The prof is accurately seeing the problem, but dealing with only the symptom, not the disease. If there are 30,000 qualified applicants, why only accept 2,000? My guess is that they would argue that they canâ(TM)t accommodate so many students. But if universities canâ(TM)t accommodate all of those that are qualified, then society should stop using them to filter the âoewinnersâ at age 18. That is the real injustice.

I vaguely recall a novel, where post global warming or some other semi-apocalyptic world, Greenland is sold to the US because Iceland doesnâ(TM)t want to keep supporting it. My google skills arenâ(TM)t helping me here but itâ(TM)s driving me crazy that I canâ(TM)t remember. Please help if you can!

Or someone has found a really creative way to get someone else to answer their homework questions

And the FBI was able to recover 3 of Clinton's email chains that contained information that was classified (they were already classified at the time that they were sent so there is no "that was classified after the fact" defense) from her "wiped" server. No one has produced any evidence that Powell deliberately deleted evidence during an FBI investigation. It's never the crime, it's the coverup.

I was actually just speaking with a police officer the other day who said criminals don't care much about electronics nowadays because the stuff depreciates so fast if you have a 4 year old laptop it's not worth much after depreciation and the black market discount. Even dumb thieves know to go straight for the bedroom and take the women's jewelry and the men's watches. They also check the top drawer for cash. But yeah, unless you are a high value target for information, nobody is rummaging through your desk for sticky notes.

Why is it more likely that we will have a new world with 1 machine, 1 employed person, and 2 unemployed people making the same amount of stuff as before, rather than 3 machines and 3 employed people making 3 times the stuff they were making before? Or 2 people working on 2 machines making twice as much as before, with one person employed building the 2 machines in such a way that the 2 other people can use them effectively?

Wow that is an awfully obnoxious way to show your ignorance. Please review your basic economics about Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the relationship between GDP, total income of everybody, and inflation. You can't have inflation without income going up.

Some people will not see increases in wages but that doesn't mean that overall income is flat, just like if the cost of 1 TB external hard drives doesn't go up it doesn't mean that inflation is zero.

NB "sticky" wages mean that they don't go below zero; rather, people get laid off. It does not mean, as you seem to think, that wages like to stay at zero.

Inflation is the increase in the overall price level of the economy. While you are still working, your income is a price to your employer. So when inflation runs at 2%, then the price of labor goes up by 2% each year as well.

People misunderstand this because they usually mistake a supply shock for inflation. When the cost of, say, oil, goes up, but the cost of labor doesn't, it is not inflation that causes misery. It is whatever shock is causing the increase in oil prices that causes the misery. So for example, in the 1970's, oil prices increased faster than incomes because of the oil embargoes. Even if inflation ran at 0% during that period, people would have been stressed because the difference in the rate of increase in oil prices would have outstripped the rate of increase in incomes. In fact, at lower inflation rates, it would have been even worse, because a small or no increase in the rate of increase in oil prices would have implied that incomes would have to drop precipitously, so even the constant priced oil would still have been difficult to afford.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding of free trade. In theory, free trade *on balance* benefits everybody, but even with the theoretical best free trade agreement possible, some people are more adversely affected in the short run than others. And in practice, reestablishing equilibrium at a higher rate of output may be difficult to achieve, as argued in an important new paper about free trade.

It would be wonderful if there existed policy positions that have all upside and no downside, but free trade does not appear to be one of them.

While I'm sympathetic to that view, just because you are necessary doesn't mean you are important

Unlike the right to be secure in your effects, there is no constitutional right to buy a car with any particular characteristic, including a high level of emissions. Therefore the Feds have an important say in the encryption debate, but in car emissions, much less so.

Since the answer about CARB compliance isn't found in the bill of rights, it is just up to legislators to decide how they want to run their states. And from a practical standpoint, one can argue that non-CARB compliant cars cause bigger problems in large and dense cities. As a result, states with large and dense cities might conclude that the difficulties of making and distributing different versions of cars are more than offset by the benefits of lower emissions, while states without big cities (or lots of car manufacturers) might balance the scale in the other direction and allow higher emissions.

But even though you made a bad analogy, at least you made a *car* analogy and for that you should be commended.

They do have those, appropriately named Lego Classic. And they are about the same price as any other Lego, around 6-8 cents/brick.

Do you complain about it every time, and yet people continue to use it?

Do you really not understand or do you just not approve and want to appear superior? On the off chance that you aren't just being a jerk, the fact of the matter is that many human beings like to experience non safe things. Whether it is merely the feeling of being not safe (e.g. roller coaster), or living vicariously through someone else doing something unsafe (e.g. NASCAR, UFC bouts, daredevils), people enjoy the adrenaline rush. Of course, I find it bizarre that I have to explain this to someone whose handle is "Opportunist."

I don't particularly like NASCAR but I don't think we should s4!7 all over somebody else's preferred form of entertainment. People who live in glass houses...