You miss the point. This doesn't mean getting a degree from the University of Phoenix... You take the fluffy liberal arts prereqs of which most universities require a good two years' worth, then get your actual degree from the Ivy.
If you are picking out liberal arts courses from an Ivy league education, you are missing the entire point of one.
There was a time when I felt that all humanities and social science courses were lacking in substance, as well. However, over the years, I have learnt to appreciate them better to the point that I am pursuing graduate education in the social sciences. I am amused at you talking about "fluffy" liberal arts prerequisites; however, I would argue that most of what passes for IT today is fluff in and of itself (unless you are talking about subjects in CS or CE).
The point is, a liberal arts education teaches you about the world around you. Art, history, civics, law, religion, philosophy, literature and so on. It is supposed to be a broadening experience, aimed at making you a better rounded individual. In contrast, most technical education is vocational in nature - it is aimed at getting you to be good at doing something and getting a job. Quite obviously, this is a generalization and would not apply to those pursuing graduate education in specific focus areas, but you get the idea.
It is often said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Given the amazing lack of civic education and history, it is no wonder that we are where we are today. After all, who needs a thinking populace when you can create an army of skilled (I use that word loosely, of course) laborers.
Aye. I could never understand the need to multitask, and instead prefer to just do one task at a time. Of course, I do catch a lot of flak from colleagues and friends because I refuse to do more than one thing at a time.
In fact, I cannot understand folks that listen to music and work -- I do like having my headphones on, but that's only because it blocks out the external noise that's distracting.
Sadly, I'm probably in the wrong line of business since my job does require a lot of social interaction and I get pulled every which way (and having headphones on when I work is the surest way to grab attention the wrong way). But even then, I prefer to dedicate my time to any one thing that I'll be doing.
Except fiddling with my phone in boring meetings, of course.
If I remember correctly Asimov even went into figuring out how much it would take to keep a planet-city like that running - it was rediculous amounts of imports and exports on a daily basis just to keep things from falling apart.
Ridiculous, not rediculous. Retard starts with re; ridiculous starts with ri.
I ignored most of the stuff, but let me just say that love without lust is pointless (at least in a relationship). Now don't get me wrong, I don't necessary disagree with your definition - it's just that the true love as you paint is a little too platonic for my liking. Love, lust, greed and infatuation are all very closely tied.
I've been dating my fiancé for almost 4 years, and "true love" is a textbook abstraction. It's the dressing that makes the salad delicious.
Another way of putting it is evolution in action: at least you failures are less likely to reproduce.
Unfortunately, I'd argue that that's far from the truth.
Anecdotal example - both my fiancé and I are quite well educated, and from top tier schools. We're well traveled, well read and in our mid/late twenties. We are not planning on having kids anytime soon because of a variety of reasons (she'd like to go to med school/grad school, I'd like to go to b-school, we'd like to buy a house and settle down before having a family etc).
Contrast this with her sister, who dropped out of college, got knocked up and has 3 kids, lives with her parents and is married to an equally useless guy collecting unemployment benefits -- and tax benefits because she has kids.
I, on the other hand, pay ridiculously high taxes because I was smart enough to make money in a down market. The price that I pay for being intelligent and hard working is high taxes. And the idiots who got knocked up as teenagers and make babies like there's no tomorrow (and their lousy ass boyfriends who flip burgers) use my tax money for being bums.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with such a system.
Handy? Yes. But you don't have a job where you go to new cities on a weekly basis and drive around trying to find a new place.
Secondly, sure I can find my way around Boston with a map. With the way people there drive, the fact that half the streets have no signs and the new signs for the other half are so damn confusing, I gave up. I grew tired of getting lost (damn rotaries) and just got myself a GPS. Now, my life is peaceful and the GPS is probably one of the best investments ever.
Eh? Most smartphone GPSes do not work everywhere, compared to a standalone GPS. Secondly, good luck trying to drive in a city like Boston without a GPS - and good luck going on a long trip with the risk of your battery running out (compared to a car GPS with comes with a car charger). I pretty much have to stop using the phone and use only the GPS feature, which defeats the purpose of a phone.
