Your point that N Korea has a large army is an important one but numbers aren't everything. The Iraqi army in the first gulf war had about 550,000 soldiers, decent equipment, and time to dig in and still got thoroughly stomped. Granted it's not the same situation but the US military lately has been scary effective in conventional conflicts. It's the asymmetric conflicts that cause problems for our conventional military.
but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties.
I have no real expertise on the Korean situation but given the results of recent conventional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would put my money on the US military in a romp unless the Chinese got involved on the opposing side. I think the N Koreans could do a lot of damage to the South until the US mobilized but without support from the Chinese the N Koreans would be in for a serious ass whipping. The US already has significant military assets in place in Korea though perhaps only enough for a delaying action. The biggest obstacle is that the US military would have to disengage in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to mount a serious campaign.
Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
It's called an armored personnel carrier. Seriously, the only big threat the North Koreans themselves pose to the US is if (big if) they can make effective tactical use of a nuclear weapon, either against a city or massed armed forces. Yes, there would be troop losses but I strongly suspect the numbers would be highly lopsided after an initial N Korean assault.
While it's true that it normally works that way I really don't see why it has to if they plan ahead.
It has nothing to do with planning - it's all about economics. A large manufacturing facility like the ones for the F22 has HUGE fixed costs. This is true of any large manufacturing concern, not just aircraft makers. These fixed costs (utilities, staff, maintenance, leases, etc.) have to be paid whether or not you produce even a single aircraft. It's not just the assembly line where they put it all together either. The entire supply chain has to be funded to keep ready to resume production. Furthermore if you want to keep the workforce available (absolutely necessary given the product complexity) you need to compensate them accordingly which is more huge fixed costs with no product to show for the expense.
No company could or should try to justify such expenses. So the only way to do it is to have the government pay the company to idle the facility and pay the entire supply chain to be ready to resume production. This would cost billions of dollars annually even without producing a single aircraft. Even Congress isn't so stupid as to think they could sell that to the voting public as a good use of tax dollars.
China doesn't have to engage us in war. If they ever get pissed at the U.S., all they have to do is stop investing in our economy and call in all our notes.
You don't know much about international finance do you? The Chinese central bank holds a lot of Treasury bonds and US dollars in order to control their own exchange rate. If they want to dump their holdings, exactly who do you think is going to buy them? The Europeans? Japan? Nope, they hold so much US cash and debt that they basically are stuck with it in the short term. The notes they hold aren't callable either btw. They can't just demand payment whenever they want.
Even if they tried to dump it they would trash their own economy in the process. China has painted themselves into a corner in order to support their export economy.
We won't be able to buy ammo or fuel to attack or defend against anything, then. Instant capitulation.
Please. You are forgetting that the US government has the ability to raise taxes. The weenie politicians just don't want to because they'll get voted out of office. Borrowing is just one way to raise money and not always the best.
Should the need arise, we could obviously ramp production back up much, much faster than (e.g.) China could design, test, and build a large number of competing aircraft.
While technically true, this statement is pretty much irrelevant. Once production is shut down on a product this sophisticated it takes years to ramp production back up absent a crash program of immense expense. The assembly lines aren't normally mothballed, they are either torn down or re-purposed to other products. The talent pool that produces the plane is dispersed and close to impossible to put back together coherently. Institutional memory is lost. The supply chain becomes fragmented. While it is technically possible to restart production, it would be very difficult and EXTREMELY expensive to do so. Quite possibly every bit as expensive as starting over from scratch believe it or not.
Pretty much once production stops, the F22 program is likely dead for good. If there seems to be a need for more planes to fill the role of an F22 I would expect it to be filled by a new design rather than more F22s.
And who cares about corporations who refuse to move on from a tool that even the creator has killed off?
You do. Forget Windows and IE - do you have ANY idea how many POS (Point Of Sale) systems there are out there that still rely on DOS? The answer will scare you. "Upgrading" software is an expense and a potential business risk. Sometimes the rewards are not worth the expense. I have clients that have computer systems that are 10, 15 and even 25 years old and not about the be replaced anytime soon. You can make a very profitable living maintaining and integrating legacy systems and there are lots out there.
Survival of the fittest always wins, always.
And what, pray tell, is your definition of fittest? Unfortunately I can think of many definitions of fittest that don't equal best, modern, up-to-date, robust or (sadly) secure.
Why the hell don't some companies allow the use of another browser?
Cost mostly. Typically they have some old code that will cost money to update and they can't make a business case to do it yet. Usually they'll upgrade in due time but it might take years or even decades.
At common sense for a start. If over the counter pills are against school rules, fine. It's morally and legally acceptable with sufficient suspicion for teachers to ask students to empty their pockets, search their bags and search their lockers. If nothing is found, let it go. The odds of something tragic happening because a student consumes some Advil or Motrin is so remote as to not be worth any potential further action. They are not drugs of abuse, possessing them violates no laws, and they are quite safe unless consumed in very large quantities or by people with very unusual medical conditions. Just use some common sense.
I can conceive of no situation where a strip search by a school administrator could possibly be a sensible course of action. If there is a clear and present danger to school property, other students, faculty or staff then there are resources for dealing with such situations starting with parents and police. School administrations are equipped to deal with minor behavior violations only - dress code, insubordination, maybe the odd fist fight and the like. If weapons or controlled substances or serious crimes are suspected, the faculty is not equipped to appropriately deal with those situations. When school administration starts believing that they are a police force we get abuses like the one we are discussing here.
Even if all cops aren't bad, if bad cops are a big of enough problem, it does call into question whether having cops at all is worth it in a free society.
So your argument is that because perfection is impossible that we shouldn't even try? Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling. The evidence that a police force is helpful to society (free or otherwise) is overwhelming. This remains true even in the face of a fairly substantial amount of corruption and abuse by that police force. Look to the looting and violence that occurs in the aftermath of many natural disasters when police are not around. Yes it is possible for the police to become the problem rather than the solution but in the US and most other industrialized nations that is FAR from being the case. Even in ostensibly non-free countries (China) the problem isn't usually the police force but the laws and policies the police force is tasked with enforcing by the government.
Personally, I'd feel safer if I were allowed to defend myself.
Not for long you wouldn't. There are places in this world where there is no substantial police or government presence. I suggest you go to one of them and then report back on how safe you feel. Take whatever weapons you like.
In a relatively small state like Michigan with nasty freeze-thaw cycles that probably cause massive damage to roads anyway, this probably is not a bad idea.
