Who owns the job? How does someone go about taking a job? It sounds like stealing if it's simply taken from the person who owns it. Can somebody take a job without any authorization from anybody?

Imagine tests that nobody is obligated to attempt, that have no age requirements for eligibility to attempt the tests, and that are for official academic credit recognized by state governments.

In no particular order, here are a few possible benefits of such tests:

* They could be used as diagnostic tests for college students who are having trouble in some subject area. Is the problem lack of preparation? Colleges don't know because there's a variety of different high school education systems, and a variety of different high school teachers.

* An entrepreneur could offer educational services to potential customers. After helping a relatively small number of people succeed at the tests, the entrepreneur would have objective evidence for future potential customers. Perhaps an entrepreneur could find an initial cohort of customers by providing educational services at very low cost, such as approximately what it would cost for the entrepreneur to earn minimum wage. Note that what I am describing is in a sense the opposite of a degree mill. The entrepreneur doesn't offer any kind of credential whatsoever. Therefore, the entrepreneur obviously wouldn't offer a misleading credential. The entrepreneur would offer only to help people learn.

* As the range of tests offered in a given state expands to eventually include all academic subjects studied from grades nine to twelve, young people would have a new option. If they are willing and able to learn independently of high school, then they could test themselves out of high school and gain admission to an environment more conducive to learning.

Alternatively, are the interactions in some cases examples of bullying, with two DU members sometimes ganging up against one?

Consider the following dialog:

Law Enforcement Officer: We had an anonymous tip, a complaint against you.

Innocent Man: I know what you're going to say. I am frequently seen entering my home late at night with two women, and it's the same two women every time.

Law Enforcement Officer: I wasn't going to say that. They're both with you at the same time?

Innocent Man: Yes, officer.

Law Enforcement Officer: Then they're the ones I need to speak with. They're ganging up on you. Good day, sir.

Note:
The above dialog is a variation on a theme.
Here's the original dialog. In the original dialog, the man brings home only one of the two women on any given night.

A year after he graduated, someone asked him, "If you're so smart, how come you aren't rich?"

He decided to get into shape for a long-distance running contest that offered a big cash prize.

He met some people interested in physical fitness and started training with them. One member of the group was persistently putting down Darwin and boasting about being not only in better shape than Darwin, but having achieved the highest possible fitness level. During the running contest, that member of the group suffered a heart attack and died.

The death upset Darwin, so Darwin didn't finish that particular race, but he looked down at the corpse of the dead runner and asked, "If you're so fit, why didn't you survive?"

"Richard" wasn't the name of the monkey, and the person claiming to be disabled wasn't a woman. "Richard" was the name of a man who had a disabling heart condition, and the monkey calmed him, but he was good about not taking the monkey into restaurants. He kept it mostly on a ranch in Texas. Nowadays, the monkey is part of a traveling circus.

They all saw the movie "Fight Club" one night, and they thought it was cool.

Seriously though, does insurance management sound like an appropriate career for them? Why not day trading, or lion taming?

By "forfeits its right to exist", do you mean that outsiders should use military force to change the government of Israel or do you mean that all citizens of Israel should be deported from Israel and scattered around the world?

A religious person can be truly good. However, if you tell that religious person, "You are good", and that religious person happens to be Jesus, then that religious person might reply as follows: "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone."

Let us pray that one day someone like you will finally cure Jesus of His ignorance.

I'm trying to understand why the Taleban opposes formal education for girls. Are they concerned about the possibility of being poor theocratic managers of the money collected from taxpayers? Are they concerned that females in Afghanistan would put in a lot of time attending school and keeping teachers occupied without making effort to learn, and that the formal education would never be a catalyst for females of Afghanistan to make an economic contribution for themselves, for their families, or for their country?

Why should farmers have to beg for subsidies while governments of oil-rich countries have simply expropriated the work of geologists, prospectors, engineers, infrastructure builders, etc?

OPEC hasn't always existed, and oil isn't the only important commodity in the world. As time goes by, new organizations can be established.

it seems that many self-proclaimed Christian organizations try to persuade people that, by suffering a loss and having some other people gain something from it, you will receive some mystical benefit. The underlying assumption seems to be that interactions for mutual benefit aren't possible.

Note that giving money to others involves a (monetary) loss to you, but doesn't necessarily help others. For example, the gift money could be used for illegal and impure drugs, creating health problems or death for the user, and providing another increment to the income of criminal organizations in various parts of the world.

Also note that mutual harm is not particularly obscure. It's obviously possible for wars between nations and smaller scale physical conflicts to produce no net gain for anybody. Thus, it's obviously possible that a loss for one person could be associated with an event that benefits nobody.

The obvious and sensible approach to human interaction is to avoid interactions in which anyone would suffer a loss of any kind, and to pursue interactions in which everybody gains. This is well-known in sales training. Sales managers who encourage integrity selling tell their sales employees to aim for a transaction in the "win-win" quadrant.

The alternative "golden rule" philosophy relies upon a completely unspecified analogy. Do unto others how? As you would have others do unto you. However, the word "as" there merely signals that there is to be some kind of analogy. Who can say whether or not an alleged analogy is actually an analogy? Who can say whether or not a given analogy is a good analogy?

14-34

If the kids understood, then the kids would agree.
You cannot (i.e. must not) agree too much (i.e. at all) with President Obama.
Therefore, kids cannot understand.

Now, we have established the basic lemma: the kids cannot understand. We proceed quickly to the explanation.

Why force kids to listen to some incomprehensible lecture on advanced Keynesian monetary fiscal quantum electro-election-life-skill-dynamics? Let them progress through the grades! They're just kids, not political footballs.

If not, then how do people decide that, among all the books that they could invest money to get translated into English, the ones that they are investing money to get translated into English are the best choices?

If there are such book reviews, then where can I find a lot of them?