The worst part is.. I feel like I have something to offer. I have a sense of humor, a steady job, I am an artist, a musician, a poet, I am respectful and supportive, passionate and a hopeless romantic... but no one will ever know because apparently I am also a huge #$@% XD
I am a living, breathing, oxymoron. I have no problem in social situations once I am in them but I have tremendous problems getting into them. Then, once I am in them, I enjoy it for about an hour or two before I am screaming in my own head: "GET ME THE #$@# OUT OF HERE!!!" then once I get out I am good for a few days before I think to myself: "My life sucks I wish I wasn't such a loner" and since I have trouble getting into social situations I can be stuck on the "My life sucks..." stuff for months, sometimes years.
I would love to get another girlfriend... its been about 6 years now. Worst thing is the women I am interested in are even more shy than myself and I live in a part of the country where apparently woman are much more shy on average.
In my office there are 6 employees. We have group meetings twice a week but otherwise we almost never communicate face to face despite only being 15 feet away from one another. I do enjoy having the option of walking into one of their offices to get a face to face meeting if I need one but I don't see why a call over Skype wouldn't be just as useful.
Currently, I can't afford to live in this town which is insane because there are only 50k people living here. I would love to be able to move to some small town where a house of the same quality and size would only cost me 100k or less rather than 300k or more.
Interesting you would say that. One of the biggest reasons I would want to work remote is because I can't afford to live in the town that I work in. Small town in Montana big city prices... no, I would definitely want to be able to choose where I live.
I totally agree. I guess I am just speaking for myself. I can't say the same for the rest of my workmates. However, I always took my college hw straight to my room. Perhaps I am just an edge case... perhaps I should just discuss it with my boss... lol maybe next year.
Honestly... my company is wasting a lot of money renting out this building for our offices. We could all EASILY be working from home and while I can't say for certain I am fairly confident all of us could get the same amount of work done in half the time. I get 90% of my work done before lunch and the other 10% done the first hour after getting back from lunch...
Personally, if they allowed me to work from home, I believe I would get a heck of a lot more done. Currently I know I have to work roughly 40 hours then as soon as the day is over I forget about work. However, if I was simply expected to get the same work done regardless of my hours I would work a few hours every weekend. I would stay up late when a problem interests me... concepts like this seem to evade employers. If I wasn't more productive (pretty sure I would be) I would at least be just as productive and a heck of a lot more comfortable in life.
Workers give their companies too much. Companies expect too much from their workers. It's a catch 22 of the highest magnitude. Imho, most coders lack the personal skills or self respect they need. We don't speak out against injustices enough. We dont request and seek out the personal respect we deserve. Our eyes hurt, our backs hurt, our heads hurt... but we are competing with people from countries where a good paying job is more rare than a vacation getaway so we can't stop making concessions.
Yes the impact of nuclear fallout is minimal. Hence why we bury spent fuel miles underground and as far away from people as possible... because its so innocuous.
It was evacuated immediately (some 100k people), no one is allowed to live in the exclusion zone (19 square miles) and yes the final reactor wasn't closed down until 2000 but the other two were closed down before then, unit 1 in 1996 and unit 2 in 1991. The only reason and despite world outcry that those reactors stayed in operation was because they had no choice. So either your ignorant of the facts or your trying to put a positive spin on a terrible and tragic event... which makes you a huge pos.
I am definitely not advocating coal power that's an assumption you made all on your own. The options aren't coal or nuclear, the options are limited, but they are not limited to just two.
You say that as if you can predict what will happen over the course of the next 10 thousand years. What happens when we run out of places to put the spent fuel? We dig another hole in a another mountain?? What if there is an earth quake 10k years from now and all that spent fuel goes tumbling into the local drinking water? Are you under them impression that stuff like that can't happen or doesn't ever happen? Sounds like a pretty ignorant point of view to me. What if the American government falls and the security details guarding these storage facilities go away and unscrupulous agents have free access to it. They then build thousands of dirty bombs and send the Earth into chaos? You think that's impossible? Sounds to me like you are counting your chickens 10k years before they hatch.
