Disqus - Latest Comments for geekofalltrades

Re: Why Senator Obama is Not a Socialist

geekofalltrades — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:16:10 -0000

Sorry this is a little late. I took a look at the article and found this in the comments. It's a chart sorting presidents by who produced the best economic growth. Funny how the best 50% of them are all blue...

http://tlrii.typepad.com/th...

Re: Attack of the Grammar Nazis

geekofalltrades — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:08:40 -0000

I like your philosophy that grammar-nazi-ism should only be for practical communication purposes and not just blowing your own horn. The pronoun peeve of yours is a perfect example. Some people I know do this so badly that I sometimes ask them to use only names and not pronouns. "This" and "next" are also good examples of practical grammar usage.

I'm afraid I'm also guilty of being anal with grammar; I used to correct people in early high school although in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way. I'm sure it was still annoying. Now I just keep my annoyances to myself unless specifically discussing grammar annoyances.

That said, my private grammar annoyances:
-- Incorrect corrections by people who think they're good enough to be grammar nazis. (See below)
-- Insisting that it's always incorrect to say "My brother and me" as in "He gave it to my brother and me".
-- Misunderstanding the apostrophe + "s" for possessive pronouns. For example, you should say "Donnie Karns's car sucks", not "Donnie Karns' car sucks". You only remove the 's if the word is already a plural.
-- Using "literally" when you mean "figuratively"
-- Using "irony" when you mean "coincidence"

I should probably stop there so I don't look like a complete retentoid.

Re: Attack of the Grammar Nazis

geekofalltrades — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:05:46 -0000

Here are a few important corrections:

"The BBC recently published a compilation of 20 grammatical pet-peeves sent in by its readers. My personal favorite:"

-- "Pet peeve" is not hyphenated.
-- A colon should only follow a complete sentence: thus you should have said "My personal favorite is this one:".

"I can almost hear the annoyance in Daniela's voice through her capitalization of 'on.'"

-- I will forgive you for putting the period inside the quoted word; that is acceptable in American English, however the more proper British standard abhors this practice.

"[...] particularly when their annoyance is over casual communication (like blogging!) that would not be any more clear had the conversation been conducted according to their rules."

-- Your use of "that" is incorrect: "that" is only used for restrictive clauses, that is, when identifying an item from a fully-known subset. "Which" should be used when adding additional information to the direct object. Thus, you should say "communication (like blogging!) which would not be any more clear [...]".

"Most languages evolve suprisingly quickly - consider how much English has changed over the centuries. "

-- You should use a dash ("--") -- not a hyphen -- when making parenthetical statements.

Other than this single rule, anythings goes.

-- "Anything" is by definition singular. It should not have a pluralized "s" appended to it.

"I am sure even the most pedantic grammar nazi will find the following message to all their bretheren perfectly grammatical:"

-- "Nazi" is capitalized.
-- You are using a plural pronoun "their" to describe a singular object "the most pedantic grammar Nazi". You should instead use --

Oh god. No.

Re: Politics as Usual

geekofalltrades — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:19:02 -0000

Thanks for reminding me about this site! I obsessed over this during the 2004 election, convinced at every new article that Bush's campaign was destroyed -- sigh. No wonder I dropped out of politics for so long.

Factcheck is probably my favorite political resource of all time. It's so easy to send their articles to people of opposing view points because they back up all their claims with documented facts and have worked so hard to remove bias and editorial opinions from their content.

Good post! Spread the word!

Re: AASTHO: Quarter of U.S. Bridges Need Repair, at Cost of $140 Billion

geekofalltrades — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:29:37 -0000

(Just testing this whole "verification" thing.

Re: AASTHO: Quarter of U.S. Bridges Need Repair, at Cost of $140 Billion

geekofalltrades — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:15:40 -0000

Get your head out of your ass and stop using the common talking points. A simple google search will tell you that trolls haven't lived under the I-35 in over a decade thanks largely to the high "pollution" (AKA the USDOT Secret Poisoning of Trolls act of 1988). This is public knowledge yet the same argument is brought up time and time again. And the Patriot Act? Guess who WROTE the Patriot Act? That's right, Cheney: the 2nd biggest, 2nd most powerful troll in the United States.