And some of us travel so often that it is a lot easier to have a GPS with us in our laptop bags. You never know when you'll need it...
I do not know, if you've been living in your same little bubble suburb for all your life and go to the same job, then it is possible that a GPS could be irrelevant. Otherwise? The ones on the phones don't even come close.
The real problem is that stocks are a legalized ponzi sceheme and should be done away with entirely, it's basically a ponzi scheme through abstraction using machiens so you don't see the other people trying to fuck one another over for personal gain.
Ah, the Slashdot school of finance.
Investment is different from speculation which is different from mere gambling.
Securities themselves are the problem they allow the wealthy to suck wealth out of society on unprecedented scales in a legal way that is entirely suspect to begin with. If we could get rid of things like securities and credit default swaps, savings would probably pay pay a hell of a lot better. Trading is just too enticing for those that have the mega bucks and quite rankly it's a drag on the real economy.
Of course. Who wants to invest in companies? Let them all go to hell, I say!/snark
James Mill wanted his son to carry on the mantle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy, and John is probably one of the greatest philosophers of our times.
So, there is no reason you cannot do both - James Mill was a great thinker in his own right (as was Jeremy Bentham); and them raising John the way they did created a true genius.
If only everyone raised their kids thus... imagine how far humanity would go.
Oh that's not true. My job lets me live just about anywhere I want in North America. I just choose to live in the East Coast and in New England because -- get this -- I like it here.
And I know that if I moved to Maine, or Arizona, or Hicksville, Kansas, I could get a bigger place. But that's not the point. I like being in a real city that's great to live in, and that's got great weather and lots of interesting things to do. And I *really* don't care about a place that's way bigger than I'll ever need it to be. I can never relate to the fascination with large living spaces.
I mean, people have two apartments for a reason. You can have a smaller, more convenient one for the week and a slightly bigger one out in the suburbs for the weekends. Even if I do have kids, there is no reason they cannot be raised in a condo.
Now don't get me wrong - I like Austin, and would like it more, if the temperature were about 40 degrees lower (anything more than 70 f is hot in my book).
But the truth is, there are only a handful of good cities in the US and they are all expensive (New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco -- you get the idea).
1. We earned it (can you see my sense of entitlement here?). 2. We fly more, and pay more. So, we pay the airline (and consequently the airport) more. 3. Business travelers and frequently fliers account for the vast majority of airline (and consequently airport) revenue - we keep them in business. 4. If you think it's bad for the casual traveler, it's much worse for those of us who endure this several times a week - imagine the delays, TSA encounters and putting up with idiots like you. 5. Everyone likes special treatment - the only reason you're complaining is because you're being left out.
I also particularly enjoy my frequent flier status when at the last minute, I usurp some poor bloke at the counter who's waiting for standby for a while.
Airline travel sucks. It sucks more for those of us who do it often. So, there's no reason we shouldn't enjoy the few perks that come with flying often.
Pray, tell us, what would have been your alternative to our current economic predicament?
Because most alternatives I've heard include one or more of the following - let them all fail (which really isn't realistic, as anyone who understands basic economics would attest to), we shouldn't have gotten here in the first place (well, duh - but that doesn't help solve the current predicament) or something equally idiotic.
TARP isn't the greatest of solutions, but it is a viable solution.
How do you know there weren't any banks making loans?
To each other. You know, things like counterparties and debt obligations.
When the news told you they weren't making loans, did you find out which they were talking about? Were businesses looking for loans in the first place? OR were businesses interested in shoring up their own books before getting more loans?
Well, how about the fact that a lot businesses need credit to survive even on a daily basis? You borrow and pay your rent for the month on day 1, hoping that you'll have a job to pay for the rent through the end of the month.
Yes, some were definitely taking advantage of the situation - but so what? Hell, at current interest rates, I would be too.
This is all past tense, "were", how do you know businesses want loans now? Home prices haven't gone up, so shouldn't they be in the same situation?
What the hell are you talking about? Non sequitur if I ever saw one. But carry on. You seem to be having a blast anyway.
Apple could always make the argument that prematurely alarming the investors wouldn't be in the best interest of the company.