The roads in northern Ohio are exposed to basically the same freeze-thaw cycles and Ohio somehow manages to have FAR better road quality. I used to live in Ohio but work in Michigan and would cross the border every day. It was VERY easy to tell when I had crossed the border into Michigan without even seeing a sign. Same is true of Indiana. Michigan is a beautiful state and it has a lot to recommend it, but it is ironic that the State which is the center of the automobile universe has such horrible roads.
The distances are such that the lower speed limit required isn't going to mean it takes days to get across the state (like it would in, say, Montana).
Depends on the direction you travel. Going from Detroit to Copper Harbor (top of the upper peninsula) takes about 11-12 hours. East to West it's only 3-5 hours across the state in the lower peninsula.
How do you expect people to understand probability theory without understanding integration?
No one is (or should be) arguing that calculus should not be taught. Calculus rightly should be in the curriculum for all science/engineering degrees. That said I would argue it is over-emphasized in most engineering/science curriculums. In practical terms it's just not used in all but a few professions on a day to day basis. I'm an engineer with a minor in applied mathematics and my first job out of college was doing Monte-Carlo simulations. Sure, calculus helped me to understand probability, continuous distributions and various other bits of analysis - definitely helpful. Nonetheless I haven't done an actual integral or derivative in 15 years. When I do "use" calculus it is always conceptually rather than actual integration or derivation. I would argue most people could take less calculus in college than is/was required and more of other branches of math (statistics especially) with good results.
My primary care doctor is experienced and well known...
That kid wouldn't have been so certain based on his clinical experience of similar looking rashes.
This isn't necessarily a critique of your particular doctor but primary care doctors are *not* usually experts in rashes. I know this because my wife is a dermatopathologist and constantly complains about the skin "diagnosis" she gets from general practitioners. According to her, it is fairly rare to find a non-dermatologist doctor who is particularly competent or sophisticated at identifying skin conditions. There are a LOT of skin conditions that can mimic other skin conditions and the differences can be subtle to non-existent. Every doctor gets fooled - the more interesting question is how often? Your doctor might be good at skin conditions (or might be bad) but the best way to know for sure is to ask a pathologist. But even that is imperfect because pathologists get fooled too.
Doctors go with the story that makes sense but sometimes their first instinct is wrong. Fortunately in most cases the consequences of being wrong are minor. They have a saying that when you hear the sound of hoofs you think horses, not zebras. As a rule of thumb you don't treat the unlikely condition until you've ruled out or have reason to suspect the common condition is not present. I don't know the particulars of your case beyond what you've presented but I've heard many stories like yours. Sometimes the clues lead doctors down a wrong path.
The fact that the kid in this article had the problem for years but they never went back to the start of the decision tree to see where they went says something bad about her doctors.
Maybe but maybe not. The article leaves out a lot of information. We don't know how actively she (the patient) pursued getting a diagnosis. We don't know her medical history. We don't know what tests were tried and we don't know the results of those tests. We don't know what was discussed with the doctors and we don't know the qualifications of the doctors involved in her case. We don't know what she was treated for and what her differential diagnosis was. Some conditions simply are hard to diagnose even when you have all the facts. My wife is a pathologist and according to her it is apparently surprisingly easy to miss a clue on a slide. The better pathologists stress over this fact endlessly. Some conditions require looking at the slide on high power for a single unusual looking cell among many thousands. Sometimes the clues are breathtakingly subtle and the best "diagnosis" available is a list of conditions that cannot be ruled out - sometimes a long list of conditions unfortunately. A granuloma is apparently noteworthy but might not be diagnostic by itself. It could easily be missed with a moment's inattention. What I'm saying is that we should be careful about judging the physicians in this case because we very clearly do not have all the facts.
I can't speak for your local area but out here in California we were able to sell iPhones at full retail price to people who were still within their 2 year agreement.
They've always been willing to sell me a new phone at full retail. That's not the problem. The problem is that if I buy an iPhone my contract gets *extended* by 2 years no matter what price I pay. I have not found a single AT&T or Apple store willing to sell me an iPhone at any price (discounted or full retail) without extending my contract. Additionally getting an iPhone requires a new SIM card. Furthermore if I change any of the terms of service (rate plan, etc) my contract gets extended. I'd consider switching but the others (Sprint, TMobile, Verizon) are no better in my opinion.
Otherwise why did they offer $100 off for 1 year and $200 off for 2 year?
Never been an option in any AT&T store I've ever been in - at least not when buying an iPhone. Frankly I wouldn't mind paying extra to avoid the 2 year commitment but it hasn't been an option on the table.
Or was the sales person you talked to one of the slimey bastards who lied left and right?
No I'm pretty sure the sales person was not being slimy. Without getting into details I'm quite sure they were just reporting what the database told them.
You say you were unable to purchase the phone with a $200 discount AND were forced to sign a two year agreement. Now I can't say 100% but I strongly lean towards you getting cheated.
It was at an Apple store. I'm quite certain I got cheated but I got cheated by AT&T corporate policy. Nice way to treat a 10 year customer who was trying to buy a product from them.
Anyone who doesn't understand this and feels its a 'slap in the face' should grow up, it's not like they hide this fact at signup.
The problem isn't whether or not they hid anything. The problem is that unless things have changed you CANNOT buy an iPhone at any price without the contract extension. The subsidy isn't in exchange for anything. Furthermore it creates a disincentive for me to upgrade my current phone (not an iPhone) which hurts Apple and hurts AT&T because I'm paying less than I would if they didn't have this stupid policy.
I bought my wife an iPhone 3G shortly after it came out and AT&T wouldn't give me the discounted price despite the fact that I have NEVER bought a subsidized phone from AT&T in 10 years. Without getting into the particulars of why, I bought her iPhone 3G at *full unsubsidized price* but I still am subject to the 2 year lockup. Why? AT&T did not subsidize my purchase so there is no argument to be made that they are being compensated for subsidizing my purchase. Furthermore I've been an AT&T wireless customer for 10 years. Treating your long time customers like this isn't a great way to reduce customer churn.
I also read a quote somewhere else of somebody saying "Airplanes might be safer than cars, but I'd rather arrive at my destination with a false sense of security than feel like I've narrowly escaped death."
Whoever said that was a moron. Was that person by any chance involved in designing our airport "security" system? I'd rather be safe than think I'm safe when I'm not.
