I don't propose that we put and end to reproduction in an effort to reduce populations to hunter-gatherer levels... but I would like to see a culture of reproductive responsibility encouraged. I did my part, my wife and I stopped after 2 children so we conformed to a zero population growth ideal. I wish everyone could share these ideals.
Or, we could actually make a serious effort to expand beyond earth and allow the species to grow, instead of huddling down here and making an evolutionary dead end due to a self-imposed limit, a decidedly anti-Darwinian desire to limit or even harm ourselves from fear that we might get too dominant, or a collective agoraphobia. Get out and expand into the universe like any other living species would do. Make something of our existence. Doing otherwise is just succumbing to the same old riduculous superstitious notions that gave us the stories of Babel and Prometheus.
*Note: This is expressly not a "just trash earth and just find somewhere else to live" proposal. The idea is to go somewhere else and expand precisely so you don't have to trash earth. Rather than cram everyone into one basket with a large impact, spread out to many baskets (thereby making a smaller impact on each).
The entire reason we have protected rights is to keep the majority from making whatever laws they see fit. "But most people want it" should not be sufficient justification for anything under the sun.
See, here in the US we once had a significant portion of the population (said portion made up quite a large majority in many states) that wanted to prohibit black people from voting, owning land, or even just going to the same schools as themselves. And for many years, that was the law. Hell, for many years before that, blacks were held as slaves, and regarded as little more than propery. The majority in those states supported that. But does that make it right? Should that have been allowed to stand, just because the majority wanted it to? I didn't think so. And that's where the idea of protected rights stepped in, and said that even though the majority supported those rules, they were still wrong, and were therefore abolished.
Things that have popular support, by definition, do not need protection from the majority. Any situation where the majority rules unquestioned and absolutely is no better than mob rule.
Exactly. The cost of teaching the courses themselves hasn't gone up tremendously. Instead, it's all of the new fancy things desgned to attract students and make them feel like they're getting an exclusive education.
It's one thing to replace classroom/dorm buildings that are full of mold, or falling apart, or otherwise completely unsuitable. It's one thing to put in new lab buildings with lots of shiny new stuff if you're doing research with those facilities and bringing in money. It's quite another to spend millions on fancy landscaping, just to have to redo it two years later; or to spend lots of money in the middle of a large city to put in big fancy dorms where each student has his own bathroom and such; or to spend lots of money hiring arrogant big-name entertainers for private concerts.
If schools stopped spending so much money on things not related to education, and made their athletic departments self-sufficient (getting money from ticket sales and specifically-targeted donations), they could maybe bring the price down. But, as with a lot of other things, they charge more because they know people will still pay--indeed, paying more for your education seems to be a selling point. Expensive tuition seems to be perceived as a better indicator of quality than the actual education itself.
Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.
The problem isn't history/philosophy/sociology majors themselves. Quite a number of them do good, valuable things for the country and their fellow people (especially if their academic and intellectual experience is tempered with some real-world experience). The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. Coorectly or not, they pick something that sounds easy just so they can have a degree--and everyone knows that "you need to go to college to have a good job".
Part of the problem is that we're encouraging people to go to college when they aren't going to use it or even care about it. We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt. The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.
Now don't get me wrong--it's always great for people to go and learn more. It's always a good thing to have a better-educated populace. But I think the current pushes of "everyone must go to college" and "you need a degree to get a decent job" force too many people to go befre they can afford it, and therefore take on piles of debt for something they don't need. Ideally, it would be far better to wait until they could afford it.
To put it another way, going tens of thousands into debt just to get a generic degree is stupid.
AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve... all of them had per-minute (or per-hour) charges... I seem to remember AOL being $20 for the first 20 hours, plus an additional rate after that. Or something along those lines. It was a big deal when AOL first did the unlimited dialup plan.
I would guess transport losses... if you have a big reactor, it's probably sitting out a little ways from populated areas. You'd have to transport the heated water through a separate network of insulated pipes to each house. This is expensive enough to install from the beginning, and even more so to retrofit.
You didn't happen to work on a design team for a spacecraft to investigate the asteroid, did you? Either as a student, or in a professional capacity? Just wondering, since you seem to know quite a bit about this.
