Whether or not on average that is true on average, here you can see results that in 2012 those with only high-school/GED favored Obama in higher numbers than those with a bachelor's degree:
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/10/e...
I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.
This is a nice one, however I'm still confounded by the lack of progress since bell labs made an online text to speech converter many years ago. Particularly, the notion that the interpretation of each sentence is idempotent is just wrong. Want to see what I mean? A human would not speak like the following; there should be differences in intonation, "emotion" (sounding bored, angry, excited, etc. that varies depending on the number of times "dogs" would be said), speed, and delay. In addition, you have to breathe at some point, and even the best audiobooks have some level of breath noise.
Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.
Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.
I think Neil is wrong, unfortunately. It does matter who is in power, but not for the reasons that the media and political campaigns focus on. Other than the ability to veto, presidents don't legislate, they don't have that much control over the economy- although if they are ignorant enough (Bush) or obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) that doesn't help things but we can't reasonably blame them and even the effects from legislation are often not felt for years, etc. The main thing that a good U.S. president does is to lead and have respect. If that respect is gone, because of a hostage crisis, Iran-contra hearings, Monica Lewinsky affair, because you can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly, etc. then that is a problem. But that is also why we hire politicians instead of great leaders- great leaders make mistakes, but the people and the media don't like mistakes. Great leaders don't want their career ruined by the media, so instead we get politicians that parade around as if they are great leaders.
If you really want to change the system, the president should be chosen at random from the people of the United States, same for the House of Representatives and State Houses. If any of us could become president that is over 40, we'd pay a lot more attention.
Good points, but I work with someone that is very able, very smart, but is an extrovert. I've actually never worked with anyone that was an extrovert and didn't do the work on their own, but I've heard of them. Usually if someone doesn't know what they are doing, they don't want to let on about it. It just becomes obvious.
What I don't understand is that when I go to small tech startups, the layout is almost always like Facebook's: face-to-face in an open room. Sure it is cheap, but I agree it is hard for some of us to think in those environments. I think Microsoft's "everyone gets an office" is best from the introvertive, thinking developer's point of view. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to make them great. And cubes suck.
Some other information. Your username will be green for some amount of time and then turn black. If it turns black, you have either passed the trial period and are legit or you have been ghosted, which is likely only to happen if you either appear to be a spammer, a troll, or you don't fit in. You can also be ghosted after your username turn black. If you try to post too much, you will be unable to post anymore for some period of time. If you try to create too many new users in a day by axing your account, it tracks that also. There is cookie-based and IP based security/tracking. Don't try to say anything funny or you will >50% of the time get downvoted- it isn't slashdot. Don't be mean or controversial, but throw foul language in and be emotional when you want, as long as it goes with the silicon valley flow. PG is Paul Graham- know him and love him like the rest. He runs this place, and maybe the world for that matter as far as HN is concerned and the world of startups as they exist on this site.
nice chairs is a good one, but here are some others:
1. some people don't like keyboard trays, but I've had shoulder problems after several years of working without the keyboard at the right height. get them
2. get plastic adjustable stands for monitor and keyboards immediately, not on user request. make it ergonomic, but you don't have to spend the big bucks
3. some developers need special environments (i.e. less noise, less visual distraction), but some feed off of interaction. learn what these needs are and either make it happen or don't hire them, but don't find out too late. do not handle this with white noise. it may mean they can't co-locate to be as productive, and if that is a problem, you need to figure that out
4. people sometimes need privacy. don't foster an environment that encourages people to take calls inside or meet in cubes, distracting others
What is the basis of this statement?