I personally believe statistics aren't all they're cracked up to be. When I'm in control of a situation VS when I'm not. I think I can personally change my chances of survival in a car by not speeding... Maybe only a few percentage points, but still-
So the math is wrong or useless because it makes you uncomfortable quantifying the risk? Yes, you can elect behaviors that reduce your risk and statistics can (often) tell you whether your attempt to reduce your risk is significant. But that's not the same as eliminating all risk. You are never completely in control of your survival in a car because you can't control other people's decisions nor the environment around you. At best you can simply behave in a manner which minimizes your risk but it is never zero. Control is an illusion and complete control is wishful thinking.
statistics are cold hard ideas, but don't account for personal decisions.
Yes they do. Statistics account for aggregated decisions. Every accident includes a series of decisions by everyone involved. Accident statistics tell us the results of those decisions. With sufficient data we might learn that certain decisions should be avoided in the future but statistics very much account for personal decisions. And the decisions are not just in operating the vehicle but also decision made in the manufacture of the vehicle (Firestone tires on an Explorer anyone?) or the contents (Budweiser?).
Statistically, 1 in X number of men will have a heart attack- but eating healthy and excersizing changes your odds. You're not just a sitting duck, y'know?
Correct but that doesn't alter the utility of the statistics. Furthermore depending on your genetics and other factors you may get the heart attack anyway. Reduced odds does not mean perfect safety. If your parents had high blood pressure despite eating a healthy diet, chances are good you will too no matter what you eat.
400bhp, like the way an Argos stereo is "100W". They do *not* produce 400bhp except if you use interestingly fudged measurements.
And your evidence for this is what? I've worked with engine dynos professionally and I'm quite familiar with how horsepower is rated. Show me the evidence to back up your assertion.
Also, they're producing their "400bhp" from a 6.2 litre engine.
According to GM the Hummer H2 engine produces 393 HP at 5700RPM. Compare that with the 5.7L 381HP engine on the Toyota Tundra or the 6.8L V10 from the Ford F250 which produces 362HP at 4750. Sounds like they're pretty much in the ball park for a normally aspirated petrol truck engine around 6L in size to me.
The VW VR6 engine produces nearly as much power from half the displacement.
Bullshit. I've owned a series of VWs continually since the 1980s. The VR6 is a fine engine but it isn't even close to 400HP in any sort of normally aspirated form. I don't think I've ever seen a VR6 north of 300HP in any stock VW, Audi or Porsche vehicle.
Let's do some math shall we? 300HP/3.6L = 83HP/L : 400HP/6.2L=64HP/L. Given that there are some vehicles with HP/L over 100 (usually turbocharged 4 cylinders), it is quite possible to get more HP out of either engine but the VR6 has clearly been tweaked more and isn't really designed for low rpm torque. To get that HP the VR6 has to rev higher and the torque curve looks much different. Furthermore larger displacement does not linearly translate into higher horsepower especially between dissimilar engines.
...it still gets cross-axled on things that wouldn't stick a normal family car...
Having driven and ridden in an H2 off-road on an actual test track myself I know you are full of crap. There are more capable off-road vehicles than the H2 (not the least of which is the original Hummer) but the H2 is plenty capable for pretty much anything but truly ridiculous off-road trails. Not that anyone who actually owns a Hummer actually takes the vehicle off-road what with it being a "look how much money I make" penis-mobile...
But even leaving that aside â" why do problems with paperwork make it necessary to turn away patients?
Because paperwork is how a hospital communicates. Without it it is very difficult to effectively treat anything except the simplest problems. Missing paperwork also prevents billing for services, causes serious legal and standard of care issues, and reduces the number of cases a hospital can effectively manage.
In any case the hospital did not "turn away" patients, it diverted patients arriving by ambulance to other hospitals. This is standard practice in every hospital outside of times of crisis. Sometimes hospitals get more patients than they can handle and so they divert patients to nearby hospitals to handle the overflow. Happens to smaller Emergency Departments all the time. Hospitals aren't designed to handle unlimited numbers of cases. Lack of access to medial records reduces the number of cases a hospital can effectively manage and so diversion becomes the responsible course of action. They did the right thing.
One of the reasons electronic records have been slow in coming is that actual paper paperwork has a nearly unbeatable advantage in reliability which is obviously important when lives are on the line. There are good reasons for electronic medical records but using them always will carry the risk of paralysis when the electrons aren't flowing correctly. There are manual fallback procedures but they are necessarily less efficient. Had there been a catastrophe (think terrorist attack or natural disaster) the hospital would have accepted the patients if needed. Every hospital has contingency plans for circumstances like this.
It's fragile, underpowered and heavy, with crap axle articulation
Consumer Reports and Edmunds both seem to think you are full of crap in your analysis of its offroad abilities. Furthermore how you can call a vehicle with nearly 400HP underpowered strikes me as bizarre, even as heavy as it is. I've ridden in one myself on an offroad test track and it was impressive - though I'd never buy one in a million years. Perhaps you are referring to the H3 which was supposedly designed primarily for urban use and might actually be underpowered?
There is plenty to complain about with Hummers but please criticize the right things.
With Toyota you're supporting a few thousand schlubs being paid a decent wage to work in a factory.
A few thousand? Try tens of thousands across their various operating companies plus the extensive supply base, much of which is here in the US. Toyota makes close to half of the vehicles they sell in the US right here in the US. Last year that was approximately 1 million vehicles. (they make more in Japan but most of those are sold elsewhere in the world - they only import a bit over 1 million vehicles annually) You can't build that many vehicles locally and import all the parts. The currency risk and lead times would make it impossible. Furthermore the dollar has been weakening which would make it more expensive to bring parts from overseas to the US.
With the domestic you're supporting not just the people who build the cars but also the parts. Toyota and Honda don't build their parts here, they ship them from oversea's.
You couldn't be more wrong. That hasn't been true for a LONG time. I've been in the plants where they make parts for Toyota right here in the US. I've seen the frames for the Toyota Tacoma, Sequoia and Tundra being assembled with my own eyes and even helped optimize the lines. It's simply not economical to make and ship every or even most parts from Japan if the assembly occurs here in the US. The logistics get too difficult for a Just-In-Time system like Toyota uses - most of the parts HAVE to be made close to where assembly occurs. Furthermore there are joint ventures like NUMMI. If you go to a Honda dealer they list the percentage of parts made in the US versus made in Japan. A current model Civic has about 20% of the parts made in Japan and most of the rest are made in either the US or Canada and assembly happens in Ohio. Supply chains are global these days.