As for comments, I would argue they congest only those threads which NEED congesting. Don't tell me you haven't been glad at times to see them tell it like it is for once. No bull-sh*t, just candor and ridicule for those who deserve it. Besides, give them a break. They're new to the online world as Verizon only recently provided broadband access beneath the major bridges.

Lastly, it is so like you above-grounders to consider trolls pests. You have such a privileged life that you forget trolls even exist! They're HERE. They LEER. And they're here to STAY. Civil rights for ALL!!!1111

PERIOD.

Re: AASTHO: Quarter of U.S. Bridges Need Repair, at Cost of $140 Billion

geekofalltrades — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:25:11 -0000

This issue is actually surrounded by quite a bit of controversy. On the one hand, it sounds like an overdue public works project that will improve safety and transportation. Who could argue with that?

However many, including myself, believe this is just an elaborate cover for a more sinister purpose: clearing out the under-represented Troll population.

Yes. Trolls. Think about it: our economy depends on efficient, high-volume transportation across our freeways. With gas prices soaring, there's an even greater demand for efficient travel; bridges are the biggest inefficiency -- a bottleneck, as you described. Why? It's not their lane-width or the sluggishness of interchange. No -- it's the trolls forcing trucks to stop randomly, demanding tolls of loose change and shiny objects, or asking riddles that the average truck driver is unable to solve. This slows traffic and decreases efficiency.

With all this overhead, pro-business lobbyists have been pushing our legislators to get rid of the Trolls. Previously, anti-discrimination laws have tied the hands of legislators, but they've since discovered (and created) loop-holes that allow them to piggy-back anti-troll legislation through their front organization: the DOT.

What they don't realize is that Trolls are a vital part of the US economy. Despite common belief, they actually repair bridge damage themselves, extending bridge lifetimes by nearly 15%. They have thwarted the attempts of many terrorist plots as most terrorists don't understand the subtleties in the language of riddles. Trolls are even entering the tech market by lurking on Youtube, blogspot, and pretty much every forum on the internet. All of this contributes tremendously toward a thriving above-ground (and below) marketplace.

I urge everyone to write their representatives in opposition any proposals intending to "improve our bridges". They are already being improved as we speak by the most under-represented minority in our nation.

Re: Driving Up the Opportunity Cost of Terrorism with Education

geekofalltrades — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:39:47 -0000

By the way, I may have to order "Three Cups of Tea" and watch "Paradise Now". Thanks for the recommendations!

You know what would be fun/interesting? Renting the movie and all getting together to watch and discuss over dinner or something. We're all in the same realm politically so it would be more interesting than heated.

Just a thought :-)

Re: Driving Up the Opportunity Cost of Terrorism with Education

geekofalltrades — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:32:45 -0000

Yep. And it worked. The Mujahideen were religiously charged, and relentless. It was hugely expensive for the Russians and impossible to win (sound familiar?). It's pretty much what ended the Cold War.

What made it worse is that once they won, the US just left Afghanistan in a shattered state without solidifying the infrastructure (sound familiar?). The civil war that arose between the left-over terrorist factions destroyed the country (sound familiar?). One of the splinter cells of the Mujahideen eventually took over power called the "Taliban". The rest is history.

This is a topic for a completely different blog post, but I'm torn on the issue of pulling out of Iraq. History has made it clear that if you pull out before finishing up (omg I went there), the long-term problems outweigh the benefit. Had we effectively stayed in Afghanistan in '92 until it was stabilized, much of the problems of terrorism and its aftermath would have been avoided. Of course, the war in Iraq never should have started, and I have deep sympathy for the Iraqi and US soldiers, but if I don't consider history in the context of current problems, then I'm as bad as the current administration. Like I said, I'm torn.

