Perhaps relevant, the Dow has not since regained the level it was at on Nov. 4
Perhaps you missed the failure of AIG, the wall street bailouts, and the whole recession thing in Q1. Sort of puts a damper on recovery.
I apologize for my wording on that point. I only intended to suggest that Obama's election may have been a factor that made it difficult for the stock market to recover from the downturn, but after re-reading my comment, I made it sound as though I believe that Obama caused the Dow's downturn.
I was trying to say something like: "This is perhaps relevant to the fact that the Dow has not yet returned to the level that it was at on Nov. 4"
President Obama's recent statements are simply following through with what he has said before the election: it's how he's going to be paying for his programs. His line about the Cayman Islands building in particular is almost a word-for-word repeat of something he said in a 2007 debate. He's paying for the programs he's implementing, in a Tax 'n Spend manner. Statements like these have already been priced into the stock market, and are a major reason that the Dow Jones dropped almost 1000 points over the two days after Obama was elected president (Nov. 5-6). (Perhaps relevant, the Dow has not since regained the level it was at on Nov. 4)
While not a good thing for the U.S. corporations who benefit from tax loopholes, this latest statement is nothing new, and very expected.
No, he's right. There's an achievement for having a 1-digit uid, along with 2-5 digits, and it's impossible to have both a 1-digit uid and a 5-digit uid.
Understood, there are mutually-exclusive achievements. So, perhaps to strike the point that we should have gotten from the original question: I wonder if there is also an achievement for getting all non-mutually-exclusive achievements and one of each set of mutually-exclusive achievements (with the exception of the meta-achievement described just now)?
There are now 8 planets in the UNIVERSE because they defined a planet as a body orbiting the sun. The definition sucks so I have no problem if states are defining a planet as something else than a small club of grey men(IAU).
This statement is incorrect. The resolution in 2006 solely applied to bodies in the Solar system. Extrasolar bodies' planetary status were sorted out back in 2003:
1. Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.
2. Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
3. Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).
... concerning a celestial body whose public status has recently changed from "Boring Planet" to "Boring Dwarf Planet" after its 15 minutes of fame in the news. I guess now it's a "Less Boring Dwarf Planet".
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps relevant, the Dow has not since regained the level it was at on Nov. 4
Perhaps you missed the failure of AIG, the wall street bailouts, and the whole recession thing in Q1. Sort of puts a damper on recovery.
I apologize for my wording on that point. I only intended to suggest that Obama's election may have been a factor that made it difficult for the stock market to recover from the downturn, but after re-reading my comment, I made it sound as though I believe that Obama caused the Dow's downturn.
I was trying to say something like: "This is perhaps relevant to the fact that the Dow has not yet returned to the level that it was at on Nov. 4"
President Obama's recent statements are simply following through with what he has said before the election: it's how he's going to be paying for his programs. His line about the Cayman Islands building in particular is almost a word-for-word repeat of something he said in a 2007 debate. He's paying for the programs he's implementing, in a Tax 'n Spend manner. Statements like these have already been priced into the stock market, and are a major reason that the Dow Jones dropped almost 1000 points over the two days after Obama was elected president (Nov. 5-6). (Perhaps relevant, the Dow has not since regained the level it was at on Nov. 4) While not a good thing for the U.S. corporations who benefit from tax loopholes, this latest statement is nothing new, and very expected.
Awesome. It showed my proper account name, PotatoFarmer, both times. I guess it's just a display error, then.
No, he's right. There's an achievement for having a 1-digit uid, along with 2-5 digits, and it's impossible to have both a 1-digit uid and a 5-digit uid.
Understood, there are mutually-exclusive achievements. So, perhaps to strike the point that we should have gotten from the original question: I wonder if there is also an achievement for getting all non-mutually-exclusive achievements and one of each set of mutually-exclusive achievements (with the exception of the meta-achievement described just now)?
There are now 8 planets in the UNIVERSE because they defined a planet as a body orbiting the sun. The definition sucks so I have no problem if states are defining a planet as something else than a small club of grey men(IAU).
This statement is incorrect. The resolution in 2006 solely applied to bodies in the Solar system. Extrasolar bodies' planetary status were sorted out back in 2003:
1. Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.
2. Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
3. Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Extrasolar_planets_and_brown_dwarfs
... concerning a celestial body whose public status has recently changed from "Boring Planet" to "Boring Dwarf Planet" after its 15 minutes of fame in the news. I guess now it's a "Less Boring Dwarf Planet".