewise. Your premise is deeply flawed.
And those who think Ohio has a "vibrant arts scene"...you need to travel more.
Let's see, outside of Ohio, I've been to London, Oxford, Hereford, Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, Paris, DC, Orlando, Toronto, Chicago, LA, Savannah, NYC, Denver, Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, Cape Cod, San Diego... Clearly I must not have chosen the right cities to compare arts scenes. Could you point me to some whose art scenes would surpass all of these?
You don't know me. You don't know how extensively I've traveled, or what my involvement in the arts has been. Yet you're willing to dismiss what I say because you failed to see what was right under your nose. And worst of all, you don't even have the guts to sign your bloody sneer of a reply.
Those who think Ohio lacks a vibrant arts scene... you need to stay here more, and actually give the arts here a serious look. You'll be amazed.
I suppose so. When California and New York State start allowing same-sex marriage, maybe then I'll consider moving to one of them. In a rural area in one of them, of course.
Are you sure it was Pittsburgh and DC you were living in, and not burbia like Greensburg and NoVA?
Within the city limits in both instances. And I was referring to the cities as a whole; I don't believe in ghettoizing myself the way so many gay men and lesbians do, and I don't generally limit my social interactions chiefly to people with whom I largely agree politically, as so many people in all walks of life do. So perhaps I see a bit broader slice of the pie. Also, I'm not "stereotypically gay" (whatever that means), and while I don't hide, neither do I feel the need to declare my sexual orientation in every sentence, so very often people will make candid comments around me that they wouldn't make around other gay men. And in my experience, the city folk I encountered were on average (taking all walks of life into account) far more hostile toward homosexuals, and to have a far more stereotypical perception of them, than the country folk among whom I grew up and currently live. Of course, YMMV.
Of course, there are gay-friendly churches in the same town in these cities...
Yes. And depending on where you live in these cities, the gay-friendly church will take you just about as long to get to (and the trip will cost you more, if you drive, use public transportation, or take a cab) than for me to get to the one in the next town.
You are trying to pit a rural Ohio "arts centre" against the Andy Warhol museum, DCAC and MoMA?!
You're putting words in my mouth. Please reread what I said: programs that rival most things I saw when I lived in cities (emphasis added).
No, the rural Ohio arts center (note the correct spelling and lack of sneering quotation marks) does not compete with world-class museums like the DCAC and the MOMA. I will pit the best art exhibits here, though, against the average exhibits I saw at the Andy Warhol, and the average theater productions here (with the exception of a noticeably smaller set budget) against even the best professional shows I ever saw in Pittsburgh. Dancers from the local arts center are now dancing with Joffrey -- how many cities can say the same?
next you will tell us your local ChuckeeCheeze beats out 2 Amys, and all the cuisine these cities have to offer
We don't have a Chuck E. Cheese's (note the correct spelling again) here. I admitted in my original post that the variety of restaurants is less here -- but it's only an hour's drive away when I'm craving excellent sushi or Thai. (That hour, by the way, is more, but not a whole lot more, than the time it often took to get across the city in Pittsburgh, and significantly less than the time it often took to get across the city in DC, to get to the restaurants I liked.) There are some superb Mexican restaurants in town, roughly equivalent to many an urban Mexican restaurant, not topnotch but better than most. Superb Chinese and Italian restaurants can be found here, too. The worst greasy-spoon diners here are better than the average equivalent in the city, and usually worlds friendlier and cleaner.
Even when I was living in the city, most of the time I have preferred to cook my own food anyway, so a lack of restaurants doesn't affect me all that often. It's a very small price to pay, as far as I'm concerned, for all the rest that I get from living here, and all the shit I get to avoid by not living in the city.
I'm sorry you lost your job and your pet, [snip]... I can understand you are trying to feel better about having to move out of the city,
My pet was stolen, true. I did not "lose my job." I quite consciously gave it up, rewarding as it was, because I deliberately chose to leave the city. I am not tryin
Cities are generally more interesting places to live,
Define "more interesting". Here in the country, I can hunt, fish, swim for free most of the year, go birdwatching, hiking (again for free), ice skating outdoors (again for free) when the weather permits, sledding, cross-country skiing, sailing, spelunking -- all within a five-minute drive of my house. There are movie theaters (with admittedly a slightly less diverse selection than in the city), a thriving local community theater with professional-caliber productions, trendy shops and coffeehouses (fewer of them, but no less "interesting" than your local Starbucks), used-book and used-music stores, high-quality ethnic restaurants (again, a slightly less diverse selection -- but just about anything we're missing here is only an hour's drive away), and the standard number of chain stores and fast-food joints.