Re: On Defining "Racism"

geekofalltrades — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:46:14 -0000

You're absolutely right: compromising on principles can hinder our goals, even when the intentions are good. For example, a perfectly reasonable argument is often made that AA actually hinders the goal by breeding resentment among those not benefiting (i.e. whites). I would guess, however, that this resentment comes from a misunderstanding of modern-day AA. If you look at the facts (and myths), it seems like the phrase shouldn't be "reverse-discrimination" but rather "fair consideration". And it bears repeating that AA IS a sort of punishment for those "guilty of racial discrimination" since it is not law for all, but imposed upon offending companies.

I absolutely agree with you regarding stronger education. Of course, AA is also a form of strengthening educational opportunities among minorities. The ideal situation, of course, is that we just friggin' improve education across the board, but until that happens, AA allows for access to the best that we have.

The fortunate thing is that clearly, racism is on the decline. SOMETHING has been working the last couple of centuries and I believe it's the curriculum of tolerance. This is the rose growing out of the grave of the holocaust, you might say. A reporter (I think on NPR) was talking about his research young people's political discussions and found that kids today are so unbelievably tolerant (though I wish that weren't the word for it) of other cultures that Obama's race isn't even mentioned. That's incredible!

Lastly, here's some food for thought. This hypothetical will sound silly, but it provides some really interesting insights into the psychology of hatred. If an alien race went to war with us, racism would vanish and we would join together as humans. Why is that? After 9/11 most of the world stopped hating us and Americans stopped hating each other, if only for an instant. Why?

Re: On Defining "Racism"

geekofalltrades — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:42:47 -0000

I think your last sentence above, Jesse, is fundamental to finding your position; people often make their ethical choices based on one of two things: 1) a goal, or 2) a principle.

Furthermore, there are two issues at hand: curing the psychology of racism, and treating its symptoms -- the unfair distribution of wealth and power. And a choice needs to be made for each problem.

That said, the definition of racism I like is based on psychology: I believe racism at its core has nothing to do with race; instead its treating differently a person to whom you think you can't relate. We use a person's race as a kind of quick "heuristic" to gauge the probability that we can relate to the person. Other popular heuristics include one's gender, age, and class.

I'm not sure if this unfortunate piece of psychology can be "cured" per se, but it can be treated by making people more able to relate to each other. This is why we have "token" black or female characters in movies that assume roles that counter our prejudices. The whole point is for "racists" to get used to the idea of a certain type of person occupying roles to which they can relate.

This leads nicely into affirmative action ("AA"). I like AA as a solution because it treats not only the symptoms of racism -- the unfair balance of power -- but also the psychology of racism since it makes those in power more used to the presence of minorities in positions to which they can relate.

Ironically, and unfortunately, AA does require the use of discrimination. Now is when you have to choose between goal-oriented ethics and principle-based ethics. I fall in the former category on this topic, and, in my opinion, AA is a good goal-oriented solution. That is, as Peter said, it's a stepping stone that can be gradually made less strict until we reach our goal and eliminate it entirely. It's not a good principle-based solution because it fights fire with fire, discrimination with discrimination.

Also, before a person takes a stand against AA, they should be sure they study the many myths surrounding affirmative action. In summary, quotas are illegal, unqualified workers need not be hired, and in the worst case scenario of every unemployed black civilian taking a job from a white person, only 1% of whites would be affected. Yes, the "number game" is a poor justification for that level of discrimination, but I think it gives a very useful perspective.

Re: Driving Up the Opportunity Cost of Terrorism with Education

geekofalltrades — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:09:28 -0000

That's fantastic! We shouldn't equate this man to anything less than a hero. I don't know anything more about him and his efforts than is contained in your post, but I would bet his life is in danger for doing this. I'm in awe of people who take risks for long-term, less "direct" solutions to problems of war. He likely won't see any results or successes of his risky efforts for at least a decade; that would take a lot of faith.

