You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is. You think you have a right to dictate to other people and to take their rights away to get your entitlements, you see rights as something that must be taken away from somebody else and given to you.

Rights are protections against government abuse, you can't have a moral society where some people use violence of the State to steal rights of others and give themselves entitlements they believe they have a 'right' to.

Your belief is a belief of somebody who wants to enslave others to himself and that is definitely immoral.

- civil rights movement did one (1) of 2 things that was correct, it insisted that government must treat everybody equally and it must.

It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.

You just don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

- that's not what I said. A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you. USA founders said exactly that, some where more insistent than others that the Constitution is the exact literal enumeration of powers allocated to the government, the powers that allow government to step over the rights of an individual under specific conditions. Government is violence by definition, that is all it is and for the governed to accept the government they have to see good reason for it and the way the USA Founders saw it, government had to have very specific powers given to it to deal with cases where people would be denied their rights.

A person in jail is a person, whose right to freedom is denied by government oppression, that oppression has to be enumerated as one of the powers allocated to the government. Government has to prove that it can oppress the right of that individual to freedom.

A person murdered by another person or a person hurt somehow by a company (which is really just another person or a group of people) is an individual situation, where criminal code may apply in order to establish guilt or innocence and to hand out oppression of rights again to those, who basically broke the criminal code rules.

So you can see that rights are related to individual or business and government, while criminal code is related to dealing between individuals or companies.

Government officials can break the law as well of-course, then it also has to be punished according to the criminal code, but government as a system cannot be punished by any criminal code, there is nobody personally to punish, so because government is a system it has to adhere to rules defined in the Constitution, rules as to how the government can oppress/abuse individuals, who have all the rights until the government can use its authority to deny that right.

Engineering has always encompassed art. But most engineers aren't good enough at engineering to do any art. It comes after the business and applied science aspects are complete.

I'll grant that all the humanities classes I took in college were review of HS. But all the math and science the humanities majors took were review of middle school.

Just think how much better it could have been if he had studied typesetting. He might have had actual applicable knowledge.

Claiming Jobs had much to do with the invention of postscript is historical revision anyhow.

No. The statistic you refer to (% employed in field) merely shows that engineers are promoted to management more.

Why would they want to? Most of the humanities profs couldn't pass it.

I'm still waiting for the 'Emperors New Clothes' moment. But 'they' really will have a hard time topping some of the stupid things they've already said. If Chomsky still gets respect, despite being an apologist for genocide (among many other 'bad things'), there is no fixing it.

Yes I know 'computational linguistics' is a grey area, but Chomsky's work is not. His primary assertion 'Brains have language wired in' seems to be proving out to be wrong. Only took 40 years.

The right means exactly that: government cannot oppress you and abuse you (and murdering you is a form of oppression and abuse), there is no concept of a 'right' between 2 individuals or businesses and there cannot be, because out of 2 individuals or businesses none of them have any legal authority to dictate to another and/or to use any form of violence. We have to have rights when we are dealing with a government, because government has legal authority to use violence (unfortunately), so to counterbalance that legal authority to violence we have to have rules that prevent governments from just using that violence however they like.

As to violence between 2 individuals or companies, that has nothing to do with rights, that has to do with criminal law as it is understood within that locality. You could have a completely private criminal justice system and still deal with violence that way. People did give up their right to deal with criminal code to governments in most cases, but because the governments are (supposed to be) bound by the rules that are established as individual rights, governments also cannot just pretend to deal with criminal cases without abiding by those rules.

These are completely different issues, a right is about an individual or a company (which I also see as an individual) dealing with the violent government authority and criminal code is about individual and private matters, where individuals are interested in preventing crime committed by other individuals.

Basically the same in the USA. The liberal arts majors get mad at us for 'blowing the curve'.

In college our advisers had us all change major to undecided before taking 'freshman comp', the English prof hated engineers. You were guaranteed to get a C at best with engineering as your major. With undecided most engineers got As or Bs. They collected the data and eventually forced emertus status on the jackass.

Note that liberal arts students don't have to take any non-remedial (for college) math or science. Yet they are the well rounded ones. They think they define 'well rounded'.

I majored in history in college. I not a historian. I am an engineer.

There are places where you can get arrested for saying that.

My parents sentenced me to a four year bit with the Jebbies for HS.

College humanities total requirements for Engineering were a review of HS freshman humanities coursework from the Jesuits.

anyone with a college degree can be trained to be a programmer

You are so full of shit, the whites of your eyes are brown.

This is not new. STEM professors guard the gates and maintain competence. They have been doing it for decades. Humanities have been rotten with grade inflation/relativism sense the 1960s. The bad example is in the STEM prof's face daily (and of course in the math-less science survey courses 'they' take).

Where do you think most of your HS teachers got degrees? They sure didn't bust ass in the education school.

If there were no humanities departments to transfer the bad students to, it would be worse. That acts as an idiot relief valve. The spoiled suburban kids get their humanities/business degrees and hard science/math/engineering degrees continue to have value.

Thank god for the calculus and physics course sequences. Did you notice that once you pass those, your academic advisers learned your name?

BTW I think 'Perverse Economic Incentives' would make a good porn title.