(Designing such a spacecraft was the goal of our senior design class three years ago--learned more than I ever wanted to know about that damn asteroid, especially since my job was to write the N-body integrator engine and figure out how accurately we'd need to know position)
That's an interesting story, but it sounds like intellectually, he just barely qualifies as an aerospace engineer. I would not want him designing any airplane that I'm going to be flying.
I think you misunderstand what most of the field does. See, I am an aerospace engineer (and a pilot, too). All of the courses I took, all of the hard math and science I've learned, hasn't really helped. I haven't used any of it, actually; the worst I've ever had to mess with was some geometry and trig. And unless you're doing something really high-level and specialized like CFD or writing control laws, you don't need the intellectual stuff.
What's more important for the vast majority of engineering work in this field is general technical knowledge--or, if you prefer, the qualitative part of what you learn, rather than the quantitative. I don't care if my engineer can't remember how to derive the equations for fluid interaction through a tube; general knowledge of the behavior will help him know what's good and what isn't so he can apply those appropriately (oh, and it helps to be able to design parts that are physically able to be built and installed--something a mechanic or machinist turned engineer will know, but the PhD won't). The detailed analysis (if one is required) will be done by the guy who specializes in such things.
Somebody with years of experienced as a licensed mechanic will be very useful to me if I'm designing various systems on the airplane or trying to figure out why something broke. He will understand how an airplane is actually put together and have infinitely more practical knowledge of what it takes to actually make the things he draws up than some guy fresh out of college with a PhD who has never swung a wrench, pounded a rivet, pinned a connector, or worked with metal at all.
Overall, the field is big enough that there are places for everyone in an aircraft development program. The intellectual guys will do the overall aircraft configuration and the fluid dynamics work, and the more hands-on oriented guys will draw the structure, run the lines, design the equipment, etc. I'd much rather a mechanic design the hydraulic runs, for example, because he will route them in a way that makes them easier (and consequently, cheaper) to work on; his engineering knowledge will teach him why things are done certain ways, and what kinds of things to avoid.
And really, like I said above, you most likely aren't going to use your school/book knowledge at all once you're in the field. Everything you actually do will be learned on the job. Engineering isn't just about book smarts--it's about taking knowledge and turning it into a physical product or getting something done. And especially in the aerospace field, you need people with a general understanding of a lot of different things (electrical, hydraulic, structural, etc) as much as you need the specialists.
In other words, I would have no problem at all working with a mechanic-turned-engineer, or flying in an airplane he helped design. I know several people who have done this (even without a degree!), and several more who would like to. They have the knowledge and skill to be a "practical engineer", and would make damn fine engineers right now--but because HR has a flat-out "no degree, no engineer" policy, they're stuck.
You're missing the point. I know that deciphering an icon isn't innate. But the issue isn't linguistics or mental processing. It's economics.
Unlike software where you can change to different languages just by changing a string somewhere, changing the language on a car's idiot light requires purchasing new dies (for the outline cutter) and physically stamping out different instrument panel overlays, then making sure they make it onto the right car. It's not a problem if you're only making cars for one market; everyone will speak the same language. But, if you're making them for several markets (as most modern manufacturers do), you either need to invest in the additional equipment and time needed to make your overlays in different languages, or you just make an icon that you can use for everyone and save the money and time.
In other words, it's cheaper to make one standardized thing than several separate customized ones. And for this application, icons work better than forcing everyone to learn bits of English.
Sort of. If you had the "supported" calculator, the teachers would go over how to use various functions, and walk you through an example problem or two. If you had trouble, they'd help you. They didn't give step-by-step stuff on the tests or anything (which is what I'm assuming you're asking about), but they did tailor some things to the calculator. Often as not, they'd throw out problems which the standardized calculator couldn't do all at once (forcing hand work), but which a higher model could handle.
However, if you had anything else, you were on your own.
When I started high school, the TI-83/83+ was standard, except for calculus (which used an HP48, I think). I just used a TI-86 the whole time. It was better than the 83s, and didn't use RPN like the 48 (I don't care how fast it is when you get used to it, the difference is small and it's a lot easier to see what you're doing and catch a mistake on the TI. Oh, and the programs are better).