I can also get farm-fresh eggs, fresh unpasteurized cider, freshly-butchered meat that hasn't sat in a refrigeration car for days to get to the grocery store, raspberries right off the cane, and more (and fresher) fresh produce than I ever saw living in the city.
In six years of living here, I have yet to find myself bored at all. So just what exactly about the city would be "more interesting"... ?
Politics. Most Southern states are so-called "red states", so calling them "backwards" is an indirect way of calling Republicans backwards. For some reason, some people prefer to do this indirectly, rather than just calling a spade a spade and saying that Republicans are backwards.
Hogwash. Southern (and other rural) stereotyping has been going on since long before the Southern states went Republican. For decades, the South voted mostly Democratic, and urban people still called them backwards.
The other way in which your argument falls apart is that there are plenty of Republicans who call Southerners (and other rural folk) backwards, too. Are they politically motivated? If so, just exactly how is that?
Another current Ohioan & native rural Pennsylvanian chiming in...
I live in the most rural county in Ohio. Despite the large population of Amish here, we are hardly the benighted hicks that the coasters like to imagine. I have several options for DSL or cable service. The state has the best-funded libraries in the U.S., including the first ever statewide free online chat reference service. I make less now than when I lived in the city, but have a much higher standard of living due to the fact that life here is vastly more affordable.
Some of the best universities in the country are found in Ohio. Despite the same-sex-marriage amendment that got passed recently, I have found people generally to be very accepting of my sexual orientation -- in greater proportions to the people I knew when I lived in Washington, DC or Pittsburgh. There's a 100% gay-friendly church in a nearby town (half the size of the town where I live). Unlike in the city, no one here has yet stolen my pets or keyed my car or slashed my tires. There's a thriving arts center in my community with programs that rival most things I saw when I lived in cities (Washington, DC and Pittsburgh) or on visits to the coasts. I live a mere hour's drive from a world-class symphony in Cleveland, as well as a vibrant art scene.
What's more, where I live I can walk to work without fear of being attacked by random strangers or held up at gunpoint (as I was in a "nice" neighborhood in Pittsburgh). While we do have crime here, I love going for weeks at a time without hearing of a single armed robbery, murder, hate crime, arson, child abduction, breakin, elder abuse, carjacking, burglary, etc.
You can sneer about the uneducated people living in rural areas, but as someone else pointed out, judging the entire state by a few ignorant people is roughly akin to judging LA entirely by the slums. I used to work with inner-city children who were far more ignorant and uneducated (and bigoted) than the most unenlightened, unwashed farmboy I ever met.
Best of all, for the most part, people are genuinely nice to each other here, whether you're a total stranger, a brand-new neighbor, or an old friend. Yes, they poke their nose in your business, but they also help when your car breaks down on a back road in the middle of the night. That's a tradeoff I'll gladly take.
I know that rural life is not for everyone. If you're happy in the city, by all means, stay there. More work for me! But please, stop sneering at those of us who choose to live here for very good, rational reasons. And please stop assuming that the occcasional rural village idiot is representative of rural America as a whole.
But under quantum mechanics, until you look at your half, not only don't you know which half you have, but you don't have a particular half -- instead, you have a half that has the potential to be either one.
So when you look at it, the half "decides" which half it will be, and the one your friend has across town is also "decided" somehow, if only by default. Its potential to be either half is "collapsed" into a single possibility because you looked at your half.
I don't know about you, but to a common-sense, classical understanding, that looks as though some kind of communication has taken place between the two halves. I know common sense and science are often at odds, so I have no problem with it, but the description "spooky" does seem to apply.
I only meant that the public perception of geeks is that they know computers, not that CS was the only thing that makes a geek a geek (or is even a necessary attribute of geekdom).
Actually, I myself am a perfect example of this. I have only a casual hobbyist's interest in CS. I dabble with just about any software I can get my hands on, buy new PDAs just because I'm curious about their differences (I think I have seven or so lying around the house, plus the Ipaq that I actually use daily), that sort of thing. But if you asked me to compile something or wanted technical advice about lisp syntax, I'd sort of grin nervously and try to change the subject.
