Why would the post link to Wired, which reads more like a paen to the photographer?
Instead, go to the photographer's blog directly http://alastairphilipwiper.com... sheesh.

We're talking about people who are storing their eggs so they can WORK. They're not storing their eggs so they can go save starving children in Ethiopia, or be an astronaut.

Yeah, it's an astonishing assumption that they're doing that to accumulate wealth? I guess power is an alternative goal. Big office? Nice title? Pick one.

Indeed, it isn't the only reason people wait until later to have kids, of course not.

But the CONTEXT here is companies offering it as a benefit, not the general concept of waiting to have kids.

So which would you prefer, the guy who's up front about what he believes and does (though you may not like it) or the guy who tells you what you want to hear, and then does the same things?

I'd prefer the honest scoundrel over platitudes and deception, personally.

Except that liquidity isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of a healthy economy - that's pure Keynes, fallacy of the broken window nonsense.

You might want to try reading Hayek, for an alternative view. Not that his is free of begged assumptions and leaps of faith, it's just another approach to the unrepentant Keynesian dogma that's dominated since WW2.

Keynes is naturally much-favored by governments, as it simultaneously tells politicians how powerful they are and blesses their desire to meddle and control. I'm not sure that's a durable rationale for running an economy.

Keynes vs Hayek rap battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Maybe because someone promised that this would be the "most transparent administration ever" and the whole way of doing business in Washington would "CHANGE"?

I know, I know, only a moron would believe a politician (esp from Chicago), but apparently many did.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing your life over your childrens', it just generally doesn't produce very good people.

And if you think that building a better career so you can have more wealth and give your child more opportunities is worth the tradeoff, you probably don't really understand how much of parenting is about stuff other than dollars, anyway.

While the US and Western Europe had been complicit in Saddam's weapons programs up to GW1, after that it was speculated that the main supplier of many weapons systems and tech after 1991 were the Soviets/Russians.

So, if the narrative is that much of this was relocated to the local Soviet/Russian client Syria...one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to then wonder that, at the collapse of the civil situation there, that (surprise?) Russia jumped up to volunteer to go 'deal' with the chem stockpiles in Syria. Likely they would have cleaned up any Iraqi leftovers as well, and we (the current administration) were likely fine with that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we still just trying to get a sustainable fusion reaction generating more power than it takes?

This article reads like the acheivement is in the commoditization and simplification of a process that doesn't (afaik) even exist yet?

What's next, announcing that they've figured out how to run an oscillation overthruster with your ipad?

"But the emotional and cultural payoff may be more valuable, helping women be more productive human beings."

Some people would assert that raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted and well-loved children makes a more "productive" and "valuable" human being than working at a law firm or technology company.

But hey, I'm old fashioned.

I don't think anyone objects to him having an opinion, or even being a wordy bastard.

What I object to is that /. seems to be his personal blog, where the editors allow him to bloviate on whatever crappy subject he feels the urge to opine on.

How would you feel if PBS just started televising some jackwagon's youtube diary? You'd probably wonder wtf happened to an information channel you respected.

Fantastic info, but I'd submit that part of the problem is ubiquity.
I have, at a quick guess, at least a DOZEN passwords that matter personally, and at least another dozen that are reasonably critical for work. Probably at least 200+ more that I don't substantially care about.
At least a couple of them are for systems that - for "security's" sake - require me to change the password every 90 days to a password I haven't used the last 6 times.
One system actually requires a password, then 2 layers deeper into the function, ANOTHER password, each with different rules about what's valid - the first accepts "." and spaces, the other doesn't, for example.
You could have a 128bit number as your password, and that would be hard to crack.
But the fact is that in the real world, you have to have either:
- something to write them down in
- a system to remember them, or an algorithm that you can apply to the site name or whatever that will give you your pw for that location.

Either one is vulnerable for precisely the same reasons they're useful.

Until we get absolute biometric systems - and such that can also ensure that the 'sample' tested is still attached to the live, willing human - in the words of an intelligent man: "there is no 'safe', only 'safer'".

"Should everything online be a cost-benefit analysis now?"
Yes. Is that clear enough?
If it is inconsequential, then sure, don't bother. But if it is something important to you, and you DON'T cost/benefit your choices, you're a fucking moron.

Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.

You can store your gold bullion on the front step if you want, I mean, it saves you all the work and all struggling to carry all that weight inside to your safe. I get it.

Are they still criminals for stealing it? Sure. And they should be prosecuted.

But then don't be whining and bitching that someone stole your gold because you were too lazy to put a little more effort into protecting it. Obviously, they valued your gold more than you did.

(And BTW, if you have naked selfies lying around in your house, I'd say the SAME THING: 1) they're criminals for B&E and stealing something that wasn't theirs, and 2) you're still an ignorant slut for leaving naked selfies lying around your house IF naked pictures of you floating around would bother you.)

So it's no longer "eat shit and die"?

I understand, downloading something pirated is illegal.

So do they also disqualify any person who has also committed speeding, jaywalking, underage consumption, or parking violations (or lies about having done so)?

Those too are all "crimes", clearly?

Perhaps the ubiquity of criminality says something about our society, or maybe more about the laws we've written to circumscribe citizen behavior.

Certainly excluding every person with a trivial illegality in their history will do 2 things for the FBI:
1) seriously reduce their potential employee pool, meaning those that get the jobs will get paid more (good for them), and
2) end up staffing the FBI with people that have led inhumanly-detached lives like beauty queens and the sorts of nearly-sociopathic weenies who have been cultivating themselves for public office since 3rd grade.

Of course, some people would say that yes, such interventions for SARS may have wasted $40 billion primarily because SARS wasn't really anything dangerous in the first place, just something ballooned into histrionic nonsense by a paranoid, risk-averse public and a government that likes very much scaring them.

This would be very much like building a giant armored and fenced barn when someone cried wolf.
Yes, at that point, those precautions would have been wasted. That doesn't ipso facto mean that such precautions now (when there really IS a dangerous fucking wolf out there) are overreacting in any way.