Have you ever gone more than 5 days without food?
Do you think you could prevent yourself from gorging yourself if you were starving?
Your assumption that this is just a "willpower" thing is pretty skewed. It's willpower in the sense of ascetic monks who live on top of a pole for years at a stretch kind of dealio we're talking about. Modern living doesn't exactly make that common place.

Uncharted?

Law school loves people who have degrees like theater, psych, etc. Why? Because they can teach you all the law crap, it's your background that makes you interesting.

My brother (straight out of a liberal arts college) got a job at a competitive company that used a language he'd never touched before. Why? Because they were willing to take the time to train him. It seems to be less about being trained in the field than it is about having the essential skills to work in the kind of environment that a 4 year degree institute provides (presumably more pressure, more varied, and, yes, the culture/social status aspects are definitely a factor.) Teaching programming languages is useful, yeah, but programming languages go away. They want someone who is versatile. The presumption is that someone who didn't go to college doesn't have the basic degree of mental training that a college grad does.

My comments are talking about people straight out of whatever program, not after they've been in the field a while.

Not newtonian physics. First law of thermodynamics.

Nope. All that heat has to go somewhere. As hell freezes, Earth burns. Thermodynamics, woo. Unless hell is adiabatic. In which case I'm royally screwed. As is the first law.

... Wrong. Please read up on economics. His point is quite valid. No one "deserves" to get paid. The only reason you get paid is because the other party sees that as the only viable way to get what they want. (example: they could steal it from you. but then there might be repercussions when your village raids their village. so they buy it. or maybe you're not part of a village. so they steal it and kill you. except they can't get the goods from anyone else, so they pay you to continue producing what they want.) You say that your argument is logical. I put it to you that you don't know what logic is. It is a formalized way of expressing things that follows very strict rules. For instance, given that A > B and A B. That is logic. "creating a product" does not imply "you deserve payment". It has only taken on this meaning due to our culture and a type of cost-benefit analysis whereby we decided that civilization was better than anarchy.

So you think the writers are doing the suing? (Hint: RIAA does not produce content. They distribute it.)

... His point was that the CSS file is downloaded once, and then works for all pages on that site. It's faster to download one 100KB file than 100 files of 100KB. That's why CSS is a good thing. Duh.

He might mean the relative speed of rendering between chrome and firefox? Not sure.

Care to enlighten us, then?

I laughed.

++ Mod Up, if I could.

That being said, they're not fearmongering his name. At least, no reputable political figure uses it much any more. These days most of the discussion seems rather eggheaded, to me. Which is good.

Actually, there's one way that your theory works. Set fertilizer = 0.

Whoosh.