Companies (and HR departments in particular) are bad at hiring someone to grow into a job. They want someone who is in the top 20% of their profession and can do the entire job starting right away, but then they base their pay scales on the 50th percentile.

Headhunters also do a bad job, at a high price.

If there were people who could actually be trusted to do a good job at filling positions, lots of people would benefit.

Evolution is a topic of interest mainly to people who would like to promote bigotry against religious people. How often does it get brought up in any other context?

Religious folks rarely (if ever) bring it up. There are widely varying opinions on the topic among religious folks, but few consider it imminently important to their day to day lives.

This is the key to transitioning to IPv6. People will transition to IPv6 as costs increase for IPv4. When transitioning to IPv6 is cheaper than buying IPv4 addresses, the change will come quickly.

Hopefully people will observe this and learn how change happens. It doesn't happen because you wish it would. It doesn't happen because you know The Right Way for everyone to manage their lives or their businesses or their operations. It is driven by tangible benefits, not ideology.

(Magically, this results in people seeing tangible benefits from their decisions rather than absorbing "unexpected" costs related to idealistic or mandatory early adoption.)

I wonder if depression is correlated with an entitlement mentality and ego-centrism. It is definitely correlated with a lack of exercise.

Also, as Foxconn showed us, providing an incentive for people to commit suicide is counterproductive unless you want them to commit suicide. If you give people the power to have their enemies locked up for 10 years by committing suicide, you can look forward to such suicides happening more and more often.

What year is it there? Here in the year 2012, we remember Prop 25 passed in Nov 2010 and there's no longer a super-majority requirement to pass a budget.

The people who always want increased funding every time schools are discussed are effectively arguing for unlimited funding. They have no clue whether it actually helps or how much. They just always want more. And they always will, regardless of anything.

This is mostly because other people are paying. So who cares how much it helps? It might help. And other people are paying. So throw another $billion on the fire.

What's the limit then? Please answer with a number.

Why pay an unlimited price for a tiny benefit?

Whether there's "no benefit" isn't a relevant question. The relevant questions are:

- Is the benefit worth the cost?
- How much cost is the benefit worth?
- Do the people who benefit pay?
- Do the people who pay benefit?

Government education is an inefficient use of money compared to non-government alternatives. The only time government education makes sense at all is when you're freeloading off of others. When it's someone else's money, who cares whether it's spent efficiently?

So your answer is to pour an unlimited amount of money into schools that are failing to teach 78% of students. And if they keep failing to teach, just keep giving them more and more money. Because rewarding failure is wise.