The manufacturing base that is built up around these domestic guys is what is most valuable to us as a country.
Most of those suppliers, especially the large ones, supply both foreign and domestic auto makers. In fact it is a problem for Toyota and other auto makers if GM goes under because they share a non-trivial amount of their supply base. I used to work for one of the 10 biggest auto suppliers. Just over 55% of their business was domestic and the rest was overseas. The largest single client was one of the big three (Chrysler at the time if memory serves) and it accounted for somewhere north of 12% of the company's business at the time. The other big Tier One suppliers in the US depend on the Big 3 but most of them have plenty of business with non-US based automakers too. Don't get me wrong, losing the Big 3 business would hurt the supply base a lot but don't have any illusions about the nature of the supply base.
It's pretty clear that the Saturn product turned to crap after GM bought Saturn. It's pretty clear that the Saturn product turned to crap after GM bought Saturn.
GM did not buy Saturn. Saturn was started in 1985 as a subsidiary of GM in order to compete with the perceived Japanese threat. It did well for a while but eventually was ignored by GM and starved of capital for years. Saturn has ALWAYS been a part of GM from the moment it was founded. It was operated outside the normal GM reporting structure for a while but the owner was GM.
So they will trot out that they saved 3,000 or so jobs.
A little cynical are we? The job loses at GM are going to be in the many tens of thousands. GM is closing 14 plants and 3 distribution centers. That is a HUGE number of workers getting pink slips and it won't stop there.
What about the 100,000 plus jobs lost when all the dealerships are being forced to close, even ones who make a profit? A considerable number, if not the majority, of dealerships being punted are profitable.
What about them? GM has been hemorrhaging money for years so these dealerships have been getting a free ride for some time. GM almost certainly has WAY more dealerships than it actually needs and that means it is cannibalizing sales and hurting profit margins both for the dealers and for GM. It costs money to support those dealerships and many of them are not well run operations. It's a lot easier to control the quality of customer service with fewer dealerships. Toyota has far fewer dealerships and every year gets better customer service ratings than most if not all GM divisions. Some sort of contraction was virtually inevitable. That in no way minimizes the unfortunate nature of what has occurred but it is not even remotely a surprise.
If you really want to see where the trouble is happening by the way look at the auto suppliers. Visteon declared bankruptcy and there will be plenty more besides.
Some people actually need a vehicle with more than 12 " ground clearance.
Maybe but that describes virtually no one that actually buys a HUMMER. I see them driving around town on a daily basis and I am quite sure not a single one I see has spent a moment even on a dirt road much less off road. A HUMMER is an insanely capable off road vehicle but it is purchased almost exclusively as a status symbol - and an especially wasteful one at that.
For status, get an Escalade.
Anyone who buys an Escalade is nearly as big an insecure douche as anyone who buys a HUMMER H2.
For panache, get a Caterpillar.
Now that would be stylin'. If someone is going to be a greedy jackass why not go all the way? I love it!
How is this relevant to anything but the ability to soak up Anabolic Steroids without dying immediately before the competition ?
Umm, because even with unlimited access to steroids women can't compete. The top women body builders don't even get as strong as the men who win in "natural" competitions (read drug free).
At least you should compare sexes in a real sport [gdargaud.net] (one that uses brains and muscles, there are so very few of them).
I'll ignore your bitter and incorrect thesis and just ask why would I do that when my entire point was to compare muscles only?
You haven't been looking very carefully. As of two years ago approximately 42% of internal medicine interns were women. By next year 33% of doctors are expected to be women and that number is rising. Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well. My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand.
If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.
That presumes that the ground IS actually equal which I would argue it probably is not equal - not yet anyway, though it is headed in the right direction. Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment that for true equality to exist the playing field should be level and many old prejudices need to die. Personally I'll concede that things are equal or nearly so when women in the US have to register for the draft.
I've always found it ironic that most women who claim to be for equal rights never seem terribly eager for certain dangerous responsibilities that should go with those rights. For example I see no logical reason why women in the US are not forced like the men to register for the draft. Women clearly are capable of serving on a voluntary basis, and most of the jobs in the military apparently can be performed admirably by either gender. Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service. Sometimes rights come with ugly responsibilities. Seems like a double standard to me.
I'd say that's inaccurate, too. It would be more accurate to say that the top end of all women can't reach the level of raw strength as that of the top end of all men. There are many women who are stronger and faster than a number of men.
Completely accurate but incomplete. Men on average have significantly higher upper body strength than women. Aside from being simply obvious there is a vast amount of data to support this thesis. Men overall also have greater ability to build muscle than women. One simply has to watch a bodybuilding competition to see the difference in potential. There are some women that exceed many/most men in a given sport but no women that exceed all men when strength matters. Outside of a few niche sporting events, men hold virtually all athletic world records where strength is a meaningful factor. This holds true at every level of competition and every age past puberty. Even at relatively low levels of performance and even with adequate training most women measurably under-perform their male counterparts in most sports. If these differences did not exist, there would be little reason to have women compete separately from the men.
I cannot reasonably address the mental differences between men and women but there is NO question that men are physically stronger on average or in peak potential. It's ok to admit that there are at least some differences between men and women.
Any job where having a $1000 suit rather than an ordinary (but nice-looking) jacket and tie will make a difference in getting it is probably not a job I want in the first place...
That's your choice of course. High level sales, management, legal and consulting jobs typically require a relatively expensive wardrobe for a variety of reasons. Nothing wrong with wanting to work in your blue jeans either but a job with a six figure income usually comes with strings attached. A dress code is frequently among the strings. If your customers dress in nice suits, chances are decent you'll be expected to dress the same way. Obviously if your job is programming, a suit and tie is probably not necessary or reasonable.
However for an interview you will be judged on your physical appearance, like it or not.
...either because they have unreasonable expectations in their dress code, or because they're a law firm and I'm not a lawyer.
Unreasonable is a matter of opinion. Yours likely differs from mine and that's ok. But all other things equal (and I know they rarely are) I'm not going to turn down a higher paying job just because I have to dress better. You are aware that a good fitting suit is more comfortable than any blue jeans you've ever worn right? There IS a difference between a $250 suit and a $1000 suit and especially a tailored suit. If you have to live in the clothing it's nice to be comfortable and a bonus to look good too. I will happily concede however that a tie is a useless and stupid piece of clothing and they should all be burned.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a 1,200,000 man standing army.
