I graduated in 2002. The cost of an Ivy League education has increased by about $10,000 per year since then, from about 40 to about 50. I still think education remains a great deal. If you will allow the appeal to authority, the guys at Freakonomics agree with me, cf 3:10 - 3:25, and the rest of the show is also very good.
Anyway, it's an untenable claim. The claim would be that the cost of an education, plus interest, is less than the marginal increase in salary over the expected career length. That's not credible. Sure, some dumb people somehow get through college and then can't make a career out of it, but those are the rare exceptions to the rule that the more you learn, the more you earn.
For what it's worth, this article says that I owed a bit more than average when I graduated, and now the average is up to about $23,000. That's low, easily within a few years' marginal salary increase for modest middle incomes.
College is absolutely a complete waste of time, unless you are one of the 99.995% of programmers who don't become the next Bill Gates or Larry Page.
Sadly, I'm one of those, and I graduated from an Ivy League school (by which I imply top-tier of cost) with a CRUSHING $20,000 in student loan debt, which for several years had a lower interest rate than my simple savings account, and in any case amounted to an UNTENABLE six months or so of marginal wages. Alas! Pity me, the fool who went to college!
It has always been true that if you are the one-in-a-million super-genius ridiculously motivated overachiever, that you don't need anybody's help to get where you are going. Saving, planning, and getting an education are merely for all the rest of us.
I suppose you were REALLY pissed off when John Gardner wrote "Grendel". I bet you wept yourself to sleep when the Brothers Grimm bastardized all those long-loved children's tales.
Well, it would be very strange indeed if she "was" Chinese, and now isn't; but it can be interesting to think about if she "were" Chinese./iamagrammarwhoresorry
It is elitist to claim that people should know how how their computer works, when really almost nobody understands how computers work, nor do they understand how most of their technology works. There is a sliding scale of what details are shown to the user, and it's meaningless to say that there is a bright line that somehow is now being crossed with the URL bar. Hey, guess what, browsers don't have screens showing heap dumps either. Yeah, you want to see the URL bar, and I want to see the heap dumps, and most users don't want to see either one. It's hardly a "move to ensure that new users will never understand how their computers work".
Right. The way you explained those things is about how I would explain them, except for hyperthreading which I frankly don't know much about. And, the point is that you didn't explain them very well (except for hyperthreading, which was very informative), nor would I. Actually I can explain engine timing a bit better than you did -- I was thinking more about how to advance or retard timing, and the effects that has on engine performance. Hanging windows is also more complicated than you explained, with extra steps and materials used to prevent water from coming in around the edges; I once had some of it explained to me by a lawyer friend who sues contractors who do that incorrectly.
And yet here we are, driving cars, looking out windows, and using multi-threaded applications, all without really knowing how that stuff works. What a grand world! Me, I like the URL bar, and I type into it regularly. I'll choose to see mine, thank you very much, but I'm not going to sit around and act all indignant that my preferences are over-ruled by the majority of users who don't use the bar the same way I do.
If you can explain (from memory) how engine timing works, thus showing that you know how your car works, AND if you can explain (from memory) the correct way to hang an exterior window, thus showing that you know how your house works, AND if you can explain (from memory) how hyperthreading works, thus showing that you know how your computer works -- THEN I will begin to entertain your complaint, which I will otherwise assume is mere elitist bellyaching.
But I definitely support you getting out of tech support. Those jobs suck.
Boy, there's a lot of Miro haters on Slashdot today. I used Miro as a television interface a while back, but didn't look at it recently until I saw this story on Slashdot. If Miro will enable my Mac to sync to my Archos tablet, then I'll definitely use it instead of iTunes, which won't do that. I'll be one step closer to shedding Apple, which would be nice. I don't see why everyone is so down on Miro, and I can't figure out when hating on open source became cool at Slashdot. If it does all the things you mentioned could be done with sundry software, all in one nice package, then that's quite compelling.
Yeah I like some of those ideas. Some, not. But I don't think they apply to the "middle ground" we seek, which was:...a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free. The only thing on your list that applies to that is Clear guidance that maxmimum sentences are not to be treated as average, which I think is a great idea, although I can't exactly think of how it would work in law or in practice. Still, though, if you could make it work that would be "middle ground" in this context.
The one I wonder about most is this: Removal of ability to use answers to police questioning against defendant. Do you mean what that seems to mean?
One thing you never see is the justice system recognizing that the combination of the natural consequences plus being arrested and held for trial is sometimes punishment enough.
Isn't that called "time served"?
I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I thought it worked.
Why is there never a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free?
Just to be clear, there is a middle ground, and the middle ground is used in the vast majority of prosecutions. It's called a plea bargain. Most people charged with crimes are guilty, and most guilt can be demonstrated at trial. So, everyone can save a lot of trouble with a guilty plea, and a negotiated punishment. That's the middle ground.
