>>> What you do needs to be intellectually challenging as well. Just because
>>> something pays well, if it is boring, that fact is relevant. That is why
>>> it is often bad advice to do something just because it pays well.
>>> Usually, the collateral effects outweigh the financial reward.
>>
>> Not necessarily. How much does the financial rewards compare to the
>> intellectual stimulation is dependent on the individual, and it's not for
>> Stephen, you, or me to decide what an individual should decide.
>>
>> To learn more about this subject, pick up a Math, Economics, or Actuarial
>> Science book on Risk Theory and search for Utility Function. Warning: the
>> math may be too advanced for the casual reader to fully understand the
>> subject.
>
> It's all subjective. Perhaps stuffing cotton in medicine bottles is
> intellectually stimulating for some.
>
My point is that the untility function is a personal thing. Intellectual
stimulation may or may not weight much when compared to financial rewards.
An individual may consciously and willingly choose a job that does not
intellectually stimulate him at all if financial rewards are his primary
source of happiness.

> My point is that to discard dotNET on a per se basis because of one blow
> hard is rediculous.
>
Agreed.


> To everything there is a risk, but without risk, there is next to no
> reward.
>
Bull. We all make choices based on our aversion to risk and choose a path
that balances risks and rewards. Some individuals choose what a path that
you and I would consider non-rewarding because they have a complete aversion
to risk. However, it's not for you or me to decide to measure the relative
value of the rewards.

Daniel