This will easily fly, especially given that Apple is one of those companies that are frequently shorted on rumors (remember the short clip of Cramer talking about how easy it is to short Apple?).
Yes, and to quote a friend, the only two good things in Dallas are good restaurants and good strip clubs.
To me, a 1000 sq ft apartment is plenty big. If I had a house, I'd have to worry about a garage, about garbage disposal, doing my laundry, gym and pool membership, maintenance and ad infinitum. An apartment or a condo? Compact, and all those amenities are usually part of the package. Hell, the place in Cambridge is 400 sq ft and that in itself works just fine.
Besides, it's not just the summer (and honestly, I'd rather spend all 12 months having a Boston winter than a single week of Dallas summer). Dallas just looks and feels very superficial. You can perceive character and depth to some cities, and I don't feel that in Dallas.
Boston has age and character, and there are a ton of things to do - art galleries, museums, book stores, music concerts, public libraries, sailing, climbing etc. Hell, if you are still bored, just take a train to New York over the weekend. I mean, there are *things* to do. This is probably one of the few places where if you walked into a book store in Cambridge, the guy working there could offer you a discourse on Jean Paul Sartre or John Stuart Mill or a barista talk to you about theoretical comp sci (real incidents both).
Boston (and specifically Cambridge) also feels very, very entrepreneurial. A lot of my friends doing startups, using their graduate thesis to get seed funding, working for VCs etc. And there is a lot of youthful energetic feel, which is inspiring - and which reminds me of the Silicon Valley.
Hell, even the bumper stickers tell me more - one place is full of religious mumbo jumbo and right-wing political stickers, while the other has bumper stickers along the lines of "I stop for aliens!". Go figure.
I have had to take several early morning flights in Cincinnati, and sometimes the lines do get crowded and long. It may not be as long as the Delta terminal one, but long nonetheless.
Anyway, that's besides the point - as a frequent flier, I want to stick to one airline for my miles and frequent flier status. The moment you start switching airlines, you lose all the perks that come with flying (e.g. free upgrades, free tickets, free checked in luggage etc).
Clear, by sticking to a single terminal, was subjecting their passengers to a terminal (and consequently an airline) of their choice, and not that of their customers'. Worse yet, there was no way for a customer to go through Clear to one terminal and switch to another (i.e. go through the Delta terminal and go to Terminal 2).
And Cincinnati is only an example. Given the fact that several airports did not support Clear and given their "preferential terminal" treatment, why would someone want to shell money for a half-baked program?
If they'd supported domestic airports in 90+% of all US cities across all terminals, then they had a better chance. Otherwise? Meh.
What are you talking about? My girlfriend and I split out time between our places in Cambridge and Quincy, and a spacious 1000 sq ft apartment in the latter is less than $1500/month to rent. And it's only a mile from the train station, about ten minutes (bike ride) from the beach and you don't have to drive anywhere.
And Quincy isn't the only one - Boston has several great neighborhoods where houses aren't that expensive.
It's not my place to comment on your personal preferences; however it is hard to balance out opportunity and facilities versus urban sprawl. Suburbia in the US has a bad reputation for a reason. Personally, even if I have kids, I would much rather live in a condo in a big city (and have a house out in the country for the weekends) than anything else.
Boston traffic is bad, yes, but you also have great public transportation. And it is no worse than any other big city in the US. As far as weather goes, I'm spending this week in Dallas, TX and let me tell you - I miss the weather in Boston so badly. Right now, it's 65 F with a mild drizzle and winds in Boston, compared to 100F and blinding heat in Dallas. Of course, New England weather (like Seattle or Oregon weather) is an acquired taste. I personally prefer the cool, windy and rainy weather over the alternative, so I love Boston weather.
Great schools, excellent job (and education) opportunities, good startups and VCs (especially tech and in the Cambridge area), great food and diversity, beaches that are short drives away, great public transportation, easy access by train or road to a lot of other places in the New England/NY area, plenty of outdoorsy activities etc.
And of course, good scenic weather (if you're into the New England weather) and a landscape that's mostly lush green and beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are picking out liberal arts courses from an Ivy league education, you are missing the entire point of one.
