Eh, there are the idiots who flunked out because they were incapable. They're flipping burgers now.

Then there are the smart ones who did a cost/benefit analysis. Even the Engineering professors told us straight up in Intro to Engineering, management is where the money is. They split off into things like MIS, did about a tenth of the work the Engineers do, and have job prospects nearly as good as we do.

It's economic realities like that drawing a lot of the best and brightest away from Engineering.

I'm graduating in may from a BSEE program, and I must say this is largely correct. Calculus and physics courses from freshman and sophmore year were largely sink-or-swim where about half the class would drop before we even reached the halfway point of the term. They had more students sign up then they had capacity to teach, so weeding out students was the explicit purpose of those classes, to the point where we'd lose 50% or more by halfway through the term, and of the half that remained, a fair number still failed.

Unnecessary homework load is the prime culprit. Freshman and Sophmore level classes will routinely assign homework where you'll learn how to solve a particular kind of problem the first time, and then repeat it with minor alterations another dozen times. Compare this to Junior and Senior level classes where we'll get three very difficult problems, and that's it. Additional studying or examples can be done at the student's discretion.

Since every class is loading you down with the same level of unnecessary busywork, you're inevitably so swamped that you stop sleeping, lose out on any kind of social life, and tear your hair out from the stress. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if I'm the stupid one for sticking with it, when I could have just said, "Fuck it," and coasted through a business major without even trying like several of my peers ended up doing.

You answered your own question there.

But you seem pretty bad at basic logic, so I don't want to hear your explaination anymore.

Explain it to me then, how does this lawsuit make any sense whatsoever?

Are you saying this is an example of the system functioning as intended?

Because that's even worse than if GP is correct.

Probably propaganda, I'd imagine whoever wrote it was comparing the weakest coffee they could find to the strongest Mountain Dew they ever sold, which would be in line with the "twice the caffeine" based on that list.

Arguable, It depends on the brand of coffee you're drinking, according to The first link I could find on the subject

Caffeine yes. It certainly applies to coffee, you'd need to drink an awful lot of soda to experience anything.

Get addicted enough to the stuff, then stop cold turkey. You get a bitchin' headache for a few days.

It's really mild compared to what I hear smokers go through, but it's still an addiction.

Claymores would be a bit more effective against Zombies than Frag Grenades. Claymores operate much like a very large shotgun shell, sending hundreds of steel BB's in a single directed blast. Optimizing for head level is a simple matter of setting them up in slightly more creative ways than normal, with the added advantage of zombies being mindless enough to walk into whatever trap you've got set up even if it's in plain sight.

Zombies with their legs blown off are still effectively incapacitated. Surprised or heavily wounded humans might get taken down, but a surprised or heavily wounded survivor is going to get taken down by healthy zombies in the near future regardless.

You could have just written:

10 A BOOT STOMPING
20 A HUMAN FACE
30 GOTO 10

He's arguing that all of the trends you observed are not unique to the past half-century, but is more likely following a cycle that we can observe having happened many times in the past.

Implicitly, this means while it might even be getting worse right now, counter-cultural trends will push towards increased economic mobility.

I would argue that this is a result of a large number of people who would have been capable of economic mobility in a "good" part of the cycle who are being denied the opportunity due to unfair societal conditions. As a result, those capable persons will do whatever it takes to attempt to create a better society for themselves, changing society so other people like them can have a similar shot.

Difficult to say, it's an option I routinely suggest to younger or unemployed friends, but very few seem interested in it.

Also, the job market for trades seems somewhat inconsistent. All I really have are anecdotes, but here goes:

I've got one friend who became certified in welding under the impression it would virtually guarantee him a job, and has been relocating every few months as the jobs dry up in one place, and open up in another.

Another friend has been taking 6-10 week specialized trade courses, working full time for about a year after that, and then finding out those trade skills aren't needed anymore - but there's another 6-10 week course she can take to get an entirely different job. I honestly can't tell if it's an elaborate scam or not.

Eh, I disagree, the founders of the US were wealthy landowners, the 1% of their time, but they were raging against an even more powerful centralized authority (the king) who had the power to trample the rights of the wealthy. It's very likely what they meant by the bill of rights was that those rights were for the wealthy, and everyone else could piss off.

What they didn't foresee is the possibility that anyone besides the wealthy would ever have papers and effects worthy of being unreasonably searched, or that the poor would be sufficiently educated and enfranchised to demand their rights be respected the same way wealthy peoples rights were respected.

Nowadays, being wealthy ensures any given right you wish to have is respected - so there's a push by the wealthy to limit or remove rights granted to everyone. They continue to enjoy rights by virtue of great wealth making them untouchable, and everyone else stops hiding behind those pesky laws that were never intended to protect the common people in the first place.

The reason the speed of light is an unbreakable barrier is because it would take theoretically infinite energy to accelerate anything past the speed of light. It's the place in the equation where the equations break down into infinity, and we can't predict exactly what's going on.

If there's evidence that the speed of light isn't an absolute barrier, it means our current understanding of relativity is wrong.

If magnetic material (like, in a Hard Drive) is moving inside a static magnetic field, it'll produce a current. That'd probably be enough to wreak havoc on a hard drive.