I never had the time nor the inclination to mess with asm programming, but wrote plenty of stuff in Ti-Basic... math, physics, and calc apps, druglords clones, a two-player chess game with castling and game-saving, etc. (I also specifically remember trying to put in a primitive form of DRM to keep people from modifying the opening credits on my apps and claming the work for themselves--essentially a convoluted series of gotos and number base transformations intended to confuse the simple search-and-replace types which quit the program if they changed the "written by:" line). Most of us had games and the like. There was one called "squarez" or something; it kind of resembled tetris but was terribly addicting.
Yeah, but icons (like in the car's idiot light example) are standardized, which means you don't need to change them for different markets, which means cheaper production costs, which means more profits.
It's not trying to be cool or modern that's causing it; rather, it's just standardization for the sake of production efficiency.
I could have written that exact post, except change "7th" to "5th":)
Our teachers always used to threaten us in elementary school, saying that we'd have to write everything in cursive when we got older. First day of sixth grade, they flat-out said that was a lie.
The only two people I know who still use it on a regular basis are my grandmother and my mom.
Are you saying 'because the left might break the law, it's okay for the right to break the law'?
Because that's paints you as a highly immoral person of just exactly the sort the left fears the right is comprised of.
I don't think GP is saying it's ok for "the right" to break the law. I'm pretty sure he's trying to warn people that, just because "the right" did something wrong and broke the law, it doesn't mean that "the left" won't.
Most people who cling strongly to a party or left/right* affiliation tend to do so with blinders on... they blame the "other side", the "other guys", for all the evils of the country, for doing everything wrong, while simultaneously (and willingly) overlooking the faults of their own guys/their own party. It's just amazing how many people genuinely look at their own representative/party/end of the spectrum as being pure and innocent as new snow, kittens, newborn babies, etc. and insist that they can do no wrong. The same proposal lambasted and ridiculed because the Republicans came up with it would be hailed as the greatest thing since flush toilets if the Democrats had come up with it--and vice versa. I firmly believe that the Republicans could propose items straight out of the Democrats' platform, and they'd still be opposed by the Democrats; and vice-versa again.
*There are no words in English or any other language of Man to express my disgust with the stupidity of the one-dimensional view of political theory and those who can only think in its terms. There are more than two ways to look at the world, more than two valid beliefs, and support/opposition of one particular issue doesn't determine the rest of one's beliefs. Similar disgust is held for political parties in general (and particularly the current mainstream ones in the US) and the attitude that party loyalty and party ideals are more important than the constituents or a logically-consistent set of beliefs.
The cynic in me assumes all this is going to be reversed tomorrow...
If similar decisions by the BATFE are any indication, the State department (or whoever decided this) is going to turn around in a year or two and decide that it is export-restricted... and then make Mozilla run around and delete it from every computer outside the US or something.
It doesn't surprise me that penicillin (an antibiotic) doesn't work too well against a virus. That's not a mutation.
Perhaps you meant bacteria that are immune to penicillin (which, in many cases, are the result of stupid people insisting on trying to treat viral infections with antibiotics).
Hell, in some places the signs are non-existent due to neglect, thievery, vandalism, or collision.
Or, like in Jacksonville, you might have one on-ramp for both directions of the interstate. It eventually forks to go in the two different directions, but you dont see a sign indicating which side is which until after you've committed to one and passed the physical divider.
women will navigate first by landmarks and familiarity, and if that fails they fall back on maps. Men, on the other hand, rarely use anything but a map. If I changed a street sign outside my apartment, my male friends probably wouldn't be able to find the place anymore. My female friends, on the other hand, would show up and likely never notice the sign was changed.
Guess I'm a hybrid navigator then. My mental navigation system is heavily map-based--before going somewhere unfamiliar I try to build at least a rough mental map of where I'm going and where some important things are. But then, once I'm on the ground, I start to correlate landmarks and the map. Occasionally a street name will make its way into the map, but usually it's all landmarks. When I give directions, it's usually a combination of compass directions and landmarks; distances never enter the equation because I can't judge them (numerically, at least; my depth perception and ability to measure them relative to something is fine), and I don't know street names.
