So I was having a conversation at work the other day, and the topic of protests and the French came up. Everyone had a good laugh, because "haha those French, lost WW2 and go on protesting every weekend, yay freedom fries 'murica".

I'm appalled that when your elected representatives make decisions a large portion of the population decries, there is no sign of disagreement. I'm not suggesting murdering people, but the step before revolution, in a democratic country, should be to let your opinion known and denounce the situation. Which is what the French love to do, since they sparked this entire democracy thing with their revolution (yea, the Greeks, yadda yadda). Send mails to and call your congressmen, but more importantly, organize yourself. Protest it, denounce it, make it known, make it impossible to ignore. That's how you change things.

And if it doesn't? Then you need to admit you stopped living in a democracy, and do whatever is necessary to restore it, if you want democracy back.

+1. The way Dwarves are being treated is racism, pure and simple. :(

Just going to put this up here.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
http://www.newrepublic.com/art...

Not taking sides, just thought these are informative.

Dress pants, for work. Tight jeans, for hipsterism.

You're correct for all situations involving special snowflakes. If you're a superstar coder, recognized by the industry, you can negotiate the terms you want. If you're a salesperson with unparalleled network, you can negotiate the terms you want. If you're Robert Downey Jr, you can negotiate whatever you want.

However, the truth of the matter is:
1. Most of the time you negotiate with HR and not a decision-maker
2. You're not a special snowflake

I'm not saying it never happens, but for the vast majority of the population, it won't. Let's face it, the vast majority of the population is just another cog in the wheel, and entirely replaceable. In a world where the superstars get what they want, and the rest of the population eats dirt, you have raising inequality where a majority of the population suffers. That's not my ideal, and I think it's selfish to think that "people can negotiate what they want because free market yea!"

In a theoretical world you would be correct, but in practice you're wrong. It's very hard to negotiate something out of the norm, which in the US, is vacation time. For example, try negotiating a role as an associate in investment banking while saying "hey cut down 5 weeks of my salary I'll take extra time off." It can't work, because the culture doesn't allow it. You either accept the role with no vacation and high pay, or you don't get hired. I can easily negotiate a couple grands on a salary, but getting an extra week off? Rough.

Also the "market wage" (or "market total compensation package") is highly dependent on the laws regulating it. If every single company in the US was paying you a pittance, with some paying less or more of a pittance, you would technically be "forced" to work for close to nothing because you won't have the choice to do otherwise. That's exactly what's happening with the minimum wage and people with no education. They can't work for themselves because they lack that capacity, and are stuck accepting $7/h because that's the only thing they can have (that, or crime, I guess). It would take extraordinary courage to pay your employees more than "you have to", even if sometimes that's the right thing to do for the company and the country (notice how Seattle isn't dying off right now, and how Ford helped bring a middle-class to America).

I agree, playing video games is not a sport, since it doesn't involve physical prowess.

How is that relevant though? eSports is just a name, but the fact remains that people watch these things, will pay money to watch "live", and advertisers can monetize these eyeballs. That's why it's viewed like "traditional sports". Now you may think people are stupid and are paying money to watch a bunch of dudes clicking on a mouse with fingers on WASD, but hey, people watch a bunch of dudes trying to get an oblong ball from point A to point B. Different activity, same concept, and same result for corporations.

Thanks for posting this, loving the stats.

What I find really interesting is that the difference is so large between men and women, _for the same weight_. When I see a linebacker, I know he's stronger. As a man in a crowd of a mix of men and women, some taller/larger and some smaller/skinnier than me, I don't really feel threatened. However getting the stats, if I were a woman and knew that every single male my size is almost twice as strong as me, and even the ones shorter than me are probably stronger... yea that would be scarier. I can only imagine if everyone is 6'3 and the size of a linebacker, and yep, threats become much more threatening.

Let me say this with simple numbers (the sources are in my original post):

China (in % of the world): Emission: 26.43% Population: 19%
US (in % of the world): Emission: 14.14% Population: 4.44%

Very obviously the US is polluting way more than their fair share. That was in my rant. My rant was about the OP saying China should reduce emissions before the Western world, because the impact of the Western world is minimal (false). My point was that everyone should reduce emissions, but that China at least spends and tries to do research for it, while having a harder time at reducing emissions due to emitting less, per capita, than the Western world. The Western world needs to get off of its butt.

