I think I see your problem. Most companies don't make the developers write code on the board every day, as boards are very inefficient compilers and the intellisense is just atrocious.

I don't understand why we make interviews so uncomfortable for the people we want to work for us. Give a programmer a goddamn keyboard, if you really want to see what they can do. The board is for visualizing high level interactions, not writing modules.

SAT scores to correlate with a lot of good metrics (higher income, more degrees) but I'm not certain specifically about college dropout rate. I would hazard a guess there would be a strong correlation.

The same argument would have applied to email inboxes a little more than a decade ago. When storage/price isn't an issue, it's not worth the bother of curating so long as the data is easily searched. A decade from now 20 TB will probably be the average thumb drive size.

Max Planck Leipzig? I hear similar stories from there.

I think that was actually Christopher Hitchens that had the awakening to anti-theism because of his teacher talking about the colors being green.

My own education was stultified because of that nonsense. I read several quackish books on evolution trying to resolve the disparity between nature and my religion, when I could have been learning something useful or at least been exposed to some valid texts on the subject. With the wide availability of the internet it is probably less a problem, but I still resent the fact that no useful counter-arguments were made in science class to rebut the garbage spewed from the pulpit.

When you say something as generic as "generating value" then paying sufficient taxes could be considered an investment in the solvency of your target market. Any number of rationalizations could be made in either direction. You are correct though that the problem is not with Apple though, it's the citizens fault for not requiring a modicum of fairness in the tax code or at the very least shaming and boycotting corporations who are leeching.

Your "hater" phrasing does actually piss me off. Would you say that about your corporate friend you brought to dinner who doesn't leave a tip at a restaurant because it's not legally required? Since we've decided to co-exist with these financial constructs having human like qualities, it's time we started enforcing social norms on them so they can learn how to be a bit less autistic.

I think the graphic on the NYT showing the enrollment of both genders is informative:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa...

I wasn't in the field in 82, so don't know much about that time, but interest from both genders spiked around the dot com bubble, which from my experience correlated to more folks who were less interested in Computer Science and more interested in the anticipated salaries. I do think there are more few factors at play, but the respective spikes seem more like aberrations than norms.

I think in this debate, it's important to separate the meat from the minutia. Learning _how_ something works is valuable, scouring code for an unclosed parenthesis or a semicolon tedious and frustrating when a decent editor could help you track it down in seconds. Some happy medium of editor for learning seems more appropriate.

How do you mean, no such thing? The Act clearly added an exclusion for "The underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." from being defined as "UNDERGROUND INJECTION", and subject to the corresponding regulation.

I think the biggest challenge is that we don't _need_ perfect software when good enough will do. Nobody is going to pay for a house that has every measurement calculated and validated, with the perfect torque applied to each screw and every conceivable test method applied to each board and roof shingle. Even if it were, I still think we'd have houses that fall over because of poor design choices.

Though I agree that the tools can and should be better, I can't conceive of a toolchain or stack is going to tell me that I miscalculated a total because I left out a variable.

79% of the AMS study participants self-identify as non-publishers of climate papers. link. That bears about the same weight as a slashdot poll on the subject. I rest my case.

Publishing a paper about the climate is not promoting climate change. I see nothing wrong with the methods. If you do, please point them out. Your flippant dismissal is disheartening, as if you do not wish to know things that might challenge your world view.

this article was published in 2009 From the abstract:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

This study does not seem to have the flaws you mention. There have been several studies I've seen with similar outcomes.

That's absurd, even if the Saudis funded the entire invasion it was hardly only their interests at stake. You may be surprised to know that virtually the entire world supported stopping Saddam/Iraq from taking over Kuwait and reducing the military power of the psychopathic ruler.

Many(most?) supermarkets in the US have a surprisingly decent selection of produce. Unfortunately, far too few of us actually go into the produce section but instead opt for the pre-packaged foods or don't make it into the supermarket at all. It really is hard to convince some folks that cooking is worth the preparation time.