Example: I went to Georgia Tech for five years, and even at the end of it I couldn't name more than a handful of streets off campus. Yet I could get just about anywhere that I'd been to before. I can't even name any streets in my current neighborhood other than my own, and I've lived there for a year and a half.
My wife works entirely differently. Her navigation consists of one giant linked list of nodes/intersections, which streets connect to which other ones, and which streets landmarks are on. Maps never enter the equation.
I believe they mean either coders physically located in China (through outsourcing/remote offices), or Chinese nationals working in the US (who would be identified by the immigration/work authorization paperwork they should have filled out). I really doubt they mean "if he looks Asian, don't put him on security projects".
A used Cessna 152 can be had for under $30k; a 172 or similar is probably less than $60k. Or, you can build your own airplane--you spend a couple years doing it, but the hardware cost is less, you save a lot on maintenance since you don't need a licensed mechanic to do your annual inspections (or anything past changing the oil, really), and you probably get better performance for your money. Assuming, of course, you're willing to fly in something you built in your garage.
Lots of people think flying is just for rich people. It's not. Take a look sometime at how much money people spend on other hobbies, like cars, fishing, electronics, etc. A used light airplane or homebuilt kit will cost about as much as a nice car, or a new full-size pickup and a boat. It might take a few sacrifices to own an airplane (driving an older car for a few years instead of getting a new one, forgoing a vacation or two, cooking and drinking at home instead of going out, keeping your old TV instead of getting a new one, etc), but that's true of any hobby. You just need to be honest with yourself about your priorities. There are even programs where you can buy a new airplane and lease it out to a flight school for a set time to cover some/all of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't propose that we put and end to reproduction in an effort to reduce populations to hunter-gatherer levels... but I would like to see a culture of reproductive responsibility encouraged. I did my part, my wife and I stopped after 2 children so we conformed to a zero population growth ideal. I wish everyone could share these ideals.
Or, we could actually make a serious effort to expand beyond earth and allow the species to grow, instead of huddling down here and making an evolutionary dead end due to a self-imposed limit, a decidedly anti-Darwinian desire to limit or even harm ourselves from fear that we might get too dominant, or a collective agoraphobia. Get out and expand into the universe like any other living species would do. Make something of our existence. Doing otherwise is just succumbing to the same old riduculous superstitious notions that gave us the stories of Babel and Prometheus.
*Note: This is expressly not a "just trash earth and just find somewhere else to live" proposal. The idea is to go somewhere else and expand precisely so you don't have to trash earth. Rather than cram everyone into one basket with a large impact, spread out to many baskets (thereby making a smaller impact on each).
Yeah, let's hope they got the doctors' permission, because, you know, it's not like the patients have a say in it or anything...
The entire reason we have protected rights is to keep the majority from making whatever laws they see fit. "But most people want it" should not be sufficient justification for anything under the sun.
See, here in the US we once had a significant portion of the population (said portion made up quite a large majority in many states) that wanted to prohibit black people from voting, owning land, or even just going to the same schools as themselves. And for many years, that was the law. Hell, for many years before that, blacks were held as slaves, and regarded as little more than propery. The majority in those states supported that. But does that make it right? Should that have been allowed to stand, just because the majority wanted it to? I didn't think so. And that's where the idea of protected rights stepped in, and said that even though the majority supported those rules, they were still wrong, and were therefore abolished.
Things that have popular support, by definition, do not need protection from the majority. Any situation where the majority rules unquestioned and absolutely is no better than mob rule.
Exactly. The cost of teaching the courses themselves hasn't gone up tremendously. Instead, it's all of the new fancy things desgned to attract students and make them feel like they're getting an exclusive education.
It's one thing to replace classroom/dorm buildings that are full of mold, or falling apart, or otherwise completely unsuitable. It's one thing to put in new lab buildings with lots of shiny new stuff if you're doing research with those facilities and bringing in money. It's quite another to spend millions on fancy landscaping, just to have to redo it two years later; or to spend lots of money in the middle of a large city to put in big fancy dorms where each student has his own bathroom and such; or to spend lots of money hiring arrogant big-name entertainers for private concerts.
