But I'd rather have this nice cushy job having paid off my student loans in 6 years and now making two-times the national median income, than wash cars. And I could have paid them off in 2 years but the loans were so incredibly cheap that it was uneconomic to pay them off faster. Wow, damn, education is so cheap compared to its value! What a great country we live in!
It sounds to me like you are making excuses for failure but it is possible you are just trolling.
What financial ruin? My total student loans were about nine months of marginal earnings, or about three months of actual earnings. If I had paid cash and taken 100% student loans (nobody does this for a BA) at my top-cost Ivy-league school, that would have cost me about three years of wages.
College is incredibly cheap. People who claim its expensive are morons or ideologues or trolls.
Maybe, but I doubt it. If so, someone would have done it. A four-year bachelor's degree can be had for six months of middle-class wages so it's not expensive at the low end. People who refuse to go get one "because of the cost" are lying to themselves, or to you. My guess is they just couldn't make it.
I did know one guy, once, who was just as smart as me but only had a high school degree. He had managed to worm his way into a middle-class government job, but he'd hit the ceiling of where he could go without a BA. He's the only exception I've personally met to the rule that education cleaves to ability.
You don't need any education at all to do many jobs but I don't see anyone suggesting that we stop educating our children. Most of us believe that education has attendant extraneous benefits. If you don't think so then by all means start a business and undercut the competition by hiring people who dropped out of 9th grade, because hey I bet those flunkies will be equal in every way to college graduates, except for the unhelpful education, right? Good luck with that.
A bachelor's degree is a low bar. People who can't do a chin-up on that bar have some questions to answer before they get to complain about not being offered jobs over people who can. If you disagree, explain why a high school degree is a reasonable threshold, but a college degree isn't. Frankly I feel under-educated with my lowly bachelor's degree.
A doctor will always have a greater worth to society and economy than a burger flipper. Always. You cannot argue otherwise.
False. Many doctors have negative worth to society; I submit Doctor Oz and Doctor Deepak Chopra for your consideration. Furthermore, it was easy to make that argument.
But ignore the falseness of your hyperbole, you compared two "makers". Doctors make health performances; burger flippers make burgers. But if you compare a maker (like a doctor) to a taker (like a CEO) then it is not at all clear why the taker is earning more than minimum wage. CEOs add almost nothing to society, so it is uneconomic, inefficient and immoral to pay them more than anyone else in the world. The problem is that we have free(ish) markets which inexorably leads to inefficient distribution of value. Specifically, CEOs are corrupt motherfuckers who run cliques like gangs and enrich eachother -- the normal way of business in free(ish) markets. The answer is to regulate markets such as with progressive income taxes. In America today we have progressive taxes that go from 10-32%, but we should rearrange that to go from -500% to 99.9%. That would allow us to allocate value earned more closely to according to value created, and CEOs would still get to be takers living rich off the backs of the hard work of others.
You have it backwards. All those low-paid assembly line workers are underpaid. It is the management, especially the upper management and CEOs, who are vastly overpaid.
In this world there are "makers" and there are "takers". Makers make things, thinks like widgets or ditches or source code or cups of coffee. Takers are the people who watch the makers, then take some of the value created by the makers. Often they take most of the value created by the makers.
I don't begrudge takers their due. They do add value to the economy, just not very much. The average CEO should be making, oh, maybe half or three-quarters as much as an assembly line worker. That would be "efficient allocation of resources", which means that value (dollars) are allotted to the people who create the value in the economy. CEOs create nearly zero value, so they should earn close to zero dollars.
Alas, we live in a world with mostly free-ish markets, and free markets are terrible at efficient allocation of resources. Free markets tend to concentrate value to people who already have it, instead of people who create it. That's why we need regulated markets, so that we can have efficient allocation of resources.
Still, though, if a French person is doing 3/8 of a day's work, then he should expect to be paid 3/8 of a day's wages.
No, that's not the point. You say something isn't Constitutional because of the way you think about it, someone else says it is because of the way they think about it. Everyone is entitled to the bigotry of their own prejudice but "what is Constitutional" is a political question, not one of your personal prejudice. So when we disagree someone has to decide. Are you just complaining that we haven't decided to do away with the Supreme Court and simply appoint you personally to make these decisions?
