amh

I think most scientific progress happens in spite of the academic system, and not because of it. In some ways the old system of patronage was superior -- you had a direct connection between a king or wealthy merchant who had an interest in something, and the scientists who needed funding to investigate it, instead of a vast bureaucracy that probably consumes more than the total amount it exists to allocate.

Although, there's definitely value in getting help from specialists in certain areas (estate planning, taxes).

There's no substitute for doing your own reading and research. Some good authors to start with are John Bogle, Larry Swedroe, Rick Ferri, Peter Bernstein, Nassim Taleb, William Bernstein, Burton Malkiel, Harry Browne. Don't invest in anything you don't understand, and don't trust any investing concept that can't be explained to you in 5-10 minutes.

The learning process should take you at least 6 months. Whenever you think you've got it figured out (most financial authors present their ideas in a very convincing, absolutist way), keep reading, because the next book might change your mind. In the meantime, put your money in a safe place -- bank CDs or short-term Treasurys -- and don't touch it.

In certain highly restricted domains (typically embedded systems), liability for bugs becomes somewhat more realistic.

Seriously? This would never in a million years have crossed my mind as a reason to avoid using something.

http://code.google.com/p/acme-sac/

For those who are enamored with gold and want to invest conservatively, I would look at something like the Permanent Portfolio (http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2008/12/22/permanent-portfolio-...) Not how I would invest personally, but the PP isn't an unreasonable approach.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that distinguishes this obsession from a WoW habit is that more people like to watch football, so it's accepted.

People who get seriously addicted to WoW are usually either looking for any escape from reality, or they have the type of personality which tends to get addicted to something, whether it's online games, math puzzles, tracking railroad schedules, or whatever. There's no question that these people might act in unhealthy ways, but WoW is the symptom of their problems, not the cause.

(disclosure: I used to play WoW regularly)

I'm not against camelcase and its variants, but there are a wide variety of naming standards using caps, it's quite possible to get mixed up between them and introduce ambiguity or worse (referring to the wrong variable).

Unfortunately, without an alternate fork of reality to try the experiment, we'll never know. But the idea that because something was developed using government funds, it could never have been developed without them, is a logical fallacy.

See, the thing about dating sites is: women are in demand, men are not. When you're in a superior bargaining position, it's a lot easier to be picky. So women don't give a second thought about discarding profiles for even the most superficial reasons. Interacting in person gives you a chance to cut through that and sell your good qualities without having to pass a bunch of filters first.

The dollar may not enter a hyperinflationary death spiral as some believe it will, but its days as the default world reserve currency appear to be fading fast.

Then again, it might scare you off. Maybe it's just that CA is particularly bad, I dunno.

The general prosperity of society is built up by an uncountable number of these successes and rewards. Hand-wringing about whether your own contribution would be possible absent all the prior contributions is putting the cart before the horse. You aren't illicitly skimming profits from society, you're making valuable contributions in your own right.

Fact is, government employees can choose to work elsewhere. But as a citizen I'm stuck with my government. That's why you won't see much sympathy for law enforcement in these situations.

Innovations in design and manufacturing tend to dovetail and drive each other. Doing both under one roof reaps more of a benefit from that dynamic.

There is also a historical argument. The most prosperous, successful countries have had a large industrial base. That doesn't necessarily mean one requires the other, but it does suggest a strong linkage.

Yes, the world would be a nicer place if people were more understanding, kind, and polite. I have yet to hear any realistic plan for making that happen, and the issue of making CS more "accessible" has been a talking point for over a decade with no results.

But I think you are giving the consumer way too much of a free pass for their own misbehavior. I'm not completely without sympathy for people who are honestly having a hard time paying for the essentials of life. But what about the people who finance a new car because a 10 year old used econo-box would be beneath them? The people who buy expensive packaged foods instead of cooking from cheaper raw ingredients? People who have a satellite dish on their doublewide? As evidenced by the recent increase in savings rates, US consumers have the ability to cut back when they need to.

As for getting "snookered" into mortgages, who the hell makes the biggest purchase of their lives based on a 5 minute sales pitch without doing any research or considering what happens when the ARM resets? I'll give a 90 year old grandma a pass for getting snookered by fraud, but some people are just plain careless with their money and mostly deserve the consequences for making bad decisions. That's not a popular viewpoint in the current environment, but the alternative leads straight to "too big to fail" and taxpayer funded corporate losses.

Saving early is more important than saving a lot. That's the magic of compound interest.

Even during the recent recession, inflation has been very much under control. So I'm not sure what "stagnant wages" have to do with anything.

I think some people here don't grasp the seriousness of the US government's financial situation, and how much it worsens the longer the recent status quo is maintained.

The point of the comparison is that if we're basing how much someone deserves their windfall by the tax rates, then the message being sent is that eating Fritos and playing the lottery is a more acceptable way to earn a fortune than generations of savings and investment.

Estate taxes are morally repugnant. If the idea of people passing along large fortunes to bratty kids is so bothersome, take comfort in the fact that money tends to "find its level". Spendthrift fools will eventually lose it all to mismanagement anyway. It might take more than one generation, but it'll happen.

acme is interesting but I'm not convinced that switching so often between the mouse and keyboard is any better when it comes to RSI. Guess I'll have to try it for a couple weeks.