Olex

It is definitely a good thing. I have personal two reasons however. 1. Multi-cores or multi-CPU suck. (Thank you very much Sony. That's right, we'll see the price you [sony] will pay for forcing programmers into your "kewl" PS3 architecture. ) Programming for them is a pain, and many aspects just can't be done well. Plus they still have severe achitectural issues with solutions for shared memory access for 2+ CPU's. Not to mention the debugging part and predictability of results are very low. (You never know the order of the execution.) That said, multi-processing is the future, but it is not fully solved yet. 2. Single CPU's have been is a dead water for what? 3-4 years? I want to see Moore's progression. Maybe this breakthrough will help out here. B/c we've been stuck on under 3Gz for a while now. It's time to move on. Man, I'd love to have 500Ghz in my rig. ( [imagines what kind of physics would be possible to do in software] PPU will be nothing!) ---- It also sounds like their approach could work. This sounds like a logical solution, though of course devil is in details. EDIT: spelling

This is a misunderstanding. I did not talk about just the Paper, but the one with 3.0-3.5 on 4.0 scale average. I didn't. I explicitly specified the region (USA) and the quality of the colleges that my approach would apply anywhere ("bad" quality). This is a misunderstanding. I did not say your approach was disgusting, but wondered what is it that you know or reasoned to not have the same resulting feeling of disgust as I do. Luckily or not, I don't need to quess, b/c I know it first hand and talked to those who got it as well. Most of top Soviet Union schools were made that way. When you choose a program, you don't get to choose which classes you take (with exception of very late specialization, though rare anyway). And many of those classes had imposed a great deal of depth on many subjects, that were not needed in 95% cases of carears of graduates. This was especially true of math and physics of solids. And yes, tests were hard as hell on all of those subjects. The result was lots of spend effort both intellectual and emotional. (There was even a medical/social term for overly anxious infants born or labored during the period of tests) That was a really high price for product of a little value overall. (Product being - very few used the knowledge that was learned, so it was quickly forgotten. Note that the additional logic/abstract view from subject wasn't gained as it was far too specific in many cases.) Now, I am well aware that knowing more gives you more freedom for your choice of carear. That's fine and awesome. What is not, is the fact that of how little choice you get on the set of subjects to study. (Keep in mind, this is something you often pay big bucks for as well as spending several years of effort. One would hope to have more to say on the choices in such case, wouldn't one?) Many schools offer a group of courses where you pick one or two for yourself. General Education classes are often set this way. And later in the program (3-4 year), you can choose your specific focus or even take "Indepedent Study" courses. These are awesome things, but they are ruined by the rest of the system's policies. Though, this drop of honey is still very sweet. You didn't specify which guys you are talking, and I can't infer if it's the students or those in control who set the policies. Either way, both groups are to blame, however policy makers are at much larger fault. Same here. Students or policy makers and inforcers? Either way, they are not the reason. Their views and actions are part of reality, which I obey in order to control. While the specific situation imposes how much is there to overcome, it can be done nonetheless if you choose to do so. P.S. I did not spend time writing/thinking my posts to impose a view or to convert anyone. I presented my ideas. What you do with them is your choice. My goal was to get back some critique, which I have gotten, so thanks to all who have answered and questioned my views. Seems like fair trade to me.

Ah, snap, what was I thinking about?

Hey there, fellow distant Slav! Nice to see Czechs kicking some arse in Fifa 2006. Nice amount of reading there, keep it going. And no worries about your English, it will be adequate from what I can see. And I swim in the same boat of ESL[1] as you. [1] ESL = English as Second Language

(comes out of lurking) I've seen people post about issues of proving feministic premises due to the fact that one can only have a half of the story. (man's or woman's side). There are even bigger problems. Think how you would go about proving that due to physiological differences between sexes you can get some set of pre-made psychological behaviors and needs that evetually flow into sex roles with concrete values. Ideally you want to isolate each factor by removing it completely or at least holding it static. Now, this is something really hard to do. One could make a live test by isolating infants from existing social views and values, and see what is the general relationship as they grow up. (good luck getting premissions though ) But even then, it's still not clear how rearing and upbringing affects this if at all. So, you end up juggling with biology and psychology at the same time. P.S. Has anyone heard of such studies and their approaches? And how did they account for effect of modern day rearing of both sexes?