There was a time when I felt that all humanities and social science courses were lacking in substance, as well. However, over the years, I have learnt to appreciate them better to the point that I am pursuing graduate education in the social sciences. I am amused at you talking about "fluffy" liberal arts prerequisites; however, I would argue that most of what passes for IT today is fluff in and of itself (unless you are talking about subjects in CS or CE).
The point is, a liberal arts education teaches you about the world around you. Art, history, civics, law, religion, philosophy, literature and so on. It is supposed to be a broadening experience, aimed at making you a better rounded individual. In contrast, most technical education is vocational in nature - it is aimed at getting you to be good at doing something and getting a job. Quite obviously, this is a generalization and would not apply to those pursuing graduate education in specific focus areas, but you get the idea.
It is often said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Given the amazing lack of civic education and history, it is no wonder that we are where we are today. After all, who needs a thinking populace when you can create an army of skilled (I use that word loosely, of course) laborers.
Makes a (I was going to say solid) case for a solid state drive, eh?
I mean, the more you decrease your moving parts the better.
What do you have against kids? =)
Aye. I could never understand the need to multitask, and instead prefer to just do one task at a time. Of course, I do catch a lot of flak from colleagues and friends because I refuse to do more than one thing at a time.
In fact, I cannot understand folks that listen to music and work -- I do like having my headphones on, but that's only because it blocks out the external noise that's distracting.
Sadly, I'm probably in the wrong line of business since my job does require a lot of social interaction and I get pulled every which way (and having headphones on when I work is the surest way to grab attention the wrong way). But even then, I prefer to dedicate my time to any one thing that I'll be doing.
Except fiddling with my phone in boring meetings, of course.
That's what she said, too!
Ridiculous, not rediculous. Retard starts with re; ridiculous starts with ri.
Dude, fantastic comment.
Classic.
Context, dude, context. We're talking about loving a woman - not kids or parents.
Gee. Get a fucking clue.
I ignored most of the stuff, but let me just say that love without lust is pointless (at least in a relationship). Now don't get me wrong, I don't necessary disagree with your definition - it's just that the true love as you paint is a little too platonic for my liking. Love, lust, greed and infatuation are all very closely tied.
I've been dating my fiancé for almost 4 years, and "true love" is a textbook abstraction. It's the dressing that makes the salad delicious.
Countdown to the next poster from the "Slashdot School of Mathematics" stating that correlation does not equal causation...
5.4..3...2....1...
Unfortunately, I'd argue that that's far from the truth.
Anecdotal example - both my fiancé and I are quite well educated, and from top tier schools. We're well traveled, well read and in our mid/late twenties. We are not planning on having kids anytime soon because of a variety of reasons (she'd like to go to med school/grad school, I'd like to go to b-school, we'd like to buy a house and settle down before having a family etc).
Contrast this with her sister, who dropped out of college, got knocked up and has 3 kids, lives with her parents and is married to an equally useless guy collecting unemployment benefits -- and tax benefits because she has kids.
I, on the other hand, pay ridiculously high taxes because I was smart enough to make money in a down market. The price that I pay for being intelligent and hard working is high taxes. And the idiots who got knocked up as teenagers and make babies like there's no tomorrow (and their lousy ass boyfriends who flip burgers) use my tax money for being bums.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with such a system.
Handy? Yes. But you don't have a job where you go to new cities on a weekly basis and drive around trying to find a new place.
Secondly, sure I can find my way around Boston with a map. With the way people there drive, the fact that half the streets have no signs and the new signs for the other half are so damn confusing, I gave up. I grew tired of getting lost (damn rotaries) and just got myself a GPS. Now, my life is peaceful and the GPS is probably one of the best investments ever.
I have a Blackberry. And why carry around a phone and a car charger when I can carry around a GPS with no charger.
The GPS on the phone eats through the battery; in comparison, the standalone GPS literally lasts several hours with no need for recharge.