I do, however, attend Medieval Faires whenever I can (and have spent more money than I care to admit on costumes for doing so), obsess over choral music to an absurd degree, and have intense curiosity about the hard sciences (especially paleontology, physics, astronomy, & cosmology) and a major jones for fantasy (less so for sf). Especially, my interest in philology and historical linguistics has proved to be embarrassingly passionate: I once made a co-worker stare alarmedly when I went into raptures over finding a box of tremendously obscure histling textbooks at a book sale; he said he thought I had come across a porn goldmine.
I think it's less that people are pretending to be geeks, and more that people already think they are (whether or not they actually are). It's the "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" phenomenon: Everybody, even the insiders, feels like an outsider. So they identify with the pop-culture image of outsiders, even if they don't fit it at all. Geeks are perceived to be outsiders, so people identify with geeks, and want to proclaim their "outsider" status by claiming geek culture as their own.
The lack of interest in CS as a profession is not especially related, IMHO. People who already think of themselves as geeks may adopt what they think of as the geek "uniform", but aren't likely to alter their own genuine interests just because it's what geeks are expected to do. That is, they want to show that they're geeks, by looking like geeks, but they don't have to prove it by acting like geeks, because (as far as they're concerned) they already do.
The lack of interest in CS also, I suspect, is directly related to the perception that, since the dotcom bust, the country is glutted with out-of-work or underpaid IT people, and there is (the perception goes) therefore no future in it.
But even the best computerized translation is still prone to errors.
No matter how good the technology of translation gets, it will be "prone to errors" for the simple reason that we don't understand language well enough to program any kind of computer to do it well.
Even the grammars* of the best-studied languages cannot yet be adequately model and described in a way that accounts for all the uses to which people put it in everyday situations, let alone in exceptional circumstances such as war. A five-year-old native speaker of a language has a better grasp of how the language functions than the best linguists have been able to model.
Nor can the technological obstacles be easily overlooked. Even if we had a thorough model of a single language, we would then need a point-for-point map connecting the model to an analogous model for the target languange, for a translation not to be "prone to errors". And given how quickly language changes, and given the range of variations of usage from place to place, the computational requirements for simply building a model of a single language are staggering. The requirements for mapping two complete models to each other, and for keeping up with changes in usage, vocabulary, pronunciation, and so on, are simply prohibitive under current technology.
I dream of the day when our technology is able to perform such tasks. But until the linguists have succeeded in building a thorough, credible model of even one living language, I don't intend to hold my breath.
Nifty idea, though.
* By "grammar" I don't mean the rules Miss Grundy tried to drill into your head. I mean the set of (mostly unconscious) rules that a speaker uses to build an utterance and to parse the utterances of others.
Slashdot Mirror
The safer mindset is to proceed as if we ARE responsible until it's proven otherwise.
... guilty till proven innocent?
So
I do understand that not all rural communities are like mine. But I suspect that a much larger percentage of them are like mine than the many citified snobs could possibly imagine. The fact that my community isn't like yours actually serves to emphasize my point, which was that people on the coasts shouldn't lump everyone together as hicks just because they're in "flyover country".
There is a serious drug culture here where I live, and what crime there is here seems in large part (though not entirely) to be tied in with that. However, I have not observed that it is significantly more prevalent here than it was in the cities where I used to live, and it does seem as though the police force here is significantly less corrupt and more efficacious in coping with the drug situation than it was in either of the two cities where I lived.
As for whether I "really" live in a rural area, I suppose that depends on your definition of "rural". I grew up on a farm 5 miles outside of the nearest town, which had pop. 800. The nearest town over 10,000 was 25 miles away. The nearest city over 50,000 was almost 50 miles away.
Ohio's overall population density is about 107 people per square kilometer; you are correct that this is roughly comparable to the p.d. of Europe. (Interestingly enough, the population density of California --- ca. 84 -- is lower than Ohio's.) The county I live in has a p.d. of about 56 people per km2 -- closer to Ireland (considered rural by European standards) or Lithuania than to Europe as a whole. By contrast, British Columbia has a p.d. of about 4.3 people per km2, significantly lower than any European country excepting Iceland. No contest here -- clearly, B.C. is much more rural than where I live.
The town (technically a city) where I now live has a population of about 20,000. By the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, this town itself is not rural. But the rest of the surrounding county is almost entirely farmland, much of it still small family farms (though there's a very strong trend toward big corporate farms in recent years, and we are just beginning to see the development of some bedroom-community mentality in the fringes of the county that are on the Cleveland side, which will eventually turn us into a sort of extended suburbia.)