What is your reasoning for wanting good grades? I have no idea where "here" is. Nonetheless, I said "at least in USA" in my post. Unfortunately, there are more factors behind the scenes. In general, it's not allowed for a teacher to make the class hard. If too many students fail, the teacher is the one in question, but never the students. Example: a foreign teacher came to USA from North Africa, he gave the material and tests as he gave them in his country. However, 80% students failed it, though few got awesome grades. What happened next? His course is now much slower and much easier. (I do not know all the details of the matter, but from the things I was able to recover, he had to drop the quality of the course or himself) I did describe two cases in my post. Have you seen them in life? Here are the details: (these is from USA college, I know firsthand it's not like that elsewhere in the world, but do know it's the same in many other states of USA) Example 1: a class takes a test. 70% of the class fails completely, few get near perfect score. What happens next? The scores are boosted by giving additional (much easier) home-take tests. And then "correct" amount of students pass. Example 2: curving grades. Entire class gets their scores collected at the end, and based on some predermined curve, grades are raised to match it. (but never lowered) Are these not cases of forceful grade adjustments to ensure that people pass? I did. It's not required or needed in any way. John Carmack is an example in the video game area. He went to college, but saw it useless, so dropped out, and went to do this stuff. His achievements is 3D FPS genre. (FPS=First Person Shooter) Why don't I do the same? B/c I have concrete restrictions on me that don't allow to choose such path. If not, this is what I would have done. Furthermore, I saw a distinction here. The Paper and the courses and the grades are all 3 separate things, though do appear to be in the same package. However, as I have stated in my post, you do need grades for carear, as well as you don't need courses. But you do need the Paper b/c otherwise you will be discarded by most "high quality" jobs (or at least be given a larger burden of proof of your abilities and knowledge). By itself it's not a bad thing in any way. What makes the situation bad is the system around it. (Think HS program "No Child Left Behind") Colleges are not a sign of quality of one's abilities and skill. Yes, it should be. However, the things that colleges do in USA don't help that. You would be right, if those 'if's were true. If a college/university does function like you describe, then study there should be seen even more than any job you or anyone who thinks like us will have. I have not seen all colleges, and I didn't nor do claim that my reasoning must be applied to all of them. What I do claim is the trend that I see, and give my approach that can be taken if you are in such situation.

How can you not feel disgusted while saying that? College is a not job for you, it's a job for those who you've paid to teach you. You shouldn't be busting your head over it, those you paid to should be busting for your money to give you education. And they just don't do that. (See my long post above)

I have got to comment this line. It's true and really funny.

I disagree on that. I collected her philosophy while reading the beginning part and the middle. The end (speech) was mainly a restatement in a concrete form.

Why bother? It's a scientific term, just look it up in any decent source. We are not getting into philosophical debate here, are we?

Only if you have to learn the material, but in this case, you don't need to. First of all, it's not good enough to say all knowledge is useful, and thus explain why one has to suffer through all college classes. Civilization already has plenty of knowledge more than one could store in one's mind, so one has got to concentrate on what one really needs. Second, we are talking about education for which you pay and spend lots of time and effort. Getting for your efforts knowledge that is only slightly useful is not a fair deal at all. So, argument for "it's kind of useful" doesn't work. I pay with my $ (which for college is a lot of $) and time, I expect to get back what I deserve for that. If not, then I won't punish myself into forcing myself to study things I don't need to. One could claim that one has a choice to go to many colleges, and so on, but that doesn't work either, since just b/c you decided to go into college X, you don't have to study your arse on all its subjects of your program. A solid self-interest should be the guiding light here. P.S. Not to mention that tolerating the educational system is just beyond me.

