4 ms·

Doesn't seem like that great of an argument to me.

• mahyarm 12y ago
  It's not very good for one's life expectancy or mental health, and if you are that good, you could make far more money doing other things.
  • scrapcode 12y ago
    That's quite the generalization.
  • cpwright 12y ago
    If you're doing it, you're probably not in it for the money. Just as most people who work for a non-profit are also not in it for the money. Do you assume that everyone who works for a non-profit because they believe in the cause can't actually be very bright? You might not agree with their motivations, but that doesn't mean they can't be every bit as smart as someone who decides to go off and make as much money as possible.
    • coldtea 12y ago
      >If you're doing it, you're probably not in it for the money. Sure. But any other motive for doing such a thing is probably less smart too.
      • scrapcode 12y ago
        "Such a thing," in this case being the military, encapsulates multiple industries including computer science and information technology. In the United States it could also mean the benefit of a full ride education along with highly technical military training. Complete health care, job security, global travel opportunities... Since you seem to be fixated on the notion that if there isn't and tangible reward than it is less smart than the choice you'd make. Not to mention that such a choice most likely satisfies passion and honor within a person.
        • josu 12y ago
          >Not to mention that such a choice most likely satisfies passion and honor within a person. If you are saying that any person that satisfies his passions and honor is considered smart, or that a person that works in something that gives him satisfaction is considered smart, then you are just twisting the definition of smart.