Women in general, I think your best bet would be to try to rid the world of all the no talent entertainers (such as Miley Cyrus, Beyonce singers actresses ETC). All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex. Speaking of selling sex, get rid of all hookers, strippers, porn stars, nude models, start dressing your teenagers and yourselves modestly (cover up), stop sleeping around, no more one night stands, having 4 kids from 3 daddies, stop stripping down in movies too, doing half naked fashion shows or miss X contests, ETC. You do nothing but lose respect when you do all of this. You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest, yet women doing all of the things I mentioned are why men think like this (a vicious cycle I know).

Do this and I guarantee that you will have a tipping point that is unprecedented. Men will take you seriously and the amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.

I am not saying that this would guarantee or put you on equal footing as a founder because the skills and desire that is necessary are not common in women. But it would sure help you be taken seriously, and there is not much that is more important than that.

1. People who cannot afford it are choosing very expensive universities.

2. The government is giving money away like candy, there is a definite bubble here because this money will be defaulted on. I know a professor at an art school who says his students easily get $150k to go study art. Many won't even get a degree with that money. Getting a degree or being on a path to get a degree in x years is not a requirement of getting the money. He says that these students will graduate and be lucky to go on to make $25-30k a year. That is pretty rough. This also drives tuition way up because schools know they can just charge more and the thanks to the govt. students and money will still funnel in by the truckload.

3. Students with student loan money live like rock stars. These are teenagers here. They suddenly have a bunch of money. do you thing that they are carefully considering that every dollar they spend will have to be paid back with interest? Teenagers... I have seen this over and over again personally. Luxury apartments, nice cars, buying, spending... "A part time job? are you kidding? who has time for that, I've got to focus on my party life.. Errrr studies".

How typical, someone complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school. This is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.

The article states that the average year at college today costs $18,497, yet this guy is going to rack up $400k in dept over 6 years? by my math that is $111k. This guy is spending 4 times the average and crying foul.

I personally know a dentist who worked part time all through school, he went to community college, state university, private grad/dental university and has the same diploma that this guy will have on his wall... The difference - the guy I know only had $40k in debt upon exiting school. He paid it off in two years (by the time he was 26). I'd say he did things the right way.

If this is the case then these people need to quit whining. It's their choice - this is like saying that you need to mortgage your house to join a yacht or country club so you can make connections. Some people just have to work harder than others to make it, life isn't fair cry me a river. Many people from cheaper institutions are better at making connections because they excel in the personality and charm dept (thus they have the advantage). Is that fair? Many poorer people make it big because they are smarter or luckier... Is that fair? Your argument just shows how blatantly ridiculous this is.

People are complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.

How? With another 14 million dollars... that is how. You can do a lot of things with 14 million dollars, this is not especially true when you are talking about the govt spending this kind of money, but still - it is not pocket change to the average company.

http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2014/02/cost-obamacar...

the better course is evolution, not revolution.

Candles oil lamps, and torches were pretty good at providing light at night in the 18th century, then there came electricity and the light bulb, everyone slowly threw away their candles for something better. Many people tried to design better candles instead of switching over. Candles that would burn brighter and longer, candles that would not blow out as easily and did not put off as much smoke, but you know what? These were was mere evolutionary changes and could not "hold a candle" to the revolutionary benefits of the light bulb.

Sure it took a lot of work for people to take their oil lamps and candle fixtures off of the walls and ceilings. It was a lot of work to run wiring and put up new electric fixtures. But the time spent was an investment. Eventually it led to a lot better solution and a lot less effort in total.

You are one of these guys who was using and evolving candles and oil lamps. You just can't see the bigger picture.

These HNers who are not happy with still being forced to use candles are the real innovators... The technologists. You who are happy with the candle are merely paint and canvas artists.

Paint and canvas artists in the 80s and 90s started to scoff when computer art and graphics began to gain prominence. These artists lacked the skills to do art with new technology, and lacked the ambition and any passion which was required to learn something new that would have diversified their artistic talents. They had their tools and they didn't want new ones. Their opposition actually was a result of a fear of being displaced, they wanted to stay in their stagnated comfort zone.

Many web designers today are much the same. You want to make art with your old tools and are not really technologists at all, perhaps with new brushing techniques (JS libraries) in some instances, but never with any major evolutionary change.

This stagnates innovation, even worse you are actively supporting the suppression of choice because you are afraid that you may become obsolete in your complacence with the technology behind your art.

A question for you is why do you care? If a Java programmer tries to rib you saying that Java is better because x feature was influenced or 'stolen' from Java, just laugh at them and tell them then C++ must be 'better' than Java huh?

In my personal observations there are three reasons that people work long hours. Money, self advancement (skill wise or other) and a loyal commitment to finish a large task within a time span.

How do we know that it is not just the provider being sapped for bandwidth? I notice that speed tests I run in the mid-day and evening come back pretty much the same, but Netflix takes noticeably longer to buffer in the evening. I always assumed this was because their servers were much busier then.

I am curious if you believe that this is because the schools was a bad school (under-funded, bad teachers and administrators), or because the parents of the kids that attended there were generally lower than average quality parents? (on drugs, welfare baby mommas, abusive, spend all their free time watching TV and not disciplining or spending any time with their children, non loving, single parent with 3 jobs to make ends meat, ETC.)

That sounds pretty rough. Why didn't they put the oldest in private school instead? Surely by 7th grade you can see that there are problems there. Perhaps by 12 grade in the private school, he could have turned things around.

Perhaps it was the mere fact that the younger brother was given such preferential treatment that the older never became successful.

Perhaps it was the fact that your parents became better parents with more experience, or because they were less stressed out since they did not have the financial hardship that they had before.

I am not trying to discount your story, but the problem lies in the fact that it can be compared with plenty of other similar situations as yours but having completely different results (the kids in public school fared better in life).

Quality of school definitely CAN have a profound effect on a child's life. But in my experience and personal observation, this is only because of a failure on the parenting side. If a child is reared with enough love and enough wisdom, discipline and vision is imparted into them before, and during the school years - they will do fine if they are in a run down inner city school, or a middle class private school.

So maybe you say that this is unfair that some parents have to raise their kids with such diligence to have them succeed, while some others don't (because of economic factors).

Trust me, the kid and parents in the situation where extra attention is needed to enhance the likelihood of success in the child's life are better off and happier people than a wealthy parent that hires a nanny to raise their kids and sends them to private school. Which situation is true parenting after all? Which kid will carry on a true legacy of their parents and hold their ideals and values continuing their legacy?

No rules but the laws of Canada? Well that is very close to the same thing as most schools then right? The only difference was a few rules such as you could be late to class or truant and you could leave campus whenever you wanted to. Funny that one of the laws of Canada prohibits redboxing - one of the very same "rules" that you were kicked out of school to begin with...

So you are telling me that 3 rule changes, only having one test in all of school, people telling everyone that they should study or they will fail at life (something I probably have heard from every teacher I have ever had) and a motto of "we will never give up on you" changed things that much?

What was the name of this miraculous institution???

One could change just one rule in any school in the world and it would make the kind of improvement that you describe. Optional attendance. Of course 1/3 of the school won't show up, but that is the "bad kids" anyway.

Bullies usually have emotional problems or brain chemistry issues. A high percentage of bullies have fathers that are abusive to their mothers and are bullies themselves (vicious cycle). It is difficult to tell if this is merely learned or genetic, but I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with playing bull rush.

What is likely having an effect on the kids in this school's situation is positive peer pressure. The administration puts the kids in a position of judging other peers. This has been used for at least 20 years and was effective in a high school I once attended. It was no utopia, but I sure didn't observe much bullying going on.