Short answer: "Shrug the education off" (like in Atlas Shrugged, but doesn't mean dropping out) Looong answer: (I promise it's worth it) Good topic. (I'll be talking only about college education, though. High school doesn't even worth 10 letters it takes to spell it, though same applies.) I will outline my approach on this ... nasty problem. I'm in middle of college right now, but I had tackled this problem 5 years ago, I believe I've mastered it. I had to adapt to crappy education and yet learn more valuable skills/experience every day than I ever had before. (I had same feelings you have now, but worse b/c of my specific case.) 1. Education sucks. I'm heavily biased, but education in at least USA lags behind to accomodate everyone. So, if you are above average (which is easy to become), then you have to wait until the slowest of your class gets the material before moving on. Grades are adjusted for accomodate those slow people. ("Oh, no, can't have them cry over bad grades they get for zero effort.") And so on and so on. 2. You need the paper with the fancy ink. 3. You can only get it after you get through 4-5 years of education/"jail". Solution? Adapt. Look at the real requirements it takes to get that paper: 1. 4-5 years of waiting? Sure, this can't be hard. 2. Get decent GPA? OK, this one takes some skill. Forget about GPA, just keep it above 3.0 or 3.5 (schorlaship, parents, etc. determine your limit). So long as GPA is in this level, it won't matter for your future. Trust me on this. There are better things to show. I'll talk about that later. Now ask yourself, what does it take to get B/B+/A in those classes? You know it doesn't take a genius. Very little effort is needed. Take a look at 'others' around who get B's. Yet, you struggle and get bad grades. Why? B/c you are in conflict with yourself - you are trying to run in the mud of modern education; it won't let you. You try hard to learn a lot and fast from the courses. Yet the classes offer little and are slow. Forget about the classes. Do as little as possible to get B and above. You will discover how easy it is, b/c of the entire system that has been put in place. Don't fight the system. Go along with it. You are smart; you'll flow in it better than those it was designed for. 3. So, let's recount. 3a. You don't care about GPA, so long as it's above 3.0-3.5. 3b. You don't care about classes or how much you learn from them, so long as you get B and above. (C here and there is OK) 3c. Even if you have a scholarship, 3.0-3.5 is usually more than enough to keep it. 4. So what do you get out of this 'shrug'? 4a. your mind - you don't go crazy/depressed over thinking how lame the system is 4b. your time - you don't spend it on getting that A for some meaningless class 4c. your effort - you don't burn out with sleepless unrest/study/despression/cramming Now, think about this: if you were to do all of the above, where would you stand? You'll be free. You no longer spend your precious time, skills, and mind that you've been honing for so long on the lame paper. You'll get it anyway. While you sit in class, look around, most will get that same paper. So, why do you bust yourself over it? I know, your answer is "I want to do more than any one of them can dream of." OK, that's good. Will busting over those classes help you? No, those classes are not designed to help YOU, but to help that kind of people. So, now you have freedom to do what you want while still waiting to get that paper. How should you spend freedom, if not on college classes? The answer is critical. If you get it wrong, you'll be hating college. If you get it right, you won't care b/c you've found a way around the system. Answer: spend yourself on what you want to do. I know it sounds simple and obvious, but you really need to think about it. And get your answer, not somebody else's. You don't need to go to college to get a job. You are forced to get a college degree to get a good job. Yes, you could do without it, but it's much easier to play by their rules. Just make sure you understand those rules aren't yours and what your goal is. ---- How I apply it: "personal thought process ahead" If I want to program, why I should wait until the end of the college to get into useful classes for programmer? I shouldn't. So, I sit down and program right now and right here. That's it. If a class assignment comes by, I write/do the least is needed to get by. If I need to come to class, I take my laptop, book, notepad, whatever. Just b/c someone is forcing me to attend/learn the course I paid for is not going to make me spend my effort on it (!!! imagine buying a book, and being forced to read it just b/c you bought it). I got a brain I will use it for what I want, not on the program they offer. I will spend 5 minutes figuring out the flaw the course/teacher/system has, and will use it to get A/B grade. 1. Curving the grades? Awesome, earn B/C, get A/B. 2. Paper due, but only size matters? Sure, type nonsense. They won't get it anyway. etc. There is no guilt here, I do what I'm forced to do, nothing more. The rest of my time I will spent on my work and my study. What's the study? What I want to do - games. I picked a project, and started working on it the same day. Non-stop, every day. Can you get that in college? Yeah, right, very few offer video game courses, and only while you take that course. Conclusion: I want to spend all my time in college honing my skills right now. I won't wait for their system to change. ---- end of personal Critic: 1. Don't you feel sad that you missing out in college? No, I get just how much they offer me. The rest will come on my own time at my own place, at my own pace, at my own intensity. I move with the speed I want, and nobody drags me down. I couldn't be happier. 2. Don't you get bad education this way? No, I move full speed, covering more topics than any college could, even top notch schools. I study not only material, but also people from the industry where I'm heading to. Can my professor know any of this? No, he's not in it. 3. Don't you miss proper skills you'll need? No, I browse companies job listings. I see exactly what I need, not what somebody decided to teach me 5 years ago in some government meeting. I read articles written by people of that industry. I note needed skills and push on them. I get more than any college could give me. 4. So, you are basically wasting money on your college? Yes, I am, but I'm not wasting my mind. 5. How will this affect your carear? I will learn to study things on my own. I'll need this for the rest of my life. I will have decent GPA that I won't be taken down for. After first job, it won't mean anything. I will be able to show my work I had done, which will show my skills and what I can do for the company better than any college degree or GPA can. 6. What about some fields where such approach just doesn't work? (Medical, etc.) Don't know. Your choice - your challenge. --------- THE END P.S. If you want to know what my specific case was that forced to adapt to this, then ask me to post it.

Oh, no, you didn't say just that. You've got to keep an open mind with these findings, especially about such exploding field as brain science. I've got lots to throw here, but I will cut everything short. About brain: 1. Brain science grows faster and ages faster than Software Engineering (where 5 years and you are ancient). 2. Brain, its growth, components, workings and their effects are understudied and misunderstood About gender brain: (things I've followed during recent 6-12 months) 1. Men has statistically larger brains 2. Size is nothing (example: each brain goes through cycles of deletions and optimizations) 3. Growth from 0-25 years is crazy on the amount of changes the brain goes through (touch a wrong wire and everything explodes[wire=rearing, etc.]) To claim with all that that brains really do work different between men and women is just so brave, you'd have to come from future (100-200 years ahead) to know for sure. There are far too many things to study in the brain area before you can claim anything here. The 'what' is 'you get a wrong assumption.' How far you take it is how wrong you will be.

