If the measure passes,California will sell $9,950,000,000 in bonds to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The total cost of the proposition would be $647 million per year for the next thirty years. The total cost of high speed rail was estimated at 33 to 37 billion, but the true cost will likely be closer to $60 billion. Nearly every large public transit project goes over its projected budget by 10 to 50 percent.Proponents claim speeds of up to 220 miles per hour, a 2.5 hour commute from SF to LA and ease highway and airport congestion, without new taxes. Opponents attack the project's partial funding and its high cost.

My vote: NO. High speed rail sounds amazing the same way the school presidential candidate promised more field trips and Coke in all the water fountains as a kid. Given a choice between cake and nothing, most people would pick cake; given a choice between cake and $15, people would choose $15. The costs of the train network are obfuscated and indirect but ultimately will be picked up by citizens.

1. California faces a large budget deficit, estimated to be $11.2 billion this year. This project would add extraordinary new budget obligations for a nonessential service where the benefits won't be realized for another five years, at least. Furthermore, if we fund this $10 billion, the state will have to fund the project all the way through. There's no way they'll stop funding the project once they start.

2. High speed rail won't relieve much congestion. The pro-high speed rail group's impact analysis says that high speed rail will relieve 3.8% of highway traffic, or less than three years' worth of traffic growth. Furthermore, airports fly to many locations and high speed rail will only reduce airport congestion for Bay Area to LA flights, a small fraction of an airport's total flights.

3. The environmental impact is uncertain. There is a massive amount of new construction and the environmental analysis assumes cars won't get any greener.

4. The time savings are not great. Door-to-door, flying from SF to LA takes around 3 hours 32 minutes.Rail will take the same amount of time door-to-door, 3 hours and 30 minutes, and cost $50 per trip.

5. The train network will have to be rebuilt entirely every 30 years, and face annual costs of $1 billion for maintenance and repair. These are massive costs that will be offset only in part by revenue. We know this because if the costs would be offset entirely by train revenue, some entrepreneur would have raised the cash and built the rail network himself.

I'm 19, which means I will be paying taxes for quite some time. This project is an expensive pie-in-the-sky boondoggle. On all of HSR's goals - reduce congestion, reduce dependence on foreign oil, help the environment, etc. - the state of California can make better progress more cheaply than paying $60 billion for a train.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

This is 20-year old Tania Aebi who sailed around the world with no practical sailing knowledge. I am reading her book.

I want to sail to this place:

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

I have a car on campus and have started selling rides to the airport for fall break. Sure, I'm cheaper than a cab, but most people just find someone to give them a ride for free, which makes me feel a little selfish. But the beauty of capitalism is that only a small number of people need to like my idea for me to make a whole lot of money. The vast majority of people won't like my idea; only one to five percent of your audience will buy my product. That's perfectly acceptable. All I need is a few people who can't find a ride or who are too lazy to shop around.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Alcohol, or the idea of alcohol as a social lubricant? Hard work, or the idea that you're working hard? The meal you eat at a fancy restaurant, or its cost (as a signal to your dining companion)? Texting, or the idea that you're busy and have friends? Reading Dostoyevsky or the idea that you're cultured?

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Dear Professors,

Students will sink as low as you let them. If we turn in a steamy pile, or if we put in a subpar effort, please call us on it. We won't get any better unless you do.

One of the things I love about sports is that if you mail in your effort, you will get crushed. In basketball, if you lose focus for a split second, you or one of your teammates will get scored on. Sports demand accountability. I haven't seen this so much in the academic sphere. The higher expectations you hold of your students, the more we will do.

I was thinking today about how much students whine, and how we would all benefit with more hours in a day. Are we really so near the limits of human endurance that we have legitimate reason to complain? No. Undergraduates especially have a light workload, and all students could learn to work, read and write faster than they do now. Unfortunately as Cyril Parkinson pointed out, the amount of work we have expands to fill the time we have to do it. We could all benefit from stricter time limits.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Per the suggestions in The 4-Hour Work Week I am checking my email twice a day only and avoiding all news and RSS. When I was at Penn I used to read the newspaper every day, and my friend would always ask me "what's going on in the world today?" Which is smart, because he gets the news and I get to feel better, but somehow despite having read the paper right in front of me I never really knew what to say. Timothy Ferriss could use a new haircut.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Hope you have a good one!

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

"The most riveting sections of the book describe the desperate efforts of HBS students to land jobs with the most elite hedge funds and private-equity firms—the very firms suffering today from the credit meltdown.

It’s amazing, really. The 900 students in Broughton’s class could do just about anything—and yet most of them, for reasons they can’t really explain, are all desperate to do the same thing. A student named Cedric described it this way: “We have so many choices, and yet so few people seem happy about that. It just makes them anxious. And then they make terrible decisions about their lives.”

More here.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

When you're teaching something, you want to get every learner involved, maximize repetitions of whatever you're trying to learn, and provide instant feedback. I'm amazed how many teachers don't understand these principles.

Imagine if you were a basketball player, and practice consisted of your coach demonstrating every drill while you sat in the bleachers. Then the coach left and you were on your own for practice. Sure, this may help you become a better player, but with no supervision your team-mates might decide to leave, and you would have little idea of whether or not you were doing the drill correctly. Maybe the coach videotapes your practice session and gives you feedback three or four days later. This team would be awful.

Basketball is competitive - if you're not teaching the drills well someone else is and they're winning games, so there's constant incentiveto become a better at teaching. Most coaches demonstrate the right way to do the drill one time, have the team practice the drill and then provide instant feedback - praise for players who improve and criticism for students who are not trying hard. The best basketball practices I've seen use one basketball for every player, a hoop for every two players and every drill involves everyone all the time. Everyone gets involved, the players are maximizing repetitions and the coach can provide instant feedback.

Few classes are taught in this fashion. Instead, the "teacher" uses all of his interaction time with students to lecture to them. Then the students go off on their own to practice everything in the lecture. They turn in their work two days later and get feedback on it four days after that.

Some teachers give examples and then solve them on the board with help from the class. All of the students know the teacher knows what he's doing, and invariably, the people who volunteer to "help him out" are the top two or three students in the class. Many times I think teachers assume students are slow, when in fact we don't want to tell you an answer you already know. Why doesn't he ask everyone in the class to work on the problem and then go from person to person giving feedback? Then someone can solve it quickly in front of everyone. This way everyone gets involved, the students are thinking, and the teacher gets instant feedback from everyone about how well they understand the concept, not just the do-gooder students.

Even better would be to ask students to read/watch the lecture before class starts. This way all of the in-class time can be spent on getting everyone involved and providing instant feedback.

A simple change in course design can make a huge difference in comprehension and learning rates.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

McCain isn't getting any traction with his attacks on Obama if the Cnn ticker is a guide. If I'm a McCain adviser I'm screaming at him to lay off the attacks. Unfortunately you can't call time-out during the debate. I wish the candidates could get more specific about positive things. I feel like the only times they're getting specific are when they attack each other over overhead projectors or number of votes for some evil bill. Why are specifics and facts so effective for attacks but generalizations so much better for policy?

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.