So depending on your definition of "rural", I suppose you could exclude where I live from "rural America". But my point remains -- the "Red states" are not the geographic equivalent of an American Dark Ages, and those on the coasts have no right to sneer at and stereotype the rest of us just because of where we choose to live.
I wonder why Ohio is unable to retain skilled college graduates, or anyone with an advanced degree...
... Clearly I must not have chosen the right cities to compare arts scenes. Could you point me to some whose art scenes would surpass all of these?
... you need to stay here more, and actually give the arts here a serious look. You'll be amazed.
Ohio retains me. I fit both of these categories. Many of the people I work with every day do so, as well. Many of my friends outside of work likewise. Your premise is deeply flawed.
And those who think Ohio has a "vibrant arts scene"...you need to travel more.
Let's see, outside of Ohio, I've been to London, Oxford, Hereford, Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, Paris, DC, Orlando, Toronto, Chicago, LA, Savannah, NYC, Denver, Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, Cape Cod, San Diego
You don't know me. You don't know how extensively I've traveled, or what my involvement in the arts has been. Yet you're willing to dismiss what I say because you failed to see what was right under your nose. And worst of all, you don't even have the guts to sign your bloody sneer of a reply.
Those who think Ohio lacks a vibrant arts scene
Thanks. Don't remember where I first came across it, but I loved it. I get the same reactions from about 80% of the people I tell it to. Their loss :-)
That's a pretty big despite.
... I can understand you are trying to feel better about having to move out of the city,
I suppose so. When California and New York State start allowing same-sex marriage, maybe then I'll consider moving to one of them. In a rural area in one of them, of course.
Are you sure it was Pittsburgh and DC you were living in, and not burbia like Greensburg and NoVA?
Within the city limits in both instances. And I was referring to the cities as a whole; I don't believe in ghettoizing myself the way so many gay men and lesbians do, and I don't generally limit my social interactions chiefly to people with whom I largely agree politically, as so many people in all walks of life do. So perhaps I see a bit broader slice of the pie. Also, I'm not "stereotypically gay" (whatever that means), and while I don't hide, neither do I feel the need to declare my sexual orientation in every sentence, so very often people will make candid comments around me that they wouldn't make around other gay men. And in my experience, the city folk I encountered were on average (taking all walks of life into account) far more hostile toward homosexuals, and to have a far more stereotypical perception of them, than the country folk among whom I grew up and currently live. Of course, YMMV.
Of course, there are gay-friendly churches in the same town in these cities...
Yes. And depending on where you live in these cities, the gay-friendly church will take you just about as long to get to (and the trip will cost you more, if you drive, use public transportation, or take a cab) than for me to get to the one in the next town.
You are trying to pit a rural Ohio "arts centre" against the Andy Warhol museum, DCAC and MoMA?!
You're putting words in my mouth. Please reread what I said: programs that rival most things I saw when I lived in cities (emphasis added).
No, the rural Ohio arts center (note the correct spelling and lack of sneering quotation marks) does not compete with world-class museums like the DCAC and the MOMA. I will pit the best art exhibits here, though, against the average exhibits I saw at the Andy Warhol, and the average theater productions here (with the exception of a noticeably smaller set budget) against even the best professional shows I ever saw in Pittsburgh. Dancers from the local arts center are now dancing with Joffrey -- how many cities can say the same?
next you will tell us your local ChuckeeCheeze beats out 2 Amys, and all the cuisine these cities have to offer
We don't have a Chuck E. Cheese's (note the correct spelling again) here. I admitted in my original post that the variety of restaurants is less here -- but it's only an hour's drive away when I'm craving excellent sushi or Thai. (That hour, by the way, is more, but not a whole lot more, than the time it often took to get across the city in Pittsburgh, and significantly less than the time it often took to get across the city in DC, to get to the restaurants I liked.) There are some superb Mexican restaurants in town, roughly equivalent to many an urban Mexican restaurant, not topnotch but better than most. Superb Chinese and Italian restaurants can be found here, too. The worst greasy-spoon diners here are better than the average equivalent in the city, and usually worlds friendlier and cleaner.
Even when I was living in the city, most of the time I have preferred to cook my own food anyway, so a lack of restaurants doesn't affect me all that often. It's a very small price to pay, as far as I'm concerned, for all the rest that I get from living here, and all the shit I get to avoid by not living in the city.