Some people are guilty and yet won't bargain. In this case, prosecutors will generally take a big sigh and go to trial, demonstrate guilt, and try to get the maximum punishment. That's NOT the middle ground, because the middle ground was already passed by.
There is plenty of room for legitimate criticism of the system, but there are sliding scales in the different dimensions of justice.
You didn't know that? Huh. Well it shouldn't be surprising at all. For reference, see Primary Colors (by "Anonymous") who had the public face in the form of a book agent.
Yeah, when I say "equal" I mean "morally equal", and your answer is apparently yes. We can disagree on that, but I definitely think it shows a stunning lack of perspective on your part.
Oh, okay. You are totally right. The sound of helicopters landing in a courtyard thirty feet from Osama's bedroom, including one of those helicopters crashing, the cacophony of which was heard by a microblogger elsewhere in the town, most likely were not heard by Osama Bin Laden, because he was crouched in the world's most sound-proof room. I bet he was wearing high-end noise-canceling headphones too, and probably one of those blackout masks that rich housewives sleep in. Also, "for all I know" he shot himself twice in the head. Yes, that explains everything. Thanks for helping me understand.
Really, though, that's a minor tangent to your general point, which was something about the Presidential order to capture or kill Osama. I don't know what the order was, obviously, so I don't have any problem with your post or your opinion in general. My opinion is, basically, fuck Osama Bin Laden, he was a cartoonishly evil supervillain, and I'm glad we shot him in the face.
Yes indeed. To me that is an important dimension of making a moral decision, which you ignored when you stated that "no one" should be killed. It's fine for you to think that, I just happen to disagree. I think some people should be killed. We differ in our opinions. Just like it would be useless for me to try to change your opinion that every man absolutely always deserves a trial, it is useless for you to try to change my opinion that no, sometimes a guy just needs to get capped.
Maybe, but I hope I would be equally moral. There are Americans I'd like to see dead, too. For instance, this was a 'neighbor' whose death I celebrated (literally, we raised a glass). He got that trial you like so much, but I would have been just as happy to have him shot twice in the head, preferably by one of his daughters.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never learned a tool without learning some skills that did apply down the road.
Congratulations on avoiding VB.
I graduated in 2002. The cost of an Ivy League education has increased by about $10,000 per year since then, from about 40 to about 50. I still think education remains a great deal. If you will allow the appeal to authority, the guys at Freakonomics agree with me, cf 3:10 - 3:25, and the rest of the show is also very good.
Anyway, it's an untenable claim. The claim would be that the cost of an education, plus interest, is less than the marginal increase in salary over the expected career length. That's not credible. Sure, some dumb people somehow get through college and then can't make a career out of it, but those are the rare exceptions to the rule that the more you learn, the more you earn.
For what it's worth, this article says that I owed a bit more than average when I graduated, and now the average is up to about $23,000. That's low, easily within a few years' marginal salary increase for modest middle incomes.
College is absolutely a complete waste of time, unless you are one of the 99.995% of programmers who don't become the next Bill Gates or Larry Page.
Sadly, I'm one of those, and I graduated from an Ivy League school (by which I imply top-tier of cost) with a CRUSHING $20,000 in student loan debt, which for several years had a lower interest rate than my simple savings account, and in any case amounted to an UNTENABLE six months or so of marginal wages. Alas! Pity me, the fool who went to college!
It has always been true that if you are the one-in-a-million super-genius ridiculously motivated overachiever, that you don't need anybody's help to get where you are going. Saving, planning, and getting an education are merely for all the rest of us.
I suppose you were REALLY pissed off when John Gardner wrote "Grendel". I bet you wept yourself to sleep when the Brothers Grimm bastardized all those long-loved children's tales.
Well, it would be very strange indeed if she "was" Chinese, and now isn't; but it can be interesting to think about if she "were" Chinese. /iamagrammarwhoresorry
It is elitist to claim that people should know how how their computer works, when really almost nobody understands how computers work, nor do they understand how most of their technology works. There is a sliding scale of what details are shown to the user, and it's meaningless to say that there is a bright line that somehow is now being crossed with the URL bar. Hey, guess what, browsers don't have screens showing heap dumps either. Yeah, you want to see the URL bar, and I want to see the heap dumps, and most users don't want to see either one. It's hardly a "move to ensure that new users will never understand how their computers work".
Right. The way you explained those things is about how I would explain them, except for hyperthreading which I frankly don't know much about. And, the point is that you didn't explain them very well (except for hyperthreading, which was very informative), nor would I. Actually I can explain engine timing a bit better than you did -- I was thinking more about how to advance or retard timing, and the effects that has on engine performance. Hanging windows is also more complicated than you explained, with extra steps and materials used to prevent water from coming in around the edges; I once had some of it explained to me by a lawyer friend who sues contractors who do that incorrectly.