Your point that N Korea has a large army is an important one but numbers aren't everything. The Iraqi army in the first gulf war had about 550,000 soldiers, decent equipment, and time to dig in and still got thoroughly stomped. Granted it's not the same situation but the US military lately has been scary effective in conventional conflicts. It's the asymmetric conflicts that cause problems for our conventional military.
but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties.
I have no real expertise on the Korean situation but given the results of recent conventional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would put my money on the US military in a romp unless the Chinese got involved on the opposing side. I think the N Koreans could do a lot of damage to the South until the US mobilized but without support from the Chinese the N Koreans would be in for a serious ass whipping. The US already has significant military assets in place in Korea though perhaps only enough for a delaying action. The biggest obstacle is that the US military would have to disengage in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to mount a serious campaign.
Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
It's called an armored personnel carrier. Seriously, the only big threat the North Koreans themselves pose to the US is if (big if) they can make effective tactical use of a nuclear weapon, either against a city or massed armed forces. Yes, there would be troop losses but I strongly suspect the numbers would be highly lopsided after an initial N Korean assault.
While it's true that it normally works that way I really don't see why it has to if they plan ahead.
It has nothing to do with planning - it's all about economics. A large manufacturing facility like the ones for the F22 has HUGE fixed costs. This is true of any large manufacturing concern, not just aircraft makers. These fixed costs (utilities, staff, maintenance, leases, etc.) have to be paid whether or not you produce even a single aircraft. It's not just the assembly line where they put it all together either. The entire supply chain has to be funded to keep ready to resume production. Furthermore if you want to keep the workforce available (absolutely necessary given the product complexity) you need to compensate them accordingly which is more huge fixed costs with no product to show for the expense.
No company could or should try to justify such expenses. So the only way to do it is to have the government pay the company to idle the facility and pay the entire supply chain to be ready to resume production. This would cost billions of dollars annually even without producing a single aircraft. Even Congress isn't so stupid as to think they could sell that to the voting public as a good use of tax dollars.
China doesn't have to engage us in war. If they ever get pissed at the U.S., all they have to do is stop investing in our economy and call in all our notes.
You don't know much about international finance do you? The Chinese central bank holds a lot of Treasury bonds and US dollars in order to control their own exchange rate. If they want to dump their holdings, exactly who do you think is going to buy them? The Europeans? Japan? Nope, they hold so much US cash and debt that they basically are stuck with it in the short term. The notes they hold aren't callable either btw. They can't just demand payment whenever they want.
Even if they tried to dump it they would trash their own economy in the process. China has painted themselves into a corner in order to support their export economy.
We won't be able to buy ammo or fuel to attack or defend against anything, then. Instant capitulation.
Please. You are forgetting that the US government has the ability to raise taxes. The weenie politicians just don't want to because they'll get voted out of office. Borrowing is just one way to raise money and not always the best.
Should the need arise, we could obviously ramp production back up much, much faster than (e.g.) China could design, test, and build a large number of competing aircraft.
While technically true, this statement is pretty much irrelevant. Once production is shut down on a product this sophisticated it takes years to ramp production back up absent a crash program of immense expense. The assembly lines aren't normally mothballed, they are either torn down or re-purposed to other products. The talent pool that produces the plane is dispersed and close to impossible to put back together coherently. Institutional memory is lost. The supply chain becomes fragmented. While it is technically possible to restart production, it would be very difficult and EXTREMELY expensive to do so. Quite possibly every bit as expensive as starting over from scratch believe it or not.
Pretty much once production stops, the F22 program is likely dead for good. If there seems to be a need for more planes to fill the role of an F22 I would expect it to be filled by a new design rather than more F22s.
And who cares about corporations who refuse to move on from a tool that even the creator has killed off?
You do. Forget Windows and IE - do you have ANY idea how many POS (Point Of Sale) systems there are out there that still rely on DOS? The answer will scare you. "Upgrading" software is an expense and a potential business risk. Sometimes the rewards are not worth the expense. I have clients that have computer systems that are 10, 15 and even 25 years old and not about the be replaced anytime soon. You can make a very profitable living maintaining and integrating legacy systems and there are lots out there.
Survival of the fittest always wins, always.
And what, pray tell, is your definition of fittest? Unfortunately I can think of many definitions of fittest that don't equal best, modern, up-to-date, robust or (sadly) secure.
Why the hell don't some companies allow the use of another browser?
Cost mostly. Typically they have some old code that will cost money to update and they can't make a business case to do it yet. Usually they'll upgrade in due time but it might take years or even decades.
But where do we draw the line?
At common sense for a start. If over the counter pills are against school rules, fine. It's morally and legally acceptable with sufficient suspicion for teachers to ask students to empty their pockets, search their bags and search their lockers. If nothing is found, let it go . The odds of something tragic happening because a student consumes some Advil or Motrin is so remote as to not be worth any potential further action. They are not drugs of abuse, possessing them violates no laws, and they are quite safe unless consumed in very large quantities or by people with very unusual medical conditions. Just use some common sense.
I can conceive of no situation where a strip search by a school administrator could possibly be a sensible course of action. If there is a clear and present danger to school property, other students, faculty or staff then there are resources for dealing with such situations starting with parents and police. School administrations are equipped to deal with minor behavior violations only - dress code, insubordination, maybe the odd fist fight and the like. If weapons or controlled substances or serious crimes are suspected, the faculty is not equipped to appropriately deal with those situations. When school administration starts believing that they are a police force we get abuses like the one we are discussing here.
Even if all cops aren't bad, if bad cops are a big of enough problem, it does call into question whether having cops at all is worth it in a free society.
So your argument is that because perfection is impossible that we shouldn't even try? Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling. The evidence that a police force is helpful to society (free or otherwise) is overwhelming. This remains true even in the face of a fairly substantial amount of corruption and abuse by that police force. Look to the looting and violence that occurs in the aftermath of many natural disasters when police are not around. Yes it is possible for the police to become the problem rather than the solution but in the US and most other industrialized nations that is FAR from being the case. Even in ostensibly non-free countries (China) the problem isn't usually the police force but the laws and policies the police force is tasked with enforcing by the government.
Personally, I'd feel safer if I were allowed to defend myself.
Not for long you wouldn't. There are places in this world where there is no substantial police or government presence. I suggest you go to one of them and then report back on how safe you feel. Take whatever weapons you like.
In a relatively small state like Michigan with nasty freeze-thaw cycles that probably cause massive damage to roads anyway, this probably is not a bad idea.