I'm sorry you lost your job and your pet, [snip]
My pet was stolen, true. I did not "lose my job." I quite consciously gave it up, rewarding as it was, because I deliberately chose to leave the city. I am not tryin
Cities are generally more interesting places to live,
... ?
Define "more interesting". Here in the country, I can hunt, fish, swim for free most of the year, go birdwatching, hiking (again for free), ice skating outdoors (again for free) when the weather permits, sledding, cross-country skiing, sailing, spelunking -- all within a five-minute drive of my house. There are movie theaters (with admittedly a slightly less diverse selection than in the city), a thriving local community theater with professional-caliber productions, trendy shops and coffeehouses (fewer of them, but no less "interesting" than your local Starbucks), used-book and used-music stores, high-quality ethnic restaurants (again, a slightly less diverse selection -- but just about anything we're missing here is only an hour's drive away), and the standard number of chain stores and fast-food joints.
I can also get farm-fresh eggs, fresh unpasteurized cider, freshly-butchered meat that hasn't sat in a refrigeration car for days to get to the grocery store, raspberries right off the cane, and more (and fresher) fresh produce than I ever saw living in the city.
In six years of living here, I have yet to find myself bored at all. So just what exactly about the city would be "more interesting"
Politics. Most Southern states are so-called "red states", so calling them "backwards" is an indirect way of calling Republicans backwards. For some reason, some people prefer to do this indirectly, rather than just calling a spade a spade and saying that Republicans are backwards.
Hogwash. Southern (and other rural) stereotyping has been going on since long before the Southern states went Republican. For decades, the South voted mostly Democratic, and urban people still called them backwards.
The other way in which your argument falls apart is that there are plenty of Republicans who call Southerners (and other rural folk) backwards, too. Are they politically motivated? If so, just exactly how is that?
Another current Ohioan & native rural Pennsylvanian chiming in...
I live in the most rural county in Ohio. Despite the large population of Amish here, we are hardly the benighted hicks that the coasters like to imagine. I have several options for DSL or cable service. The state has the best-funded libraries in the U.S., including the first ever statewide free online chat reference service. I make less now than when I lived in the city, but have a much higher standard of living due to the fact that life here is vastly more affordable.
Some of the best universities in the country are found in Ohio. Despite the same-sex-marriage amendment that got passed recently, I have found people generally to be very accepting of my sexual orientation -- in greater proportions to the people I knew when I lived in Washington, DC or Pittsburgh. There's a 100% gay-friendly church in a nearby town (half the size of the town where I live). Unlike in the city, no one here has yet stolen my pets or keyed my car or slashed my tires. There's a thriving arts center in my community with programs that rival most things I saw when I lived in cities (Washington, DC and Pittsburgh) or on visits to the coasts. I live a mere hour's drive from a world-class symphony in Cleveland, as well as a vibrant art scene.
What's more, where I live I can walk to work without fear of being attacked by random strangers or held up at gunpoint (as I was in a "nice" neighborhood in Pittsburgh). While we do have crime here, I love going for weeks at a time without hearing of a single armed robbery, murder, hate crime, arson, child abduction, breakin, elder abuse, carjacking, burglary, etc.
You can sneer about the uneducated people living in rural areas, but as someone else pointed out, judging the entire state by a few ignorant people is roughly akin to judging LA entirely by the slums. I used to work with inner-city children who were far more ignorant and uneducated (and bigoted) than the most unenlightened, unwashed farmboy I ever met.
Best of all, for the most part, people are genuinely nice to each other here, whether you're a total stranger, a brand-new neighbor, or an old friend. Yes, they poke their nose in your business, but they also help when your car breaks down on a back road in the middle of the night. That's a tradeoff I'll gladly take.
I know that rural life is not for everyone. If you're happy in the city, by all means, stay there. More work for me! But please, stop sneering at those of us who choose to live here for very good, rational reasons. And please stop assuming that the occcasional rural village idiot is representative of rural America as a whole.
Yes, yes, yes, and holy cow why didn't I think of this?
... that's ... I don't have words for what that's.
Seriously, though. Not one movie before the 1970's even made the list? That's
Yes, it only gets bigger when there's an observer. ;-)
But under quantum mechanics, until you look at your half, not only don't you know which half you have, but you don't have a particular half -- instead, you have a half that has the potential to be either one.
So when you look at it, the half "decides" which half it will be, and the one your friend has across town is also "decided" somehow, if only by default. Its potential to be either half is "collapsed" into a single possibility because you looked at your half.
