fecklessyouth

As an ignorant observer, I feel like the Silicon Valley has to avoid becoming Wall Street--billions of dollars given to geniuses to make a profit while filling an existing but trivial need that truly helps a small portion of the population.

You might want to clarify the results. The best intro book for Javscript http://bestintrobook.com/books/javascript

Begins with, "this is not for beginners." It's for already programmers.

You're right, but there's a sliding scale of rights, which can't be better demonstrated better than in 1A law. The way that the scale, and many other gray areas of rights, is determined, is greatly influenced by morality.

I agree with you more than most people in this thread. It's easy to turn our noses at "community values," but their absence, I think, can explain a lot of problems in this country.

Last fall I did my uni moot court competition, and the case was a (simplified) version of this.

What the case came down to was whether violence can be treated the same way as sex. Ginsberg v. NY, a case from the 60s, gave an exception to the normal obscenity test--media could be regulated if it depicted sex and was sold to minors. Ginsberg v. NY, however, didn't touch on violence, and the issue was whether Ginsberg v. NY is content-specific, and only limited to sex, or whether the fact that that decision hinges upon harm done to youth means that other media that harm youth, ie, through exposure to violence, can be included in the exception. And, as you guys may guess, the trouble comes from the fact that damage can't really be shown.

That being said, if it was ruled Constitutional, I wouldn't have a problem with this law. Community values should reinforce parental values. There is a reach to what parents can do and control, everyone knows that.

Condensing constitutional law to the question of "legislating morality" is an incredible oversimplification. Of course the government legislates morality. That's why it's illegal to kill someone, make CP, and put certain context in broadcast media. The government is concerned with more than simply reducing social harm, which is often trumpeted as the opposite role of government instead of "legislating morality."

The real question is, can the government legislate this morality? How much protection is the legislated-upon action given by the Constitution, and how restrictive is that actual legislation?

I don't think the students who miss out of high school history are the ones watching this video.

Traditional "Great Books" academia, or even the liberal arts, has never made the claim to produce innovation. It's quite the opposite. They produce students.

>The notion of disruption is not inherently anti-intellectual. The notion that whatever society or structure under discussion has reached a local maximum, and must be torn down somewhat to be built back up is not to say that a society is worthless, or wrong at it's fundament, but rather that sometimes, change is not possible from within.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Tearing down what--books? Schools of thought?

I also have trouble accepting statements about college from someone who attended one for less than a year. I don't think there is a set-in-stone college experience, and it seems from his article that his experience differed sharply from mine.

(The differences between good and bad colleges are, of course, usually missing from these sorts of discussions...I have difficulty taking seriously anyone who can critique or discuss "college" as if it were one monolithic program.)

This article merely proves the point that Thiel's coverage on HN has pounded into the ground: smart, driven kids interested in entrepreneurship don't need college.

What seems to be missing from these kinds of discussions is a focus on what kinds of college programs we should be emulating.

Frankly, neither is most stuff we do on the internet...

"The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling which allows anonymous spending in the campaign finance environment and its impact on elections may be one of the issues triggering this review by the EFF."

Sorry, but what does that have to do with it? The ruling is a 1A issue.

After reading HN comments, I've come to the conclusion that, education bubble aside, you all went to really shitty schools. I can tell because of the emphasis on the degree and technical skills, one of which is useless and the other of which can be gained from other sources. I've learned very few technical, "useful" skills in my schoolwork, outside of external clubs/networking/training I've done through my school. And I would have dropped out first semester if my education's biggest reward was a diploma--my school is basically unknown outside my state.

By these criteria, my education sucks. But it's been the best decision I ever made. I think that in these reoccurring debates, HN is overlooking a broad, challenging, great books-based liberal arts education like the one I'm in. By refusing to teach "technical" skills that are better learned on the job anyway, and instead actually building the strength of the mind, for the sole sake of, as John Newman said, the sake of it, liberal arts places itself in the unique position of external to current industry trends. They'll teach you to learn, and leave the technical training to you once you graduate.

Yet, correct me if I'm wrong, but Adams is advocating an entrepreneurship class. If all he's aiming for are the skills developed in entrepreneurship, why make it a class at all?