The roads in northern Ohio are exposed to basically the same freeze-thaw cycles and Ohio somehow manages to have FAR better road quality. I used to live in Ohio but work in Michigan and would cross the border every day. It was VERY easy to tell when I had crossed the border into Michigan without even seeing a sign. Same is true of Indiana. Michigan is a beautiful state and it has a lot to recommend it, but it is ironic that the State which is the center of the automobile universe has such horrible roads.
The distances are such that the lower speed limit required isn't going to mean it takes days to get across the state (like it would in, say, Montana).
Depends on the direction you travel. Going from Detroit to Copper Harbor (top of the upper peninsula) takes about 11-12 hours. East to West it's only 3-5 hours across the state in the lower peninsula.
How do you expect people to understand probability theory without understanding integration?
No one is (or should be) arguing that calculus should not be taught. Calculus rightly should be in the curriculum for all science/engineering degrees. That said I would argue it is over-emphasized in most engineering/science curriculums. In practical terms it's just not used in all but a few professions on a day to day basis. I'm an engineer with a minor in applied mathematics and my first job out of college was doing Monte-Carlo simulations. Sure, calculus helped me to understand probability, continuous distributions and various other bits of analysis - definitely helpful. Nonetheless I haven't done an actual integral or derivative in 15 years. When I do "use" calculus it is always conceptually rather than actual integration or derivation. I would argue most people could take less calculus in college than is/was required and more of other branches of math (statistics especially) with good results.
My primary care doctor is experienced and well known...
That kid wouldn't have been so certain based on his clinical experience of similar looking rashes.
This isn't necessarily a critique of your particular doctor but primary care doctors are *not* usually experts in rashes. I know this because my wife is a dermatopathologist and constantly complains about the skin "diagnosis" she gets from general practitioners. According to her, it is fairly rare to find a non-dermatologist doctor who is particularly competent or sophisticated at identifying skin conditions. There are a LOT of skin conditions that can mimic other skin conditions and the differences can be subtle to non-existent. Every doctor gets fooled - the more interesting question is how often? Your doctor might be good at skin conditions (or might be bad) but the best way to know for sure is to ask a pathologist. But even that is imperfect because pathologists get fooled too.
Doctors go with the story that makes sense but sometimes their first instinct is wrong. Fortunately in most cases the consequences of being wrong are minor. They have a saying that when you hear the sound of hoofs you think horses, not zebras. As a rule of thumb you don't treat the unlikely condition until you've ruled out or have reason to suspect the common condition is not present. I don't know the particulars of your case beyond what you've presented but I've heard many stories like yours. Sometimes the clues lead doctors down a wrong path.
The fact that the kid in this article had the problem for years but they never went back to the start of the decision tree to see where they went says something bad about her doctors.
Maybe but maybe not. The article leaves out a lot of information. We don't know how actively she (the patient) pursued getting a diagnosis. We don't know her medical history. We don't know what tests were tried and we don't know the results of those tests. We don't know what was discussed with the doctors and we don't know the qualifications of the doctors involved in her case. We don't know what she was treated for and what her differential diagnosis was. Some conditions simply are hard to diagnose even when you have all the facts. My wife is a pathologist and according to her it is apparently surprisingly easy to miss a clue on a slide. The better pathologists stress over this fact endlessly. Some conditions require looking at the slide on high power for a single unusual looking cell among many thousands. Sometimes the clues are breathtakingly subtle and the best "diagnosis" available is a list of conditions that cannot be ruled out - sometimes a long list of conditions unfortunately. A granuloma is apparently noteworthy but might not be diagnostic by itself. It could easily be missed with a moment's inattention. What I'm saying is that we should be careful about judging the physicians in this case because we very clearly do not have all the facts.
I can't speak for your local area but out here in California we were able to sell iPhones at full retail price to people who were still within their 2 year agreement.
They've always been willing to sell me a new phone at full retail. That's not the problem. The problem is that if I buy an iPhone my contract gets *extended* by 2 years no matter what price I pay. I have not found a single AT&T or Apple store willing to sell me an iPhone at any price (discounted or full retail) without extending my contract. Additionally getting an iPhone requires a new SIM card. Furthermore if I change any of the terms of service (rate plan, etc) my contract gets extended. I'd consider switching but the others (Sprint, TMobile, Verizon) are no better in my opinion.
Otherwise why did they offer $100 off for 1 year and $200 off for 2 year?
Never been an option in any AT&T store I've ever been in - at least not when buying an iPhone. Frankly I wouldn't mind paying extra to avoid the 2 year commitment but it hasn't been an option on the table.
Or was the sales person you talked to one of the slimey bastards who lied left and right?
No I'm pretty sure the sales person was not being slimy. Without getting into details I'm quite sure they were just reporting what the database told them.
You say you were unable to purchase the phone with a $200 discount AND were forced to sign a two year agreement. Now I can't say 100% but I strongly lean towards you getting cheated.
It was at an Apple store. I'm quite certain I got cheated but I got cheated by AT&T corporate policy. Nice way to treat a 10 year customer who was trying to buy a product from them.
Anyone who doesn't understand this and feels its a 'slap in the face' should grow up, it's not like they hide this fact at signup.
The problem isn't whether or not they hid anything. The problem is that unless things have changed you CANNOT buy an iPhone at any price without the contract extension. The subsidy isn't in exchange for anything. Furthermore it creates a disincentive for me to upgrade my current phone (not an iPhone) which hurts Apple and hurts AT&T because I'm paying less than I would if they didn't have this stupid policy.
I bought my wife an iPhone 3G shortly after it came out and AT&T wouldn't give me the discounted price despite the fact that I have NEVER bought a subsidized phone from AT&T in 10 years. Without getting into the particulars of why, I bought her iPhone 3G at *full unsubsidized price* but I still am subject to the 2 year lockup. Why? AT&T did not subsidize my purchase so there is no argument to be made that they are being compensated for subsidizing my purchase. Furthermore I've been an AT&T wireless customer for 10 years. Treating your long time customers like this isn't a great way to reduce customer churn.
I also read a quote somewhere else of somebody saying "Airplanes might be safer than cars, but I'd rather arrive at my destination with a false sense of security than feel like I've narrowly escaped death."
Whoever said that was a moron. Was that person by any chance involved in designing our airport "security" system? I'd rather be safe than think I'm safe when I'm not.