If schools stopped spending so much money on things not related to education, and made their athletic departments self-sufficient (getting money from ticket sales and specifically-targeted donations), they could maybe bring the price down. But, as with a lot of other things, they charge more because they know people will still pay--indeed, paying more for your education seems to be a selling point. Expensive tuition seems to be perceived as a better indicator of quality than the actual education itself.
Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.
The problem isn't history/philosophy/sociology majors themselves. Quite a number of them do good, valuable things for the country and their fellow people (especially if their academic and intellectual experience is tempered with some real-world experience). The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. Coorectly or not, they pick something that sounds easy just so they can have a degree--and everyone knows that "you need to go to college to have a good job".
Part of the problem is that we're encouraging people to go to college when they aren't going to use it or even care about it. We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt. The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.
Now don't get me wrong--it's always great for people to go and learn more. It's always a good thing to have a better-educated populace. But I think the current pushes of "everyone must go to college" and "you need a degree to get a decent job" force too many people to go befre they can afford it, and therefore take on piles of debt for something they don't need. Ideally, it would be far better to wait until they could afford it.
To put it another way, going tens of thousands into debt just to get a generic degree is stupid.
AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve... all of them had per-minute (or per-hour) charges... I seem to remember AOL being $20 for the first 20 hours, plus an additional rate after that. Or something along those lines. It was a big deal when AOL first did the unlimited dialup plan.
Multi-terabyte samba shares FTW.
I would guess transport losses... if you have a big reactor, it's probably sitting out a little ways from populated areas. You'd have to transport the heated water through a separate network of insulated pipes to each house. This is expensive enough to install from the beginning, and even more so to retrofit.
I showed it to my wife (who is highly arachnophobic)... she won't speak to me now
Hmmm... Georgia Tech, by chance? If so, we may have met...
You didn't happen to work on a design team for a spacecraft to investigate the asteroid, did you? Either as a student, or in a professional capacity? Just wondering, since you seem to know quite a bit about this.
(Designing such a spacecraft was the goal of our senior design class three years ago--learned more than I ever wanted to know about that damn asteroid, especially since my job was to write the N-body integrator engine and figure out how accurately we'd need to know position)
That's an interesting story, but it sounds like intellectually, he just barely qualifies as an aerospace engineer. I would not want him designing any airplane that I'm going to be flying.
I think you misunderstand what most of the field does. See, I am an aerospace engineer (and a pilot, too). All of the courses I took, all of the hard math and science I've learned, hasn't really helped. I haven't used any of it, actually; the worst I've ever had to mess with was some geometry and trig. And unless you're doing something really high-level and specialized like CFD or writing control laws, you don't need the intellectual stuff.
What's more important for the vast majority of engineering work in this field is general technical knowledge--or, if you prefer, the qualitative part of what you learn, rather than the quantitative. I don't care if my engineer can't remember how to derive the equations for fluid interaction through a tube; general knowledge of the behavior will help him know what's good and what isn't so he can apply those appropriately (oh, and it helps to be able to design parts that are physically able to be built and installed--something a mechanic or machinist turned engineer will know, but the PhD won't). The detailed analysis (if one is required) will be done by the guy who specializes in such things.
Somebody with years of experienced as a licensed mechanic will be very useful to me if I'm designing various systems on the airplane or trying to figure out why something broke. He will understand how an airplane is actually put together and have infinitely more practical knowledge of what it takes to actually make the things he draws up than some guy fresh out of college with a PhD who has never swung a wrench, pounded a rivet, pinned a connector, or worked with metal at all.
Overall, the field is big enough that there are places for everyone in an aircraft development program. The intellectual guys will do the overall aircraft configuration and the fluid dynamics work, and the more hands-on oriented guys will draw the structure, run the lines, design the equipment, etc. I'd much rather a mechanic design the hydraulic runs, for example, because he will route them in a way that makes them easier (and consequently, cheaper) to work on; his engineering knowledge will teach him why things are done certain ways, and what kinds of things to avoid.