It feels like you have the same exact opinion as me, without the hard numbers with sources, and while expressing your opinion said "I don't really get where you learned math", which is insulting. My math is there, my argument is there, my facts are there, with sources.

D-, good reading effort but not quite there yet.

Next time more facts, less random opinion and insults, and a more logical sequence of arguments (or just, a proper argument).

Blaming developing countries for their development and its externalities feels really unfair, whether it's China or someone else. But let's talk about China, since they are the world's largest emitter of CO2.

China is responsible for a bit more than 25% of the world's emissions. They account for roughly 20% of the world's population, so emitting more than their "fair share." There is no question that China should be reducing emissions and imposing regulations. However, are you taking that as a sign they're going full-throttle with emissions? This came out a few months ago:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-24/china-enacts-biggest-pollution-curbs-in-25-years.html and this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/06/17/china-leads-in-renewable-investment-again/

China accounts for 61% of the spending on renewables, worldwide. Do you think that government, full of ENGINEERS (and corruption...), is stupid? Do you think it doesn't understand that, regardless of the state of the world's climate, it needs to find better sources of energy to reduce the crazy pollution on its territory, give a decent quality of life to its citizens, and more importantly, continue growing unrestrained? There might be a debate in a "democratic" country since you need to cater to your uneducated, conservative electoral base, but not in a single party system when people come from STEM backgrounds. China is doing more on that front than anyone else, because they have to, and they know it. They're also polluting the most, but who do you think manufactures all the goods consumed here?

Now as to your argument that changing the situation in China has a bigger effect than trying to change the situation here, look at that table on wiki showing the world's emissions by country. China does 26.43%, the US, 14.14%, and the EU, 13.33%. Add the Western world together, see how we compare. The US has 320M people, or 4.44% of the world. Google tells me the EU has 742M. US + EU together is about 15% of the world's population (vs 19%), generating 27.47% of the CO2 (vs 26.43%). Where do you think is easier to reduce our carbon footprint, in China or here? What does it tell you when 4.44% of the population generates 3x more than their fair share?

I'll leave this for you, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... Every bit helps, stop blaming other countries and take responsibility as a world leader (unless you're only interested in being a leader in the military and invasion of privacy front, which is what the rest of the world sees).

Now don't even get me started on how many resources are spent on growing meat vs vegetables.

Thanks for the link, found it very interesting. To me it appears most large companies have average salaries in the 80k+ range for H1B, and most of the 50-60k companies are either small, Indian (sorry, calling it like I see it), or universities/non-profits, in which I can assume the average salary is already way lower.

Also keep in mind not all H1Bs are software developers, and might not commend such a high salary in the first place, so.. I don't see anything that unusual, frankly.

Fully agree with everyone needing to know personal finance. Home economics is not personal finance, and covers many more areas. Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

As for your advices though, some are dangerous generalizations.

A credit card, when repaid in full monthly, builds your credit history and gives you a good credit score. Often times they also come with a cashback or a loyalty points program, which means it's more advantageous for you to be using it (not to mention your money stays in the bank and accrues interest for a bit longer).
Paying your house in full, as another poster mentions, is sometimes beneficial. Both to decrease interests payments when interests are really high and to build an asset you can capitalize for future investments.
The amount you need to invest for retirement is entirely dependent on your personal situation. A 10% yardstick gives people a number, but they should really find out what _they_ need.

Other than that, completely agree.

... Wow, curiosity is really not your forte, is it? Yes, this is a direct ad hominem, but hey it's more justified than calling someone out on their penis (funny joke right there, btw, classy.).

"Because it's there and we haven't been/know close to nothing about it" is a _perfectly_ good answer. This is science we're talking about, and raw research and exploration don't need another reason.

What's the solution? Not chase after him? Chase after him following speed limits and thus losing him?

The OP has a good point, it's technically better to deploy a helicopter. The problem is how long will it take to call for and have that helicopter chasing the car, and will you have lost all traces of it by then? Assuming the car stops on the side of the road then, without a car chasing it, are you going to then land the helicopter and arrest him, and how many people are in that helicopter in the first place? How much does it cost to field a helicopter, how many were available, and what were the chances of a real high-speed pursuit?

Those are just questions I have, but with my current lack of knowledge and information, I assume a car chase is the most practical thing they can do if they don't want to let a criminal go, even if they have to call in reinforcements (flying or otherwise).