I personally believe statistics aren't all they're cracked up to be. When I'm in control of a situation VS when I'm not. I think I can personally change my chances of survival in a car by not speeding... Maybe only a few percentage points, but still-
So the math is wrong or useless because it makes you uncomfortable quantifying the risk? Yes, you can elect behaviors that reduce your risk and statistics can (often) tell you whether your attempt to reduce your risk is significant. But that's not the same as eliminating all risk. You are never completely in control of your survival in a car because you can't control other people's decisions nor the environment around you. At best you can simply behave in a manner which minimizes your risk but it is never zero. Control is an illusion and complete control is wishful thinking.
statistics are cold hard ideas, but don't account for personal decisions.
Yes they do. Statistics account for aggregated decisions. Every accident includes a series of decisions by everyone involved. Accident statistics tell us the results of those decisions. With sufficient data we might learn that certain decisions should be avoided in the future but statistics very much account for personal decisions. And the decisions are not just in operating the vehicle but also decision made in the manufacture of the vehicle (Firestone tires on an Explorer anyone?) or the contents (Budweiser?).
Statistically, 1 in X number of men will have a heart attack- but eating healthy and excersizing changes your odds. You're not just a sitting duck, y'know?
Correct but that doesn't alter the utility of the statistics. Furthermore depending on your genetics and other factors you may get the heart attack anyway. Reduced odds does not mean perfect safety. If your parents had high blood pressure despite eating a healthy diet, chances are good you will too no matter what you eat.
400bhp, like the way an Argos stereo is "100W". They do *not* produce 400bhp except if you use interestingly fudged measurements.
And your evidence for this is what? I've worked with engine dynos professionally and I'm quite familiar with how horsepower is rated. Show me the evidence to back up your assertion.
Also, they're producing their "400bhp" from a 6.2 litre engine.
According to GM the Hummer H2 engine produces 393 HP at 5700RPM. Compare that with the 5.7L 381HP engine on the Toyota Tundra or the 6.8L V10 from the Ford F250 which produces 362HP at 4750. Sounds like they're pretty much in the ball park for a normally aspirated petrol truck engine around 6L in size to me.
The VW VR6 engine produces nearly as much power from half the displacement.
Bullshit. I've owned a series of VWs continually since the 1980s. The VR6 is a fine engine but it isn't even close to 400HP in any sort of normally aspirated form. I don't think I've ever seen a VR6 north of 300HP in any stock VW, Audi or Porsche vehicle.
Let's do some math shall we? 300HP/3.6L = 83HP/L : 400HP/6.2L=64HP/L. Given that there are some vehicles with HP/L over 100 (usually turbocharged 4 cylinders), it is quite possible to get more HP out of either engine but the VR6 has clearly been tweaked more and isn't really designed for low rpm torque. To get that HP the VR6 has to rev higher and the torque curve looks much different. Furthermore larger displacement does not linearly translate into higher horsepower especially between dissimilar engines.
...it still gets cross-axled on things that wouldn't stick a normal family car...
Having driven and ridden in an H2 off-road on an actual test track myself I know you are full of crap. There are more capable off-road vehicles than the H2 (not the least of which is the original Hummer) but the H2 is plenty capable for pretty much anything but truly ridiculous off-road trails. Not that anyone who actually owns a Hummer actually takes the vehicle off-road what with it being a "look how much money I make" penis-mobile...
But even leaving that aside â" why do problems with paperwork make it necessary to turn away patients?
Because paperwork is how a hospital communicates. Without it it is very difficult to effectively treat anything except the simplest problems. Missing paperwork also prevents billing for services, causes serious legal and standard of care issues, and reduces the number of cases a hospital can effectively manage.
In any case the hospital did not "turn away" patients, it diverted patients arriving by ambulance to other hospitals. This is standard practice in every hospital outside of times of crisis. Sometimes hospitals get more patients than they can handle and so they divert patients to nearby hospitals to handle the overflow. Happens to smaller Emergency Departments all the time. Hospitals aren't designed to handle unlimited numbers of cases. Lack of access to medial records reduces the number of cases a hospital can effectively manage and so diversion becomes the responsible course of action. They did the right thing.
One of the reasons electronic records have been slow in coming is that actual paper paperwork has a nearly unbeatable advantage in reliability which is obviously important when lives are on the line. There are good reasons for electronic medical records but using them always will carry the risk of paralysis when the electrons aren't flowing correctly. There are manual fallback procedures but they are necessarily less efficient. Had there been a catastrophe (think terrorist attack or natural disaster) the hospital would have accepted the patients if needed. Every hospital has contingency plans for circumstances like this.
In other words, nothing to see here - move along.
It's fragile, underpowered and heavy, with crap axle articulation
Consumer Reports and Edmunds both seem to think you are full of crap in your analysis of its offroad abilities. Furthermore how you can call a vehicle with nearly 400HP underpowered strikes me as bizarre, even as heavy as it is. I've ridden in one myself on an offroad test track and it was impressive - though I'd never buy one in a million years. Perhaps you are referring to the H3 which was supposedly designed primarily for urban use and might actually be underpowered?
There is plenty to complain about with Hummers but please criticize the right things.
With Toyota you're supporting a few thousand schlubs being paid a decent wage to work in a factory.
A few thousand? Try tens of thousands across their various operating companies plus the extensive supply base, much of which is here in the US. Toyota makes close to half of the vehicles they sell in the US right here in the US. Last year that was approximately 1 million vehicles. (they make more in Japan but most of those are sold elsewhere in the world - they only import a bit over 1 million vehicles annually) You can't build that many vehicles locally and import all the parts. The currency risk and lead times would make it impossible. Furthermore the dollar has been weakening which would make it more expensive to bring parts from overseas to the US.
With the domestic you're supporting not just the people who build the cars but also the parts. Toyota and Honda don't build their parts here, they ship them from oversea's.
You couldn't be more wrong. That hasn't been true for a LONG time. I've been in the plants where they make parts for Toyota right here in the US. I've seen the frames for the Toyota Tacoma, Sequoia and Tundra being assembled with my own eyes and even helped optimize the lines. It's simply not economical to make and ship every or even most parts from Japan if the assembly occurs here in the US. The logistics get too difficult for a Just-In-Time system like Toyota uses - most of the parts HAVE to be made close to where assembly occurs. Furthermore there are joint ventures like NUMMI. If you go to a Honda dealer they list the percentage of parts made in the US versus made in Japan. A current model Civic has about 20% of the parts made in Japan and most of the rest are made in either the US or Canada and assembly happens in Ohio. Supply chains are global these days.