Edit: I read the article, its bias untruthful trash... should I have expect more from Mara Hvistendahl author of such classics as: 'The Vibrator' and 'Origins: The Start of Everything (Where do rainbows come from? What about flying cars, love and LSD?)'
People down voting this comment, care to add a comment about why you are down voting it? Surely, it's not because you believe spent fuel is not a problem? I hope not because it is a HUGE problem perhaps bigger even than dumping CO2 into the air if you ask me.
You don't think not mentioning any of the other problems with nuclear energy hurts the argument? Are we really going to ignore the problem of containing spent fuel?
No one will be able to live in Chernobyl for another 20 thousand years... the author persecutes the director of the show for up playing the severity of the disaster while simultaneous down playing it, fact. The author makes it seem like the disaster at Chernobyl was nothing more than a slight hic-up or a little boo-boo... let me reiterate, no one can live in Chernobyl for another 20 THOUSAND years. There are a LOT of reasons for why (current) nuclear energy productions methods are dangerous, fallout from a total meltdown is 1% of them. It certainly isn't the primary concern. The primary concern is what we do with the by product of a nuclear power plant, the spent fuel. What do we do with it? Shove it into some hole in the ground and write a note to the next 200 generations: "Oh, hey, sorry about poisoning your drinking water with our radioactive waste. We figured you could fix our problems for us if you dont mind!" There is nothing clean about nuclear power plants. Just because we aren't pumping CO2 into the air doesn't make it clean.
I agree I always figured if the circumstances of my death allowed for it I would just go on a hike deep into the mountains, lay against a rock and die. I am not a huge fan of cremation or the traditional casket approach.
Then why exactly was IQ ever on the rise in the first place? It sounds to me (based on the point your making) like the more advanced we get the lower the average IQ should be. Yet the article said prior to the 70's IQ was on the rise.
I think you are wrong but I am open to debate if your interested in posting the prerequisite, peer reviewed, case studies on selective breeding for IQ in humans.
I think most of the assumptions I have made a pretty reasonable. We are talking about the evolution of possibly thousands of different genes which could contribute to IQ. This can't be compared to altering the pod size of a pea plant, a rather simple genetic selection, which still takes many generations to take effect.
It is but how long does it take? I do not believe it is as simple as saying:
Person A has an IQ of 102
Person B has an IQ of 104, therefore; the child will have an IQ of 103. There is no specific IQ gene and so I would imagine that it would take just as long from an evolutionary standpoint to decrease the average IQ as it would for us to loose our tails and stop living in tree's. It certainly wouldn't happen in a matter of 30 years. At least, I don't think it would... I could be wrong but I don't believe I am.
How? If the majority of what determines an individuals IQ is genetic then how could it possibly have declined in the span of a few decades? Worst case scenario our predetermined genetic base line IQ is not improving as rapidly as it use to in the past.
However, I don't think there is strong enough evidence to jump to that conclusion. From what I understand a simple bad attitude can dramatically alter an individuals test score. No, I think the testing methodology and the scale of the testing would have to dramatically improve before a statement like: "People are getting dumber." can be taken seriously.
In my experience (15 years or so) most people who attended my church didn't rush home or spend any time outside of church worshiping/praising their god. Even when I was at church, outside of the sermon, no one was talking about god or religion. Hell.. in my experience, with my religion, most people have never even read the book that the religion was based off of and knew very little about it when quizzed and yes I did quiz them from time to time.
So, aside from a few outliers, I have always been under the impression that most people attending church get far more enjoyment from the social aspects than the religious ones.
I have approached it in two different ways. One was with discrete hardware on breadboards. The other was with VHDL and an FPGA. Out of the two I would say the breadboard method was the most satisfying because at the end you can show it off as wizardry to the two people or maybe three people in your life who love you enough to be bothered by it.
Modeling it in code is cool and all but you skipped out on all the fun and enjoyment (pain and suffering) of troubleshooting your own shitty wiring job by not doing this with discrete hardware on a proto board.
Honestly, most managers are not constantly evaluating their team. They have other work to do. I think employees tend to believe that the only thing on their managers mind is them when in reality it's the furthest thing from their mind.