wake_up_sticky

This IS the market working.

Maybe you should read the entire article.

Sounds like what you guys want is something for nothing. Unless I'm missing something...?

One little thing like this isn't a huge barrier to entry, but a hundred little things like this make a whopper of a barrier to entry.

The problem is that there are an overwhelming number of choices when it comes to what to do with one's life. Parents need to at least make it clear that there's a relatively small subset of these choices which are acceptable. (Not a handful of choices, but maybe a couple dozen or so.)

This hits the nail on the head. It's not that people don't understand the syntax or even the semantics of programming languages (well, some people can't write a for loop, but they're just hopeless). It's that they can't see how to use the language to get from point A ("I want a program that does x") to point B (an actual program that does x). For instance, when I first began programming, I struggled mightily with deciding how to represent real-world data. Other people might be able to decide how to represent data, but become hopelessly stuck when it comes to turning their verbal descriptions of tasks into actual algorithms. I think that this is why so many people go on programming interviews and then can't actually solve simple programming problems: they do fine when they're taking exercises from books, but they can't concretely conceptualize the solution to an even slightly ambiguous problem.

While I agree that we shouldn't put people into boxes (figuratively or literally), the problem with what you're suggesting is that people become depressed when they don't know what society expects of them. This may be inconvenient, but it's true. Telling someone, "You can do whatever you want with your life; we're not going to tell you what to do" is effectively telling them, "We're not going to tell you what society values and expects from you; you won't get any guidance from us." It can be almost as bad to have too much choice as it is to have too little.

A better article would be called, "How the Workplace Hurts Sex"

"...if you cut the wage tax, you have to increase revenue generation from something else."

...uh, no, you don't.

I don't want people to get the impression that weight-lifting inevitably leads to injury. This guy was seriously overdoing it or had poor form if his body was "shot" after two years. If you want to do low-rep, high-weight lifting, make sure that you get plenty of rest and don't do tons of volume. Find a program designed by a reputable strength-training coach (such as Mark Rippetoe or Bill Starr) and don't modify it. If your form is good, you don't do more volume than you should, and you're eating properly, your body certainly won't be "shot" after two years.

It's about damn time we started having this conversation.

This is going to sound extremely cynical, but I believe that there's another reason why people enjoy coming up with ideas while in the shower or driving or taking a walk or...etc.

When you're doing one of those things, you can't actually do any work towards implementing the idea--but you can imagine all of the things that you're going to do as soon as you're able to (which, of course, you won't do).

In the shower there is no pressure to actually do something. You don't come up with ideas at your computer because you'd be confronted with the fact that if you really wanted to, you could begin implementing one of those ideas immediately.

Actually, I think that the Catholic church is the oldest existing bureaucracy.

She didn't work fifteen hours a day. She taught fifteen credit hours.

I agree, with the caveat that it shouldn't be done on a curve. College should be much harder than it is, but it should be theoretically possible for everyone in a class (of super-geniuses) to graduate.

That's what he said. The parents would pay you a flat rate (today's tuition) and you would pay their kid's tuition 10-15 years from now. Assuming the bubble burst before then, you would make the difference in price between today's tuition and the tuition of the future.

Looks like Smalltalk.

Your only valid point is that the replacement organisms might be more dangerous to humans. I find your callousness toward human suffering repulsive. If I could press a button that would instantly wipe out any and all animal species which cause human suffering without any negative consequences, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

90% of the works created are crap anyway.

Maybe we could--GASP!--teach them trades based on their interests and aptitudes. The current system is best described by the following Marilyn Manson lyrics:

"Trained to be stupid/Taught to be nothing at all/We're taught to be nothing"

$3M would definitely be FU money to me. Not enough to live in opulence, but definitely enough to not have to work for a living.

"FU money is no more or less than what you make of it... and it can run out as fast as it came if you aren't careful. Plenty of people are in the "FU" financial stage and don't even realize it, and plenty of people who wish they were there wouldn't do any better - your financial practices largely dictate your long term financial well being - whether you have a little or a lot."

Eh, this just doesn't ring true to me. I'm pretty sure that everyone I know would do much better with an extra $10M, not the same or worse.

Poker is a game of skill which has a chance component.

No you couldn't.

I have no idea. I've never been inside one either. But the author was criticizing--well, insulting--a political faction, not expressing a dislike of women.

The author's "agenda" * doesn't * "[have] a touch of dislike of women in it", though. It has a touch of dislike of a particular type of academic feminist, but 99.99% of women are not members of this group. If I said that I disagreed with the tactics of the Black Panthers, would that make me a racist? Of course not.

Your African American Studies analogy is totally disingenuous anyway. You are trying to map the author's insinuation that certain types of academic feminists are jealous of beautiful girls to the insinuation that people in African American studies are jealous of * whites . A much more honest analogy would be that what the author said is like a black person saying that members of a particular extreme fringe of the NAACP are jealous of, say, blacks who have had success in business. Would that be racist? No, not at all! * It might be divisive, cynical, unfair, or any number of other things, but it would patently * not * be racist. The statement says nothing about black people as a group; it accuses a particular * political faction * of having ulterior motives.

And that 1932 study used perfectly valid methodology and studied a huge population. Asserting that it * can't * be relevant simply because it's * old * is just more sophistry.

Even if we agree to define "misogyny" a bit more broadly, the piece isn't indicative of misogyny on the part of the author. That's what I take issue with: not that the accusation you make is so terrible, but that it is baseless.

As for "smacks of misogynism" vs. "characterization of the piece" and "ideological agendas", it's not about the vocabulary that's being used. It's that the phrase "smacks of misogynism" is weaselly--what does it mean? If you think that the author is a misogynist, say so. If you think that the piece is misogynistic, say that. It doesn't help that the piece doesn't, in fact, "smack of misogynism".

I see you're a deconstructionist yourself--you've deconstructed the penny into fourths. ;)

So you don't worry about people who download copyrighted music?

The guy spent his entire life accumulating massive amounts of wealth, spent virtually none of it, and is now using it to make the world a better place. What don't you find amazing about that?