Right right, whatever, but when faced with a disagreement about what the Constitution means, then someone has to decide in order for us to take actions. What is meant by "is Constitutional" and "isn't Constitutional" is some kind of judgement which blesses or prevents an action. It is pretty much meaningless for you to say things like "what is actually constitutional" because of course there is no objective meaning to the document; it's meaning is a property of the brains which ponder it. So if two brains disagree what what the meaning is, then you agree that someone has to pretty much decide what "is" and "isn't" Constitutional, and the SCOTUS is the body we set up for that purpose.
With all that, what exactly are you complaining about? Are you complaining that we don't disband the SCOTUS and have you personally decide issues of Constitution? I guess I would also like to be the Constitutionality Czar, so I share your desire there.
No, I don't remember that. I've been reading since 1998. When was this golden age of which you speak? In 1998 we definitely complained about the editors in almost every single story. Back then it was egregious typos as well as style and tone.
Only if you deny the possibility of being forced to do anything. Name something that counts to you as "being forced" and I bet I can deny it as easily you just did.
I thought that but it was "can" that I didn't understand. Touch typists can look at their keyboard, but don't. I thought maybe I was missing a reference.
Both of my hands and all ten of my digits work fine, but I own this keyboard and love it. It is what I use as a programmer all day long. It is a high-quality keyboard with nice keys. The keys are arranged in columns (my personal favorite feature), which takes about five minutes to get used to. For the OP, the most important part about it is that many of the keys which are accessed by pinkys on a normal keyboard are moved to the center of the layout, accessed by the strong pointer fingers.
Parent poster isn't the first person who has called it an expensive keyboard but I don't consider it expensive. It's less expensive, for instance, than one single trip to the doctor or physical therapist. Trust me, if it works for OP, then it will be worth its cost many times over. And as I said before it is also a well-constructed keyboard. Unless someone builds a better keyboard someday, I expect to use mine forever. It costs one day's wages for middle class people, maybe less.
I have the u3011. It is amazing! Just don't try to hook it to your Mac using DVI or HDMI, you'll be unhappy. Buy a $7 mini-DVI-toDVI and you'll be golden at full res. (If you use DVI you'll lose resolution; if you use HDMI you'll get an annoying error about the audio codec.)
My answer to this question overall is obvious: whatever the biggest, densest fucking monitor you can afford! Two of them if you have twice as much money.
It only matters a little bit, to the extent that your users have to deeply know the project to be able to judge feature evolution over the history of your project. Your users could more easily know the project status if you used a versioning system that carried a little bit of meaning. It's not a big deal, it's a little deal. For instance, I would assume that you are still working on core features and I should continue to ignore your project until you get around to finishing the initial feature set -- or else I'd have to go read your documentation and familiarize myself with the features and your plans, so that I could get a sense of how complete it is. I could do all that work, or you could just mark a stable complete version as "1.0". If you don't want your version numbers to carry any more meaning than advancement, then just use integers. By using dotted decimal you tacitly concede that the dots and decimals mean something, but then you never use the leftmost decimal. It's silly. It's not using a tool which you could be using.
Indeed, my post is a tiny bit of peer pressure. Your post is, too.
By the way, I once released a Pi version of software. I'd just done a 3.0 release, then a 3.1 release, and I got permission from my boss to do a Pi release. It was fun, most people didn't notice but a few did.
The person to whom I replied used guns as an example, which cause harm to other people, and the original article says "we all agree [porn] has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime". I think my nuclear-bomb hyperbole is apt.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too.
But I'd rather have this nice cushy job having paid off my student loans in 6 years and now making two-times the national median income, than wash cars. And I could have paid them off in 2 years but the loans were so incredibly cheap that it was uneconomic to pay them off faster. Wow, damn, education is so cheap compared to its value! What a great country we live in!
It sounds to me like you are making excuses for failure but it is possible you are just trolling.