The manufacturing base that is built up around these domestic guys is what is most valuable to us as a country.
Most of those suppliers, especially the large ones, supply both foreign and domestic auto makers. In fact it is a problem for Toyota and other auto makers if GM goes under because they share a non-trivial amount of their supply base. I used to work for one of the 10 biggest auto suppliers. Just over 55% of their business was domestic and the rest was overseas. The largest single client was one of the big three (Chrysler at the time if memory serves) and it accounted for somewhere north of 12% of the company's business at the time. The other big Tier One suppliers in the US depend on the Big 3 but most of them have plenty of business with non-US based automakers too. Don't get me wrong, losing the Big 3 business would hurt the supply base a lot but don't have any illusions about the nature of the supply base.
It's pretty clear that the Saturn product turned to crap after GM bought Saturn. It's pretty clear that the Saturn product turned to crap after GM bought Saturn.
GM did not buy Saturn. Saturn was started in 1985 as a subsidiary of GM in order to compete with the perceived Japanese threat. It did well for a while but eventually was ignored by GM and starved of capital for years. Saturn has ALWAYS been a part of GM from the moment it was founded. It was operated outside the normal GM reporting structure for a while but the owner was GM.
So they will trot out that they saved 3,000 or so jobs.
A little cynical are we? The job loses at GM are going to be in the many tens of thousands. GM is closing 14 plants and 3 distribution centers. That is a HUGE number of workers getting pink slips and it won't stop there.
What about the 100,000 plus jobs lost when all the dealerships are being forced to close, even ones who make a profit? A considerable number, if not the majority, of dealerships being punted are profitable.
What about them? GM has been hemorrhaging money for years so these dealerships have been getting a free ride for some time. GM almost certainly has WAY more dealerships than it actually needs and that means it is cannibalizing sales and hurting profit margins both for the dealers and for GM. It costs money to support those dealerships and many of them are not well run operations. It's a lot easier to control the quality of customer service with fewer dealerships. Toyota has far fewer dealerships and every year gets better customer service ratings than most if not all GM divisions. Some sort of contraction was virtually inevitable. That in no way minimizes the unfortunate nature of what has occurred but it is not even remotely a surprise.
If you really want to see where the trouble is happening by the way look at the auto suppliers. Visteon declared bankruptcy and there will be plenty more besides.
Some people actually need a vehicle with more than 12 " ground clearance.
Maybe but that describes virtually no one that actually buys a HUMMER. I see them driving around town on a daily basis and I am quite sure not a single one I see has spent a moment even on a dirt road much less off road. A HUMMER is an insanely capable off road vehicle but it is purchased almost exclusively as a status symbol - and an especially wasteful one at that.
For status, get an Escalade.
Anyone who buys an Escalade is nearly as big an insecure douche as anyone who buys a HUMMER H2.
For panache, get a Caterpillar.
Now that would be stylin'. If someone is going to be a greedy jackass why not go all the way? I love it!
How is this relevant to anything but the ability to soak up Anabolic Steroids without dying immediately before the competition ?
Umm, because even with unlimited access to steroids women can't compete. The top women body builders don't even get as strong as the men who win in "natural" competitions (read drug free).
At least you should compare sexes in a real sport [gdargaud.net] (one that uses brains and muscles, there are so very few of them).
I'll ignore your bitter and incorrect thesis and just ask why would I do that when my entire point was to compare muscles only?
I don't see a lot of Women doctors
You haven't been looking very carefully. As of two years ago approximately 42% of internal medicine interns were women. By next year 33% of doctors are expected to be women and that number is rising. Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well. My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand.
If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.
That presumes that the ground IS actually equal which I would argue it probably is not equal - not yet anyway, though it is headed in the right direction. Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment that for true equality to exist the playing field should be level and many old prejudices need to die. Personally I'll concede that things are equal or nearly so when women in the US have to register for the draft.
I've always found it ironic that most women who claim to be for equal rights never seem terribly eager for certain dangerous responsibilities that should go with those rights. For example I see no logical reason why women in the US are not forced like the men to register for the draft. Women clearly are capable of serving on a voluntary basis, and most of the jobs in the military apparently can be performed admirably by either gender. Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service. Sometimes rights come with ugly responsibilities. Seems like a double standard to me.
I'd say that's inaccurate, too. It would be more accurate to say that the top end of all women can't reach the level of raw strength as that of the top end of all men. There are many women who are stronger and faster than a number of men.
Completely accurate but incomplete. Men on average have significantly higher upper body strength than women. Aside from being simply obvious there is a vast amount of data to support this thesis. Men overall also have greater ability to build muscle than women. One simply has to watch a bodybuilding competition to see the difference in potential. There are some women that exceed many/most men in a given sport but no women that exceed all men when strength matters. Outside of a few niche sporting events, men hold virtually all athletic world records where strength is a meaningful factor. This holds true at every level of competition and every age past puberty. Even at relatively low levels of performance and even with adequate training most women measurably under-perform their male counterparts in most sports. If these differences did not exist, there would be little reason to have women compete separately from the men.
I cannot reasonably address the mental differences between men and women but there is NO question that men are physically stronger on average or in peak potential. It's ok to admit that there are at least some differences between men and women.
Any job where having a $1000 suit rather than an ordinary (but nice-looking) jacket and tie will make a difference in getting it is probably not a job I want in the first place...
That's your choice of course. High level sales, management, legal and consulting jobs typically require a relatively expensive wardrobe for a variety of reasons. Nothing wrong with wanting to work in your blue jeans either but a job with a six figure income usually comes with strings attached. A dress code is frequently among the strings. If your customers dress in nice suits, chances are decent you'll be expected to dress the same way. Obviously if your job is programming, a suit and tie is probably not necessary or reasonable.
However for an interview you will be judged on your physical appearance, like it or not.
...either because they have unreasonable expectations in their dress code, or because they're a law firm and I'm not a lawyer.
Unreasonable is a matter of opinion. Yours likely differs from mine and that's ok. But all other things equal (and I know they rarely are) I'm not going to turn down a higher paying job just because I have to dress better. You are aware that a good fitting suit is more comfortable than any blue jeans you've ever worn right? There IS a difference between a $250 suit and a $1000 suit and especially a tailored suit. If you have to live in the clothing it's nice to be comfortable and a bonus to look good too. I will happily concede however that a tie is a useless and stupid piece of clothing and they should all be burned.