I could correct you if you had said something wrong, but you are "not even wrong." (Pun from critics of Spring Theory) Here's the deal. There is no single potential energy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy Pick one and read more about it.

Here's a look at the successor of Bill Gates (Mr Ozzie): http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5-36375,00.html Amen to that, fellow programmer. P.S. "Ozzie" is a really funny name to me.

@JMeganSnow: Are you making a comparison to other professions? (You seem to indicate it takes more effort and time than traditional professions.) If so, then "hell of a lot" is very little in relative terms. Most of other, more traditional professions take a lot of effort and time to get anywhere. I doubt that gambling/stripping takes that much effort compared to other fields. Gambling is still mainly non-professional activity, where it doesn't take much to be in the middle range of players. Compare that to other fields. Even less goes for stripping. One thing that fuels its ratio of return/effort is its imbalance of supply and demand for stripping. (Not much competition? Bad reputation? Banned in many states?) So, I doubt you need to invest that much time into it to make it worthile.

I know what you mean. I used to think I was being fair by using illegal copy for all the "bad" things "big bad" Microsoft does.

Arg, just thought of a problem/hole with my reasoning above. How does an individual choose to think? If this is taught or taken as an example from others, then parenting would have a larger effect on the child than I thought.

Communism rots one's mind alright, though one can withstand it if brain is used. Bad parenting can rot one's mind as well, so a simple answer is "Yes, it can." The details however are important, since parenting Communism within Capitalistic country won't have the same effect. When it comes to Communism in USSR, there wasn't much place one could go away from it. (One description of USSR is a really big jail: you can get in but it's hard to get out. Imagine this situation: you are going some place from USSR during your college break. You present a ticket for a plane, and get the following serious question: "Where is the return ticket?" ..... Think this is crazy, and could only happen during crazy USSR times? Think again: year 2000, "Democratic" Ukraine, 9 years since USSR broke apart. This was asked by a guy in his late 20s, thus it had to have been told to him to ask for such things (!)) That said, if you can think, you'll figure it out, and hide your views and survive one way or another. If you don't, you'll be like Ayn Rand's sister, who grew up in USSR, and couldn't adjust to Capitalism at all. Bottom line is that some people choose to give up and never question, while others study and think. For those who choose to think, bad parenting will only postpone their final 'breakthrough.' EDIT: clarifications

Good point, Russian government is out of whack when it comes to internetional politics, I don't think it's out of Soviet Era just yet. (Many old 'friends' are still there, as well as the mind set). Culture-wise however, Russians have no problems understanding Middle Eastern views and approaches. They personally see acts of aggresion every other year or so (bombings, hostages, etc.). Granted it comes from Chechnya, but it is about the same place as Middle East. IMO, views I've seen in various Objectivist articles about Middle East go along the same route: "don't be nice with them, they won't get it, make sure they get it that violence will be responded with violence, since that's the language gangs/murderers speak"

Here is an interesting take by I, Cringely: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060615.html

Another follow up: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060615.html by I, Cringely P.S. Article first starts with Bill Gates overview.

It's true that his views can be used as an excuse, however that along should not devalue them. Latest researches in the field of brain studies have brought many ideas of his back to life, so it's not that clear that you can simply dismiss his points.

It is a different subject than the one here, so we need to be moved. How about "Objectivists dating non-Objectivists?" However, it seems that there are some similar threads already: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=4433&hl=dating http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=6244&hl=dating See more: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...hlite=%2Bdating EDIT: something closer to your topic: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=998

I'd like to extend this. I shall consider effort you spent and the value you get back. Consider two cases: 1. You meet someone who is almost right for you. You spend your effort and time to "fix" that. Let's assume you have succeeded. 2. You meet someone who is right for you. You don't spend any effort to "fix" them. If you are to compare them you will get at the same point but in case1 you spent effort (amount depends on the "fault" you were fixing). This alone should make you start thinking about if you want to be with someone you had to fix in order to make them right (or good enough) for you. Consider further that case2 will go on improving on its own without your effort, while case1 has a good chance of required more effort to keep afloat. Consider this: would you rather have case1 or case2? Whatever you answer is, consider the following: do you think you have exhausted your search? Do you think it will be easier to find someone better or to "fix" whom you have now? Consider also that 'fixing" people is a hard business, which will rebound sooner or later, the moment you remove the pressure you have placed in order to fix the person.