Commander Kinsey likes to think that. He can understand that other people in different situations (that he doesn't understand) are making choices that he doesn't understand, but he's too much of an idiot to work out why they might be doing that.
For them. If every body has a car, hardly anybody can park at popular destinations,
Trolley busses powered by overhead wires don't. Electric buses driven by batteries don't.
With voters like you, the locla council isn't going to be very bright.
ALL does include you.
If you were running the scheme it might well work that badly. People like you get voted out.
Stop rolling out fatuous right wing assertions.
But you have to pay for what you eat.
If they were fed well so that they could work, society could use their services - it take effort to get useful work, out of the less able, but it can be done.
It used to be very popular.If you appled that test a generation or two back you wouldn't have gene pool.
Bigots do like to think that.
Some ultra-orthodox Jews are that silly. They don't define the behavior of all (or even most) of the followers of the religion.
Judaism is a religion, not a race, even if the Nazi's were silly enough to think otherwise. They couldn't do genome sequencing back then, but it was well known to be a silly idea anyway.
Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better women. Think about the evolutionary issues.
No. Living in a tin-roof shack in Mexico is the cheapest (most efficient), and a few people do that. More people pay $3000 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment in a big city.
Natural selection does not favor altruists.
The majority of Jews are not full orthodox. Besides, it's good to have something to believe in.
When Israel declared a state, with UN sanction, it was a small parliamentary democracy. And was attacked the next day from all directions by Muslims. Now it's a bigger parliamentary democracy.
One problem, as usual, is women. Israel likes women and its neighbors mostly don't. Life would be simpler without women. Much simpler.
Actually, it does, provided that your altruism mostly favours close relatives. Human evolution clearly has clearly been driven by that.
Not everybody gets the full set of human genes - Commander Kinsey has been short-changed more than most, and John Larkin doesn't seem to have got a many as he should have - but part of the full kit keeps track of people who aren't as helpful as they should be, and puts them in places where they can get edited out.
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee, smart people, lots of interaction.
Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don't go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn't make them any smarter. You won't get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.
There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.
Which one of John Larkin's half-witted misconceptions is in play here isn't obvious - but one of them clearly is. He has quite a few.
That's England. Engineers have low social status in the UK, and people with low social status have fewer options when it comes to mating and marrying. I did work as an engineer in the UK, but I'd met and hooked up with my wife in Australia while I was still in transition from being an academic chemist, so I'm not speaking from personal experience. I did end up marrying her in the UK, but it's not relevant evidence.
Autistic partners aren't going to be preferred partners, so UK engineers are more likely to get stuck with them in the UK.
Simon Baron-Cohen is Jewish - he's Sasha Baron-Cohen's uncle. Borat's uncle ought to have been conscious of that, but it wouldn't sell well in the Scientific American.
People are social creatures and a tribe probably benefits from having a bit of the autism traits in its gene pool. But MIT and San Francisco distort the historic concentration of the related genes, so spectrum-y people have a higher probability of mating with similar types. That's not necessarily bad.
I accidentally found a bunch of youtube vids by autistic and ADHD and ADD people. Many make the interesting argument that not all such variations are "disorders." Personally, I think that most people are too influenced by social effects, which is why we have lame circuit designs and flame threads and wars.
Mo works with autistic kids. Severely affected ones can be damaged, rolling around on the floor and screaming and not talking. But many mild cases can be very talented.
Cool, especially about engineers, preferring email to talking.
Stanford and the Apple campus are both good sites for associative mating.
My next-door neighbors are from different eastern european countries; their only common language is English. Their little girl is awesome; maybe I'll teach her some electronics. They met when both worked for google. Google is a geek magnet.
That's hard to quantify. But the symptoms, if we call them that, would be obcessive concentration and specialization, poor social and maybe verbal skills, avoidance of talk in favor of writing, and disregard for standards and peer opinions. That last thing promotes independent, original thinking, breaking rules, which is ultimately what design is about.
Electronic design is partly technical - that's the easy part - and mostly emotional. That is rarely discussed. Jim Williams' two Analog Circuit Design books are good in that respect.
There was a cool book, The Psychology of Computer Programming. Same idea.
He doesn't have clue about electronic design either - he certainly doesn't discuss it.
So he doesn't have a clue about the technical part of electronic, and doesn't realise that it is mostly about choosing between different techniques for getting close to the desired result without spending more than you have to. If you haven't got a clue what you are doing you may well get emotional about it. If you do the emotions will mostly be confined to the tedious process of explaining what you are doing to your colleagues and your boss, who might not have realised that what you propose to do can work. On one occasion what I had seen as an obvious point clearly wasn't obvious to others skilled in the art, and I ended up getting a patent on it.
Jim Williams did set out to be entertaining.
Programs tend to be more complicated than electronic circuits. Making sure that everybody on the team understands what's going on - in detail - is a lot more important, and quite a bit more difficult, than it is with hardware design. Of course if you can't understand hardware design, the two may look more similar.
Huh? "Technical" refers to techniques for accomplishing a goal, and electronic design is exactly that.
The 'mostly emotional' nature is rarely discussed, because it's nonsense. Communication, though (standing on the shoulders of giants...) is a frequently cited part of the nature of innovation, which some (but not all) electronic design is.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.