And yet here we are, driving cars, looking out windows, and using multi-threaded applications, all without really knowing how that stuff works. What a grand world! Me, I like the URL bar, and I type into it regularly. I'll choose to see mine, thank you very much, but I'm not going to sit around and act all indignant that my preferences are over-ruled by the majority of users who don't use the bar the same way I do.
I accept your apology. Thank you, and good luck.
If you can explain (from memory) how engine timing works, thus showing that you know how your car works, AND if you can explain (from memory) the correct way to hang an exterior window, thus showing that you know how your house works, AND if you can explain (from memory) how hyperthreading works, thus showing that you know how your computer works -- THEN I will begin to entertain your complaint, which I will otherwise assume is mere elitist bellyaching.
But I definitely support you getting out of tech support. Those jobs suck.
Mmm hmm. And what about when the devs know how to "deliver concrete value" better than you do? Do you still hate that?
Yeah but let's be fair, who the heck uses Windows anyway? /he types, from Windows
Boy, there's a lot of Miro haters on Slashdot today. I used Miro as a television interface a while back, but didn't look at it recently until I saw this story on Slashdot. If Miro will enable my Mac to sync to my Archos tablet, then I'll definitely use it instead of iTunes, which won't do that. I'll be one step closer to shedding Apple, which would be nice. I don't see why everyone is so down on Miro, and I can't figure out when hating on open source became cool at Slashdot. If it does all the things you mentioned could be done with sundry software, all in one nice package, then that's quite compelling.
iTunes was an alternative to SoundJam, in that it was SoundJam.
Every year I spend half of the year in Thailand and want to get some work done by the pool, but it just isn't possible with a glossy screen.
http://whitewhine.com/
Yeah I like some of those ideas. Some, not. But I don't think they apply to the "middle ground" we seek, which was: ...a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free. The only thing on your list that applies to that is Clear guidance that maxmimum sentences are not to be treated as average, which I think is a great idea, although I can't exactly think of how it would work in law or in practice. Still, though, if you could make it work that would be "middle ground" in this context.
The one I wonder about most is this: Removal of ability to use answers to police questioning against defendant. Do you mean what that seems to mean?
I don't know. Do you?
Cute story. Bad analogy.
Oh, okay, thanks for explaining. What would be middle ground, then?
One thing you never see is the justice system recognizing that the combination of the natural consequences plus being arrested and held for trial is sometimes punishment enough.
Isn't that called "time served"?
I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I thought it worked.
Why is there never a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free?
Just to be clear, there is a middle ground, and the middle ground is used in the vast majority of prosecutions. It's called a plea bargain. Most people charged with crimes are guilty, and most guilt can be demonstrated at trial. So, everyone can save a lot of trouble with a guilty plea, and a negotiated punishment. That's the middle ground.
Some people are guilty and yet won't bargain. In this case, prosecutors will generally take a big sigh and go to trial, demonstrate guilt, and try to get the maximum punishment. That's NOT the middle ground, because the middle ground was already passed by.
There is plenty of room for legitimate criticism of the system, but there are sliding scales in the different dimensions of justice.
You didn't know that? Huh. Well it shouldn't be surprising at all. For reference, see Primary Colors (by "Anonymous") who had the public face in the form of a book agent.
Yeah, when I say "equal" I mean "morally equal", and your answer is apparently yes. We can disagree on that, but I definitely think it shows a stunning lack of perspective on your part.
Oh, okay. You are totally right. The sound of helicopters landing in a courtyard thirty feet from Osama's bedroom, including one of those helicopters crashing, the cacophony of which was heard by a microblogger elsewhere in the town, most likely were not heard by Osama Bin Laden, because he was crouched in the world's most sound-proof room. I bet he was wearing high-end noise-canceling headphones too, and probably one of those blackout masks that rich housewives sleep in. Also, "for all I know" he shot himself twice in the head. Yes, that explains everything. Thanks for helping me understand.
Really, though, that's a minor tangent to your general point, which was something about the Presidential order to capture or kill Osama. I don't know what the order was, obviously, so I don't have any problem with your post or your opinion in general. My opinion is, basically, fuck Osama Bin Laden, he was a cartoonishly evil supervillain, and I'm glad we shot him in the face.
Yes indeed. To me that is an important dimension of making a moral decision, which you ignored when you stated that "no one" should be killed. It's fine for you to think that, I just happen to disagree. I think some people should be killed. We differ in our opinions. Just like it would be useless for me to try to change your opinion that every man absolutely always deserves a trial, it is useless for you to try to change my opinion that no, sometimes a guy just needs to get capped.
Maybe, but I hope I would be equally moral. There are Americans I'd like to see dead, too. For instance, this was a 'neighbor' whose death I celebrated (literally, we raised a glass). He got that trial you like so much, but I would have been just as happy to have him shot twice in the head, preferably by one of his daughters.