And really, like I said above, you most likely aren't going to use your school/book knowledge at all once you're in the field. Everything you actually do will be learned on the job. Engineering isn't just about book smarts--it's about taking knowledge and turning it into a physical product or getting something done. And especially in the aerospace field, you need people with a general understanding of a lot of different things (electrical, hydraulic, structural, etc) as much as you need the specialists.
In other words, I would have no problem at all working with a mechanic-turned-engineer, or flying in an airplane he helped design. I know several people who have done this (even without a degree!), and several more who would like to. They have the knowledge and skill to be a "practical engineer", and would make damn fine engineers right now--but because HR has a flat-out "no degree, no engineer" policy, they're stuck.
you are far more likely to hit a hole in one in golf than to catch HIV in the United States
So as long as I don't play golf, I'm ok, right?
You're missing the point. I know that deciphering an icon isn't innate. But the issue isn't linguistics or mental processing. It's economics.
Unlike software where you can change to different languages just by changing a string somewhere, changing the language on a car's idiot light requires purchasing new dies (for the outline cutter) and physically stamping out different instrument panel overlays, then making sure they make it onto the right car. It's not a problem if you're only making cars for one market; everyone will speak the same language. But, if you're making them for several markets (as most modern manufacturers do), you either need to invest in the additional equipment and time needed to make your overlays in different languages, or you just make an icon that you can use for everyone and save the money and time.
In other words, it's cheaper to make one standardized thing than several separate customized ones. And for this application, icons work better than forcing everyone to learn bits of English.
Sort of. If you had the "supported" calculator, the teachers would go over how to use various functions, and walk you through an example problem or two. If you had trouble, they'd help you. They didn't give step-by-step stuff on the tests or anything (which is what I'm assuming you're asking about), but they did tailor some things to the calculator. Often as not, they'd throw out problems which the standardized calculator couldn't do all at once (forcing hand work), but which a higher model could handle.
However, if you had anything else, you were on your own.
When I started high school, the TI-83/83+ was standard, except for calculus (which used an HP48, I think). I just used a TI-86 the whole time. It was better than the 83s, and didn't use RPN like the 48 (I don't care how fast it is when you get used to it, the difference is small and it's a lot easier to see what you're doing and catch a mistake on the TI. Oh, and the programs are better).
I never had the time nor the inclination to mess with asm programming, but wrote plenty of stuff in Ti-Basic... math, physics, and calc apps, druglords clones, a two-player chess game with castling and game-saving, etc. (I also specifically remember trying to put in a primitive form of DRM to keep people from modifying the opening credits on my apps and claming the work for themselves--essentially a convoluted series of gotos and number base transformations intended to confuse the simple search-and-replace types which quit the program if they changed the "written by:" line). Most of us had games and the like. There was one called "squarez" or something; it kind of resembled tetris but was terribly addicting.
Yeah, but icons (like in the car's idiot light example) are standardized, which means you don't need to change them for different markets, which means cheaper production costs, which means more profits.
It's not trying to be cool or modern that's causing it; rather, it's just standardization for the sake of production efficiency.
I could have written that exact post, except change "7th" to "5th" :)
Our teachers always used to threaten us in elementary school, saying that we'd have to write everything in cursive when we got older. First day of sixth grade, they flat-out said that was a lie.
The only two people I know who still use it on a regular basis are my grandmother and my mom.
Are you saying 'because the left might break the law, it's okay for the right to break the law'?
Because that's paints you as a highly immoral person of just exactly the sort the left fears the right is comprised of.
I don't think GP is saying it's ok for "the right" to break the law. I'm pretty sure he's trying to warn people that, just because "the right" did something wrong and broke the law, it doesn't mean that "the left" won't.
Most people who cling strongly to a party or left/right* affiliation tend to do so with blinders on... they blame the "other side", the "other guys", for all the evils of the country, for doing everything wrong, while simultaneously (and willingly) overlooking the faults of their own guys/their own party. It's just amazing how many people genuinely look at their own representative/party/end of the spectrum as being pure and innocent as new snow, kittens, newborn babies, etc. and insist that they can do no wrong. The same proposal lambasted and ridiculed because the Republicans came up with it would be hailed as the greatest thing since flush toilets if the Democrats had come up with it--and vice versa. I firmly believe that the Republicans could propose items straight out of the Democrats' platform, and they'd still be opposed by the Democrats; and vice-versa again.
