Which of the following is the most worthless?

[KrazyHorse]

I can tell you that not all economists can agree on their methodologies or goals. Marxist and institutionalists do things rather differently from neoclassical economists, its just that unversities find it convenient to put them in the same departments. I suspect its the same wrt philosophy.

Economics is the study of how a society of human beings attempts to fulfill the wants and needs of its members with limited resources. Its goal is to improve our ability to better this fulfillment through the use of data collection and analysis of present and historical examples of functioning economies, simulation of postulated economies or of changes which could be introduced into real economies and the development of theories or models with strong explicative and predictive power.

[KrazyHorse]

And that's just a first stab from a non-economist.

Adam Smith, how'd I do?

[Patroklos]

Seriously. For somebody who was extolling the benefit of an arts education on the recipient's writing skills you need to stop making so many stupid mistakes.

seriously

Anyone who gets their rocks off by being spelling/from nazis on the internet rank as the biggest tools/douchebags I know.

I will give you a cookie if you can find a single misspelled word/grammar mistake in those lines. You can bring up the apostrophe/too if you want, but in the time of "teh" my internet shorthand is hardly above par

[Kuciwalker]

You improperly conjugated "rank."

[Kuciwalker]

Give me my cookie.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
I've probably written more applications in my life than you have. And I'm doing development this week.
I may manage, but I feel the need to keep my fingers dirty so I don't lose my edge.

I bet you were. Writing another calculator in COBOL or something. You are leet, rah.

[Patroklos]

in those lines

I am the last person to defend my message board spelling, btw, as I have stated in many an Oerdin thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Which lines were you referring to if not the ones you quoted?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Give me my cookie.

It's in your browser's cache

[KrazyHorse]

It wasn't just that conjugation. He went from "anyone" (singular) to "tools/douchebags" (a plural).

So you think there are too many, thats fine. I also think there are too many lawyers.

You may remember a few years ago when computer programers were a dime a dozen, spawned a very funny movie.

Now, as to this post:

a) "thats"
b) The first sentence is badly formulated. Better: "It's fine if you think there are too many arts students".
c) "also" shouldn't be there. He didn't agree that there are too many arts students. He doesn't "also" think anything
d) What spawned a funny movie?

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Genders issues they clearly didnt study until recently, and i presume "hooey" is a reference to what they DO study, not to the fact that they no longer study say, physics. Reading the sentence, it LOOKS like hes grouping ethics with "gender issues" (note he also puts ethics in quotes) as modern "hooey".

Of course he never explicitly states that ethics werent studied before. His entire post was vague and rhetorical, and his defense is worthy of GePap.

See, this is entirely the problem with filosofers. Such programs are designed to stimulate the mind, in reality they drain it for all that it's worth. My intentions were clear and were picked up by everyone else.

It's your overthinking, overanalyzing, semantically anal arts kids that screw it all up.

Here is the sentence:

Today, what do they discuss? "Ethics"? "Gender issues"? Hooey

Nowhere at all do I say this was never discussed before. All it says is this is what's discussed today...simple as that.

If my sentence was written by some dude 2000 years ago, I guarantee you there would be hundreds of filosofy nerds writing dissertations on its ONE TRUE MEANING like we're doing here, but with formal fancy diagrams and other overcomplicated "hooey".

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
Remember that most of them end up in the vast army of corporate grunts.

The vast majority of engineers end up to be well-paid corporate grunts with secure jobs.
The vast majority of arts students end up saying "Would you like fries with that?"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It wasn't just that conjugation. He went from "anyone" (singular) to "tools/douchebags" (a plural).

So you think there are too many, thats fine. I also think there are too many lawyers.

You may remember a few years ago when computer programers were a dime a dozen, spawned a very funny movie.

Now, as to this post:

a) "thats"
b) The first sentence is badly formulated. Better: "It's fine if you think there are too many arts students".
c) "also" shouldn't be there. He didn't agree that there are too many arts students. He doesn't "also" think anything
d) What spawned a funny movie?

The last one's the most egregious. It's not a typo. It's cloudy thinking...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So you think there are too many, thats fine. I also think there are too many lawyers.

You may remember a few years ago when computer programers were a dime a dozen, spawned a very funny movie.

Computer programmers still are a dime a dozen.

Competent computer programmers are far more rare.

Competent software engineers are very rare. And well compensated, I might add.