Bio not provided
@FelixDrost Neither are economists Acemoglu and Robinson. At best they are social scientists, and as we all know, any discipline which interjects the word science into its name is unworthy of the description.
2 months ago on Access denied | Foreign Policy
Scott, is there any reason why these people need to fence the diamonds quickly (aside from preventing the possibility that one of them decides to turn on the others and either turn the whole gang into the police, or steal the whole cache for him/herself?)
Put another way, is there really a time value of diamonds?
2 months, 1 week ago on Access denied | Foreign Policy
@bentsmith4 Don't introduce something you've written by using the third-person and pretending that you're merely recommending it.
Be forthright and tell us "here's something that I've written that I believe contradicts Andreesen's position."
3 months, 2 weeks ago on Andreessen predicts the death of traditional retail. Yes: Absolute death
> "The Internet is still a leveling bitch on dysfunctional industries."
Was there any reason at all to use the word 'bitch' in this sentence? No. It added nothing to the meaning of the sentence. To my reading, it confused the meaning--it would've had more impact written as "The Internet is still a bitch, leveling dysfunctional industries."
To my point, if you're going to use words that normally don't pass the style guidelines at most journalistic organizations, you should have a very good reason for doing so. You've failed at doing this in this story.
7 months ago on Suddenly everyone wants New Yorker style content. Only one catch: Who is going to write it?
@delia ruhe Mike Lofgren's recent book "The Party Is Over" (http://amzn.com/0670026263/) is well worth reading as it powerfully extends the argument he made in the "Revolt of the Rich" column at The American Conservative.
8 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/31/on_leading_from_the_front
@Simonmodule As @IanStansbury 's comment notes, the list is not particularly good because it's a mishmash of all different types of books. Something like this definitely needs more than one category, or it needs to be aggressively curated, in order to be of some help.
That said, if you were to take a crack at reading through the list, here is one (of several) possibly useful orders:
1. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - rather famous textbook, often used in introductory classes in the better undergraduate computer science programs.
2. The Art of Computer Programming - a three-volume (plus additions) set of in-depth instruction about many aspects of computer science. A challenging read, even for the best-prepared individual.
3, Introduction to Algorithms - another textbook that gets a good deal of recognition and use in first or second C.S. courses
4. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools - a standard textbook for one of the common higher-level undergrad classes
5. Design Patterns
6. The Pragmatic Programmer
7. Code Complete
9. The C Programming Language
These four are a good collection for the working programmer (though the last one, while a well-written work and helpful in learning a number of principles, is only of direct practical value if you are programming in C)
10. The Mythical Man-Month
8 months, 2 weeks ago on Top 10 Books on Programming According to StackOverflow Users
I'm not sure if this is a series, but if it is, then I feel it should be titled the best 'outside' colleges that everyone has heard of. Cal is a great school. The whole San Francisco Bay Area is great for outdoors stuff, especially if you give yourself license to roam all of northern California.
But there are many great schools that really live the 'outdoor' message, most of whom don't make these lists because people will complain that "I've never heard of that place."
Here's one, just a half-day's drive north of Cal: Humboldt State University. Right on the Pacific Coast, and right in the heart of redwood country.
9 months, 1 week ago on
Photo Gallery | Adventure Travel Guide | OutsideOnline.com
@bbolder You clearly don't have access to the demographic data that advertisers do. There is no substantial difference in the gender makeup of the general television audience. It's simply separated by their interests. Advertisers who want to target men find that the viewership data shows that men (in general) watch sports. Those who want to target women find that we (in general) watch a broader range of things, with correspondingly less interest in live-action sports.
9 months, 1 week ago on
Why We Ignore Women's Sports | Women in Sports | OutsideOnline.com
@Bike to Work Wasn't there a near-nude Lolo Jones on the Outside magazine cover just a few weeks ago?