And if I need to use both at the same time, I am out of luck. They are separate devices, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Eh? Most smartphone GPSes do not work everywhere, compared to a standalone GPS. Secondly, good luck trying to drive in a city like Boston without a GPS - and good luck going on a long trip with the risk of your battery running out (compared to a car GPS with comes with a car charger). I pretty much have to stop using the phone and use only the GPS feature, which defeats the purpose of a phone.
And some of us travel so often that it is a lot easier to have a GPS with us in our laptop bags. You never know when you'll need it...
I do not know, if you've been living in your same little bubble suburb for all your life and go to the same job, then it is possible that a GPS could be irrelevant. Otherwise? The ones on the phones don't even come close.
Ah, the Slashdot school of finance.
Investment is different from speculation which is different from mere gambling.
Of course. Who wants to invest in companies? Let them all go to hell, I say! /snark
Or you could do both - John Stuart Mill is the perfect example.
James Mill wanted his son to carry on the mantle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy, and John is probably one of the greatest philosophers of our times.
So, there is no reason you cannot do both - James Mill was a great thinker in his own right (as was Jeremy Bentham); and them raising John the way they did created a true genius.
If only everyone raised their kids thus... imagine how far humanity would go.
Oh that's not true. My job lets me live just about anywhere I want in North America. I just choose to live in the East Coast and in New England because -- get this -- I like it here.
And I know that if I moved to Maine, or Arizona, or Hicksville, Kansas, I could get a bigger place. But that's not the point. I like being in a real city that's great to live in, and that's got great weather and lots of interesting things to do. And I *really* don't care about a place that's way bigger than I'll ever need it to be. I can never relate to the fascination with large living spaces.
I mean, people have two apartments for a reason. You can have a smaller, more convenient one for the week and a slightly bigger one out in the suburbs for the weekends. Even if I do have kids, there is no reason they cannot be raised in a condo.
Now don't get me wrong - I like Austin, and would like it more, if the temperature were about 40 degrees lower (anything more than 70 f is hot in my book).
But the truth is, there are only a handful of good cities in the US and they are all expensive (New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco -- you get the idea).
Here's why:
1. We earned it (can you see my sense of entitlement here?).
2. We fly more, and pay more. So, we pay the airline (and consequently the airport) more.
3. Business travelers and frequently fliers account for the vast majority of airline (and consequently airport) revenue - we keep them in business.
4. If you think it's bad for the casual traveler, it's much worse for those of us who endure this several times a week - imagine the delays, TSA encounters and putting up with idiots like you.
5. Everyone likes special treatment - the only reason you're complaining is because you're being left out.
I also particularly enjoy my frequent flier status when at the last minute, I usurp some poor bloke at the counter who's waiting for standby for a while.
Airline travel sucks. It sucks more for those of us who do it often. So, there's no reason we shouldn't enjoy the few perks that come with flying often.
Ah, yes. The Slashdot school of economics.
Pray, tell us, what would have been your alternative to our current economic predicament?
Because most alternatives I've heard include one or more of the following - let them all fail (which really isn't realistic, as anyone who understands basic economics would attest to), we shouldn't have gotten here in the first place (well, duh - but that doesn't help solve the current predicament) or something equally idiotic.
TARP isn't the greatest of solutions, but it is a viable solution.
Yes, because it is called a credit crunch for no apparent reason. And oh, I do not know, data published by the Fed? Or the fact that business are dying by the dozen because they couldn't find creditors? I mean, another well known company just shut down a couple of days ago because its creditors refused to lend it any more money. But it's all our imagination, I'm sure.
To each other. You know, things like counterparties and debt obligations.
Well, how about the fact that a lot businesses need credit to survive even on a daily basis? You borrow and pay your rent for the month on day 1, hoping that you'll have a job to pay for the rent through the end of the month.
Yes, some were definitely taking advantage of the situation - but so what? Hell, at current interest rates, I would be too.
What the hell are you talking about? Non sequitur if I ever saw one. But carry on. You seem to be having a blast anyway.
Little to none, I'd imagine.
Apple could always make the argument that prematurely alarming the investors wouldn't be in the best interest of the company.
This will easily fly, especially given that Apple is one of those companies that are frequently shorted on rumors (remember the short clip of Cramer talking about how easy it is to short Apple?).