What financial ruin? My total student loans were about nine months of marginal earnings, or about three months of actual earnings. If I had paid cash and taken 100% student loans (nobody does this for a BA) at my top-cost Ivy-league school, that would have cost me about three years of wages.
College is incredibly cheap. People who claim its expensive are morons or ideologues or trolls.
Maybe, but I doubt it. If so, someone would have done it. A four-year bachelor's degree can be had for six months of middle-class wages so it's not expensive at the low end. People who refuse to go get one "because of the cost" are lying to themselves, or to you. My guess is they just couldn't make it.
I did know one guy, once, who was just as smart as me but only had a high school degree. He had managed to worm his way into a middle-class government job, but he'd hit the ceiling of where he could go without a BA. He's the only exception I've personally met to the rule that education cleaves to ability.
You don't need any education at all to do many jobs but I don't see anyone suggesting that we stop educating our children. Most of us believe that education has attendant extraneous benefits. If you don't think so then by all means start a business and undercut the competition by hiring people who dropped out of 9th grade, because hey I bet those flunkies will be equal in every way to college graduates, except for the unhelpful education, right? Good luck with that.
A bachelor's degree is a low bar. People who can't do a chin-up on that bar have some questions to answer before they get to complain about not being offered jobs over people who can. If you disagree, explain why a high school degree is a reasonable threshold, but a college degree isn't. Frankly I feel under-educated with my lowly bachelor's degree.
Is it? More than compared to the "small-government free-market utopia" of Darfur?
A doctor will always have a greater worth to society and economy than a burger flipper. Always. You cannot argue otherwise.
False. Many doctors have negative worth to society; I submit Doctor Oz and Doctor Deepak Chopra for your consideration. Furthermore, it was easy to make that argument.
But ignore the falseness of your hyperbole, you compared two "makers". Doctors make health performances; burger flippers make burgers. But if you compare a maker (like a doctor) to a taker (like a CEO) then it is not at all clear why the taker is earning more than minimum wage. CEOs add almost nothing to society, so it is uneconomic, inefficient and immoral to pay them more than anyone else in the world. The problem is that we have free(ish) markets which inexorably leads to inefficient distribution of value. Specifically, CEOs are corrupt motherfuckers who run cliques like gangs and enrich eachother -- the normal way of business in free(ish) markets. The answer is to regulate markets such as with progressive income taxes. In America today we have progressive taxes that go from 10-32%, but we should rearrange that to go from -500% to 99.9%. That would allow us to allocate value earned more closely to according to value created, and CEOs would still get to be takers living rich off the backs of the hard work of others.
You have it backwards. All those low-paid assembly line workers are underpaid. It is the management, especially the upper management and CEOs, who are vastly overpaid.
In this world there are "makers" and there are "takers". Makers make things, thinks like widgets or ditches or source code or cups of coffee. Takers are the people who watch the makers, then take some of the value created by the makers. Often they take most of the value created by the makers.
I don't begrudge takers their due. They do add value to the economy, just not very much. The average CEO should be making, oh, maybe half or three-quarters as much as an assembly line worker. That would be "efficient allocation of resources", which means that value (dollars) are allotted to the people who create the value in the economy. CEOs create nearly zero value, so they should earn close to zero dollars.
Alas, we live in a world with mostly free-ish markets, and free markets are terrible at efficient allocation of resources. Free markets tend to concentrate value to people who already have it, instead of people who create it. That's why we need regulated markets, so that we can have efficient allocation of resources.
Still, though, if a French person is doing 3/8 of a day's work, then he should expect to be paid 3/8 of a day's wages.
What the heck is four tenths of a person? I mean, for me it's my dick but what is it for the rest of you?
OP: [insert nauseating overused quote about correlation!=causality]
Thank you, AC, for inserting that nauseating overused quote! Way to be a team player.
The shelf life of honey is measured in centuries. Freshness is a canard. There may be good reasons to buy local honey, but that isn't one of them.
No, that's not the point. You say something isn't Constitutional because of the way you think about it, someone else says it is because of the way they think about it. Everyone is entitled to the bigotry of their own prejudice but "what is Constitutional" is a political question, not one of your personal prejudice. So when we disagree someone has to decide. Are you just complaining that we haven't decided to do away with the Supreme Court and simply appoint you personally to make these decisions?
