Regulatory capture in action, news at 11.

The government needs to collect some money to provide essential services so it needs to have some taxes. Taxes discourage whatever behavior the tax is applied to. If you tax employing people, less people will be employed. If you tax cigarettes, people will buy less cigarettes. If you have to tax something, you may as well tax behaviors you want to discourage instead of behaviors you want to encourage. Pollution is a good candidate because it has negative third party effects that can be hard to quantify and its reduction benefits everyone. Using a tax provides incentives that will drive the market in a direction we want, regulations tend to arbitrarily restrict things based on what a small committee of industry placed people decree.

As long as the government actually enforces property rights, enforces contracts, prosecute fraud, and punishes anti-competitive behavior, regulations are largely unnecessary. Most cases of "but what if an evil corporation does x, y, or z" are actually already punishable by law, regulation generally tries to prevent it from happening instead of punishing those that do it. The problem with that approach is that a regulation aimed at preventing something punishes 999 companies that have been doing the right thing with unnecessary testing, documentation, and standards because 1 company did the wrong thing. We would be better off making an example of the 1 company and letting the other 999 flourish.

Child labor is an example of something people try to get rid of through laws and regulations but is nearly pointless, from a global perspective, unless import restrictions are in place. I wasn't advocating banning child labor or imposing any particular environmental restrictions.

Money is as much an information delivery system as anything else. It communicates to people what they have to give up in order to get something else. For example, if you apply a pollution tax (such as charge companies per ton of C02 produced) then you communicate to companies that producing C02 will harm their bottom line and it is worth it for them to spend money to reduce their pollution output. You aren't telling them how to do it or even mandating it, you are making reducing pollution in their own self interest. A pollution tax would also have the effect of increasing the costs of goods and services that produce pollution so consumers will choose to avoid products that create the most pollution or pay the price for it.

I'm not arguing for any particular tax or system, I am pointing out that "rely[ing] on money" is actually a sure fire way to alter peoples behavior. Money is not all about greed, it is a useful and necessary tool.

Having strict environmental and labor regulations pushes the problems they try to solve out to other countries unless there are matching import restrictions. If you outlaw child labor then buy things from someone who uses child labor it nearly defeats the purpose of outlawing child labor. Same goes for environmental concerns. Sure, it helps your children and your backyard (which may be all you need/want) but it doesn't really help any global problems.

I know that may seem like an oxymoron to some people but there are ways to do it. Only go 3 times a week. That is 4ish hours total out of your week (1 hour workout + some travel time) which isn't all that much. At three times a week you won't be smashing yourself into a brick wall physically (as can happen with crossfit). Find a CF gym where the trainers actually watch you and have a good on ramp program. Having a group to workout with is motivating for most people, especially when you know they will notice you didn't show up since you typically go to the same classes.

Having a set time that you go each time is good motivation wise and helps prevent the rolling "I'll go in just one more hour" which leads to "well, it's too late to go now."

I would say doing a structured weight training program would actually be better for you physically and be more optimal time wise but it requires much more self motivation and discipline than going to a CF gym.

Above all, be safe and actually do something. Doing something is, usually, better than doing nothing so find what you will actually be motivated to do. I know tons of people who normally wouldn't be motivated enough to show up at the gym but consistently show up to a CF gym.

[Citation needed]

That is what you infer he is arguing, that isn't what he is arguing based on the articles that have been posted to slashdot. Perhaps there is some external argument that he made that you are correct about.
From the original article summary:

From the man himself:

These don't seem to go along at all with what you are saying, they support my position. The only part that is even close to what you and the OP are saying is when he called all of the "what if" questions "silly." If he means they are silly in the sense that he easily proved them wrong then you are correct. If he means they are silly because all such "what if" questions are silly, then you are wrong. I don't see why anyone would waste time trying to publicly disprove "silly" questions so I assume the later interpretation.

*woosh*

Did you actually read the article or did you just skim it for quotes to knee jerk react to?

Who are you even talking about? Where in the article did it state or even imply that their scientific explorations were due to them being religious? The entire point of his article is that it is possible for a religious person to also be scientific in some regards. Not that religion causes people to be scientific.

He didn't say give credit of the existence of science to religion. He was obviously talking about giving credit to religious people for the scientific contributions they made. Seriously, stop reading into things and assuming so much. You don't have to agree with what he said but if you are going to disagree at least disagree with what he said.

What basis in reality do you have to support that claim? Female and male interests are not identically distributed so why would the outcomes be identical? Do you think that the ratio of men and women that buy/wear dresses will be the same as long as there is equal opportunity for men and women to buy dresses?

I would agree that an unequal ratio is sufficient reason to ask the question if there is actually equal opportunity but it doesn't mean there isn't equal opportunity.

How about pat ourselves on the back when we feel there is equal opportunity and stop caring about ratios (outcome)? Equal opportunity != equal outcome.

I bet you pretty much all of them have a secondary degree that is not math or they had a technical elective focus that was not math (programming, engineering, economics, etc.). I'm talking about a BS in math without some external, applicable focus. Sure, if you tack on other things you can do well and find non-teaching jobs. It is kind of like a business degree in that it, in and of itself, won't net you a lot of jobs. If you combine it with other things it can make you a desirable employee.

This.

At my school CS majors actually take more math than most engineering majors.

Math degrees are great if you want to be a math teacher. If you don't want to be a math teacher, don't get a math degree.

I only know one EE that is satisfied with being an EE. All of the others are trying to get CS jobs and wishing they actually had some CS training. The only EE knowledge I have heard of being widely useful is basic circuit analysis which you can get in just a few classes. Granted, there are going to be some jobs where in depth EE knowledge is actually useful but those jobs are few and far between. What you really want is a CPE degree where you become a competent programmer combined with a basic knowledge of circuits and hardware. EE's go too heavy on the physics, which 99% won't need, and too light on programming, which 99% will need.

Option A: Receive the swift kick in the pants you had coming today.
Option B: Receive two swift kicks in the pants tomorrow.

I don't know much about what the UK is doing but it sounds like the UK chose option A and the US chose option B. The US has serious issues that are getting worse. The longer we wait to face those issues, the worse the pain will be.

You seem to be arguing that you prefer two swift kicks in the pants tomorrow over one swift kick in the pants today. Sounds short sighted to me.