So, no. Either way, Apple will have a good case.
Yes, and to quote a friend, the only two good things in Dallas are good restaurants and good strip clubs.
To me, a 1000 sq ft apartment is plenty big. If I had a house, I'd have to worry about a garage, about garbage disposal, doing my laundry, gym and pool membership, maintenance and ad infinitum. An apartment or a condo? Compact, and all those amenities are usually part of the package. Hell, the place in Cambridge is 400 sq ft and that in itself works just fine.
Besides, it's not just the summer (and honestly, I'd rather spend all 12 months having a Boston winter than a single week of Dallas summer). Dallas just looks and feels very superficial. You can perceive character and depth to some cities, and I don't feel that in Dallas.
Boston has age and character, and there are a ton of things to do - art galleries, museums, book stores, music concerts, public libraries, sailing, climbing etc. Hell, if you are still bored, just take a train to New York over the weekend. I mean, there are *things* to do. This is probably one of the few places where if you walked into a book store in Cambridge, the guy working there could offer you a discourse on Jean Paul Sartre or John Stuart Mill or a barista talk to you about theoretical comp sci (real incidents both).
Boston (and specifically Cambridge) also feels very, very entrepreneurial. A lot of my friends doing startups, using their graduate thesis to get seed funding, working for VCs etc. And there is a lot of youthful energetic feel, which is inspiring - and which reminds me of the Silicon Valley.
Hell, even the bumper stickers tell me more - one place is full of religious mumbo jumbo and right-wing political stickers, while the other has bumper stickers along the lines of "I stop for aliens!". Go figure.
I have had to take several early morning flights in Cincinnati, and sometimes the lines do get crowded and long. It may not be as long as the Delta terminal one, but long nonetheless.
Anyway, that's besides the point - as a frequent flier, I want to stick to one airline for my miles and frequent flier status. The moment you start switching airlines, you lose all the perks that come with flying (e.g. free upgrades, free tickets, free checked in luggage etc).
Clear, by sticking to a single terminal, was subjecting their passengers to a terminal (and consequently an airline) of their choice, and not that of their customers'. Worse yet, there was no way for a customer to go through Clear to one terminal and switch to another (i.e. go through the Delta terminal and go to Terminal 2).
And Cincinnati is only an example. Given the fact that several airports did not support Clear and given their "preferential terminal" treatment, why would someone want to shell money for a half-baked program?
If they'd supported domestic airports in 90+% of all US cities across all terminals, then they had a better chance. Otherwise? Meh.
Umm, sure. Tell that to the South American football teams.
What are you talking about? My girlfriend and I split out time between our places in Cambridge and Quincy, and a spacious 1000 sq ft apartment in the latter is less than $1500/month to rent. And it's only a mile from the train station, about ten minutes (bike ride) from the beach and you don't have to drive anywhere.
And Quincy isn't the only one - Boston has several great neighborhoods where houses aren't that expensive.
It's not my place to comment on your personal preferences; however it is hard to balance out opportunity and facilities versus urban sprawl. Suburbia in the US has a bad reputation for a reason. Personally, even if I have kids, I would much rather live in a condo in a big city (and have a house out in the country for the weekends) than anything else.
Boston traffic is bad, yes, but you also have great public transportation. And it is no worse than any other big city in the US. As far as weather goes, I'm spending this week in Dallas, TX and let me tell you - I miss the weather in Boston so badly. Right now, it's 65 F with a mild drizzle and winds in Boston, compared to 100F and blinding heat in Dallas. Of course, New England weather (like Seattle or Oregon weather) is an acquired taste. I personally prefer the cool, windy and rainy weather over the alternative, so I love Boston weather.
Boston is one of the best places to live.
Great schools, excellent job (and education) opportunities, good startups and VCs (especially tech and in the Cambridge area), great food and diversity, beaches that are short drives away, great public transportation, easy access by train or road to a lot of other places in the New England/NY area, plenty of outdoorsy activities etc.
And of course, good scenic weather (if you're into the New England weather) and a landscape that's mostly lush green and beautiful.