Right right, whatever, but when faced with a disagreement about what the Constitution means, then someone has to decide in order for us to take actions. What is meant by "is Constitutional" and "isn't Constitutional" is some kind of judgement which blesses or prevents an action. It is pretty much meaningless for you to say things like "what is actually constitutional" because of course there is no objective meaning to the document; it's meaning is a property of the brains which ponder it. So if two brains disagree what what the meaning is, then you agree that someone has to pretty much decide what "is" and "isn't" Constitutional, and the SCOTUS is the body we set up for that purpose.
With all that, what exactly are you complaining about? Are you complaining that we don't disband the SCOTUS and have you personally decide issues of Constitution? I guess I would also like to be the Constitutionality Czar, so I share your desire there.
No, I don't remember that. I've been reading since 1998. When was this golden age of which you speak? In 1998 we definitely complained about the editors in almost every single story. Back then it was egregious typos as well as style and tone.
No, he illustrated why you said something indefensible.
You are right, if you deny the possibility of ever being forced to do anything. Do you deny the entire notion of force?
Only if you deny the possibility of being forced to do anything. Name something that counts to you as "being forced" and I bet I can deny it as easily you just did.
I wish to subscribe to your bulletin. Who else would you want to decide what is or isn't allowed under the Constitution?
I thought that but it was "can" that I didn't understand. Touch typists can look at their keyboard, but don't. I thought maybe I was missing a reference.
I came here to say this.
Both of my hands and all ten of my digits work fine, but I own this keyboard and love it. It is what I use as a programmer all day long. It is a high-quality keyboard with nice keys. The keys are arranged in columns (my personal favorite feature), which takes about five minutes to get used to. For the OP, the most important part about it is that many of the keys which are accessed by pinkys on a normal keyboard are moved to the center of the layout, accessed by the strong pointer fingers.
Parent poster isn't the first person who has called it an expensive keyboard but I don't consider it expensive. It's less expensive, for instance, than one single trip to the doctor or physical therapist. Trust me, if it works for OP, then it will be worth its cost many times over. And as I said before it is also a well-constructed keyboard. Unless someone builds a better keyboard someday, I expect to use mine forever. It costs one day's wages for middle class people, maybe less.
Good luck.
Somebody please explain this joke to me.
I have the u3011. It is amazing! Just don't try to hook it to your Mac using DVI or HDMI, you'll be unhappy. Buy a $7 mini-DVI-toDVI and you'll be golden at full res. (If you use DVI you'll lose resolution; if you use HDMI you'll get an annoying error about the audio codec.)
My answer to this question overall is obvious: whatever the biggest, densest fucking monitor you can afford! Two of them if you have twice as much money.
It only matters a little bit, to the extent that your users have to deeply know the project to be able to judge feature evolution over the history of your project. Your users could more easily know the project status if you used a versioning system that carried a little bit of meaning. It's not a big deal, it's a little deal. For instance, I would assume that you are still working on core features and I should continue to ignore your project until you get around to finishing the initial feature set -- or else I'd have to go read your documentation and familiarize myself with the features and your plans, so that I could get a sense of how complete it is. I could do all that work, or you could just mark a stable complete version as "1.0". If you don't want your version numbers to carry any more meaning than advancement, then just use integers. By using dotted decimal you tacitly concede that the dots and decimals mean something, but then you never use the leftmost decimal. It's silly. It's not using a tool which you could be using.
Indeed, my post is a tiny bit of peer pressure. Your post is, too.
By the way, I once released a Pi version of software. I'd just done a 3.0 release, then a 3.1 release, and I got permission from my boss to do a Pi release. It was fun, most people didn't notice but a few did.
Yep. That's (part of) the tiny amount of harm which is outweighed by the overwhelming amount of good. Good job, you found it!
The person to whom I replied used guns as an example, which cause harm to other people, and the original article says "we all agree [porn] has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime". I think my nuclear-bomb hyperbole is apt.