*There are no words in English or any other language of Man to express my disgust with the stupidity of the one-dimensional view of political theory and those who can only think in its terms. There are more than two ways to look at the world, more than two valid beliefs, and support/opposition of one particular issue doesn't determine the rest of one's beliefs. Similar disgust is held for political parties in general (and particularly the current mainstream ones in the US) and the attitude that party loyalty and party ideals are more important than the constituents or a logically-consistent set of beliefs.
The cynic in me assumes all this is going to be reversed tomorrow...
If similar decisions by the BATFE are any indication, the State department (or whoever decided this) is going to turn around in a year or two and decide that it is export-restricted... and then make Mozilla run around and delete it from every computer outside the US or something.
Don't get too excited, in other words.
It doesn't surprise me that penicillin (an antibiotic) doesn't work too well against a virus. That's not a mutation.
Perhaps you meant bacteria that are immune to penicillin (which, in many cases, are the result of stupid people insisting on trying to treat viral infections with antibiotics).
Hell, in some places the signs are non-existent due to neglect, thievery, vandalism, or collision.
Or, like in Jacksonville, you might have one on-ramp for both directions of the interstate. It eventually forks to go in the two different directions, but you dont see a sign indicating which side is which until after you've committed to one and passed the physical divider.
women will navigate first by landmarks and familiarity, and if that fails they fall back on maps. Men, on the other hand, rarely use anything but a map. If I changed a street sign outside my apartment, my male friends probably wouldn't be able to find the place anymore. My female friends, on the other hand, would show up and likely never notice the sign was changed.
Guess I'm a hybrid navigator then. My mental navigation system is heavily map-based--before going somewhere unfamiliar I try to build at least a rough mental map of where I'm going and where some important things are. But then, once I'm on the ground, I start to correlate landmarks and the map. Occasionally a street name will make its way into the map, but usually it's all landmarks. When I give directions, it's usually a combination of compass directions and landmarks; distances never enter the equation because I can't judge them (numerically, at least; my depth perception and ability to measure them relative to something is fine), and I don't know street names.
Example: I went to Georgia Tech for five years, and even at the end of it I couldn't name more than a handful of streets off campus. Yet I could get just about anywhere that I'd been to before. I can't even name any streets in my current neighborhood other than my own, and I've lived there for a year and a half.
My wife works entirely differently. Her navigation consists of one giant linked list of nodes/intersections, which streets connect to which other ones, and which streets landmarks are on. Maps never enter the equation.
I believe they mean either coders physically located in China (through outsourcing/remote offices), or Chinese nationals working in the US (who would be identified by the immigration/work authorization paperwork they should have filled out). I really doubt they mean "if he looks Asian, don't put him on security projects".
Touch typing with 9 fingers (My typing teacher told me she'd cut my left thumb off if she saw me using it :P )
I never understood that. I've spaced with my left thumb as long as I can remember, despite my teachers' threats. What difference does it make?
A used Cessna 152 can be had for under $30k; a 172 or similar is probably less than $60k. Or, you can build your own airplane--you spend a couple years doing it, but the hardware cost is less, you save a lot on maintenance since you don't need a licensed mechanic to do your annual inspections (or anything past changing the oil, really), and you probably get better performance for your money. Assuming, of course, you're willing to fly in something you built in your garage.
Lots of people think flying is just for rich people. It's not. Take a look sometime at how much money people spend on other hobbies, like cars, fishing, electronics, etc. A used light airplane or homebuilt kit will cost about as much as a nice car, or a new full-size pickup and a boat. It might take a few sacrifices to own an airplane (driving an older car for a few years instead of getting a new one, forgoing a vacation or two, cooking and drinking at home instead of going out, keeping your old TV instead of getting a new one, etc), but that's true of any hobby. You just need to be honest with yourself about your priorities. There are even programs where you can buy a new airplane and lease it out to a flight school for a set time to cover some/all of the cost.