I also have to point out the irony of the situation: it was in part the United States' use of education endorsement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion that led to the issues education is now hoping to solve there. Along with the military funding that President Carter and Reagan provided to the Mujahideen forces, they also supported a curriculum of religious extremism to increase recruitment in these terrorist cells. ~~Unbelievably~~ Completely predictably, this led to the terrorist leadership of the country.

It only goes to show the extreme power of education.

Thanks for this post Jesse! It's rare to hear wisdom in anti-war strategies, and even rarer to see it supported and implemented.

Re: Was President Bush Trying to Be Funny?

geekofalltrades — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:33:22 -0000

Your point is well-taken (and thanks for that fantastic sum-up!). I suppose due to the scope of Jesse's post -- that is, the elections of G.W. -- I was speaking off-the-cuff in reference to the 2000 election. And you're right: I shouldn't.

However, if I were a devil's advocate, I guess my question would be this: are the episodes of voter suppression in 2000 and 2004 irregularly egregious, or do they always occur -- being brought to light only during high-interest, close elections? My guess would be that yes, more offenses are uncovered during such elections, however more offenses are committed for the same reason.

It's truly unfortunate that my first real election experience was in 2000. My first vote was in 2004. Thanks to those travesties, I'm forever skeptical of the US electoral process. Having a famous computer security professor who personally worked on breaking the e-voting machines didn't help either. Hopefully future elections will be improved by our jaded generation's skepticism, rather than fizzle from dismally low turnouts.

Re: Was President Bush Trying to Be Funny?

geekofalltrades — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:54:01 -0000

You know, I don't remember the 2004 election being all that sketchy. I think all the sketchiness I saw at the time was due to my looking so hard for some.

Although, I shouldn't forget that any election involving paperless e-voting machines is inherently sketchy. I'm a staunch opponent of those infernal devices, and I have to be careful not to just "get used to them"

Re: Was President Bush Trying to Be Funny?

geekofalltrades — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:16:37 -0000

Not sure which hilarious implication you're focusing on. Is it funny because

a) the 2000 election was somewhat sketchy?
b) the Iraqi election was very sketchy?
or
c) he deeply cares about black people*

*http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: Will ISPs Charge by the Byte?

geekofalltrades — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:31:12 -0000

**Correction**

The speed increases don't occur over the pre-existing cables, however, the installation of these cables can be accomplished with pre-existing equipment for laying copper cables. The longer, un-broken cables also makes installation easier.

Re: Will ISPs Charge by the Byte?

geekofalltrades — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:34:34 -0000

Short answer? Yes, it could get congested. It would probably take a minimum of 20 years though. Why?

1. There are literally hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber optics buried across the country that aren't in use (so-called "dark fiber").

2. Fiber is an adaptable medium. For example, during the 90s, technology was developed to transmit 100 times more data across pre-existing fiber (decreasing demand for and cost of fiber to the point of bankrupting the companies that laid it)

3. Butters' Law of Photonics (similar to Moore's Law) states the data capacity of fiber-optics doubles every nine months. Assuming this is all done over existing fiber (and I don't know for sure that it is), that's pretty significant.

So with your freeway analogy, imagine a dozen unused freeways running parallel to the 101, just waiting to be opened up, with cars that shrink by half every 9 months ;-)

Dark Fiber (wikipedia)

Re: Will ISPs Charge by the Byte?

geekofalltrades — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:10:13 -0000

My opinions are torn on this; on the one hand, a by-the-byte pricing scheme makes intuitive sense, especially in an age of highly unbalanced bandwidth usage (see: bittorrent addicts, and movie streaming).

On the other hand, as an advocate of Net Neutrality, I'm uncomfortable any time an ISP uses its power to take away equality of usage. This seems like a stepping stone, or compromise, to providing tiered internet access. There's a slippery slope fallacy in this thinking, but not an unreasonable one.

Bandwidth strain is certainly on the rise, but once they fire up the optical fiber cables laid during the dot-com rush, and I believe they will, it'll be a non-issue.