>The productivity of virtually every job in the country depends in part on the employee's ability to use a computer.

Don't you think that's somewhat of an overstatement?

"Combine Skills. Fail Forward. Attract Luck. Conquer Fear. Write Simply. Learn Persuasion."

Sorry, but that "education in entrepreneurship" curriculum just looks like a list of skills absolutely anyone should pick up in the natural course of life and career. I understand the need for a useful, technical education, but sometimes I think we overestimate how much useful, technical skills can be gained from classroom instruction v. the real world. This is an argument against mainstream college education as much as it is for a challenging, classical liberal arts degree..despite what Adams writes.

"Ultimately, an impressive college credential from a good college serves to a prospective employer as an extended IQ test, a sort of legal signaling device."

I know this community likes to hate on non-technical college degrees, but the sort of thinking treats "real" liberal arts degrees quite unfairly. Believe it or not, but broad, challenging programs produce a substantial change in the willing student. Like it is often said, the technical knowledge is often better obtained on the job.

I guess I'll leave this here: http://mashable.com/2011/04/01/bob-parsons-elephant-story/

Caution: Ignore if you prefer the stereotype of an exposed rich white game hunter.

It's really not that much trouble to learn how to dress. It's really not. Just subscribe to a couple types of mens' style blogs and you'll become self-sufficient quite quickly:

putthison.com selectism.com gq.com/style/style-guy asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/

I really enjoy HN commentary about Reddit. It's like an audit--a smaller, more focused group offering insight about all the stuff that goes on in the bigger group.

I don't care if you go to Yale. When "getting in is the hardest part about attending an Ivy League school," I have to ask, if the problem the system, or the problem the school?

He later writes: "Most of the foundation in communication, writing, and quantitative reasoning I developed in middle school and high school, and not in college."

That's plain screwed up. If you developed no communication, writing, or quantitative reasoning skills in college, then your college education was a waste of time. But it's because you made an (apparently) crappy decision to go to that college, not college in general.

Here in this thread, and many similar on Reddit, it is often advised to go to a state school or community college, get a technical degree, etc...But we're joking ourselves if we think a technical degree can lead to better reading, writing, or reasoning skills. Of course, if you can develop those on your own, sure, go for the technical degree. But, in this liberal arts student's opinion, the problem with college is that, instead of either studying a pure technical degree, or immersing yourself in the true liberal arts, people go to large state schools and attempt to do both, but end up doing neither.

/rant

I just came here from Reddit, but HuffPo is still my main news source. Most of what I've seen here (and can understand, since I don't have a programming bg) are "make you think" stories, and not a lot of news. Which is completely fine.

Or maybe Jesus rewards those who keep "Christ in Christmas" with higher conversion rates.

"Employee" is probably a better example than "programmer." This topic seems dedicated to workwear as a whole, not a specific field.

Nevertheless, how we present ourselves is inevitably influenced by what other people think of us. The amount of influence differs by situation. Though a programmer might dress in jeans and a T-shirt, he surely combs his hair.

Sure, our perceptions of appropriate dress change by the decade or so. But there's a difference between lowered expectations of what's appropriate (business casual instead of business) and no expectation. I think the later is what you're suggesting, that opinions of us are less influenced by our dress.

The former may be happening; but as others have stated, all fashion is cyclical. The later is, in the absolute sense, impossible. In the relative sense, it may sway, just like fashion, but we will always dress based on what other people will think, even if its to a lesser degree.

Absolutely. The same phase occurred in the 70s, until the power suit was brought back.

I wonder how accurately HN can discuss the general trend from business to casual, considering the heavy concentration in the later.

I hope the last two clothing items were jokes. Though what you wear is somewhat a matter of taste, suits far outpace sweats and t-shirts in portraying a man's body. A nipped waist, slightly padded shoulders, and straight legs will always make a better impression.

I've done like 6 turns and I still get a message about only placing them next to mine for the first turn.

"He flirtatiously fed her bread and cheese,"

First time I read this, I read "pet." It could still be applicable, right?