I don't know about you, but to a common-sense, classical understanding, that looks as though some kind of communication has taken place between the two halves. I know common sense and science are often at odds, so I have no problem with it, but the description "spooky" does seem to apply.
It's the act of observing it that makes it spooky. If there are no onlookers, then it remains in an undefined state of quantum spookiness.
Cover of the newsletter of the local Mensa chapter (Cleveland) once read: "Mensa for Dummies".
Shakespeare wrote video games?
Amen. It's if you find it hard not to be a geek (or would find it hard if it occurred to you to try) that you are probably a geek.
You forgot the "you insensitive clod" at the end of your first sentence.
Some geeks are gay (me, for instance), but (mutatis mutandis) I would agree with this characterization.
My brother, a chemistry teacher, Civil War fanatic, and slide-rule collector, uses pocket protectors.
I only meant that the public perception of geeks is that they know computers, not that CS was the only thing that makes a geek a geek (or is even a necessary attribute of geekdom).
Actually, I myself am a perfect example of this. I have only a casual hobbyist's interest in CS. I dabble with just about any software I can get my hands on, buy new PDAs just because I'm curious about their differences (I think I have seven or so lying around the house, plus the Ipaq that I actually use daily), that sort of thing. But if you asked me to compile something or wanted technical advice about lisp syntax, I'd sort of grin nervously and try to change the subject.
I do, however, attend Medieval Faires whenever I can (and have spent more money than I care to admit on costumes for doing so), obsess over choral music to an absurd degree, and have intense curiosity about the hard sciences (especially paleontology, physics, astronomy, & cosmology) and a major jones for fantasy (less so for sf). Especially, my interest in philology and historical linguistics has proved to be embarrassingly passionate: I once made a co-worker stare alarmedly when I went into raptures over finding a box of tremendously obscure histling textbooks at a book sale; he said he thought I had come across a porn goldmine.
I think it's less that people are pretending to be geeks, and more that people already think they are (whether or not they actually are). It's the "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" phenomenon: Everybody, even the insiders, feels like an outsider. So they identify with the pop-culture image of outsiders, even if they don't fit it at all. Geeks are perceived to be outsiders, so people identify with geeks, and want to proclaim their "outsider" status by claiming geek culture as their own.
The lack of interest in CS as a profession is not especially related, IMHO. People who already think of themselves as geeks may adopt what they think of as the geek "uniform", but aren't likely to alter their own genuine interests just because it's what geeks are expected to do. That is, they want to show that they're geeks, by looking like geeks, but they don't have to prove it by acting like geeks, because (as far as they're concerned) they already do.
The lack of interest in CS also, I suspect, is directly related to the perception that, since the dotcom bust, the country is glutted with out-of-work or underpaid IT people, and there is (the perception goes) therefore no future in it.
Well, it is a Friday night. People probably have dates--
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Never mind.
Sex with a steak apparently?
Shh! You can't speak of it!
Er ... for "adequately model and described" read "adequately modeled and described".
Clearly Miss Grundy failed, in my case.
But even the best computerized translation is still prone to errors.
No matter how good the technology of translation gets, it will be "prone to errors" for the simple reason that we don't understand language well enough to program any kind of computer to do it well.
Even the grammars* of the best-studied languages cannot yet be adequately model and described in a way that accounts for all the uses to which people put it in everyday situations, let alone in exceptional circumstances such as war. A five-year-old native speaker of a language has a better grasp of how the language functions than the best linguists have been able to model.
Nor can the technological obstacles be easily overlooked. Even if we had a thorough model of a single language, we would then need a point-for-point map connecting the model to an analogous model for the target languange, for a translation not to be "prone to errors". And given how quickly language changes, and given the range of variations of usage from place to place, the computational requirements for simply building a model of a single language are staggering. The requirements for mapping two complete models to each other, and for keeping up with changes in usage, vocabulary, pronunciation, and so on, are simply prohibitive under current technology.
I dream of the day when our technology is able to perform such tasks. But until the linguists have succeeded in building a thorough, credible model of even one living language, I don't intend to hold my breath.
Nifty idea, though.
* By "grammar" I don't mean the rules Miss Grundy tried to drill into your head. I mean the set of (mostly unconscious) rules that a speaker uses to build an utterance and to parse the utterances of others.
You sound as though you think the average slashdot user (or internet user) is actually sentient.