I worked with a newspaper for a couple years, the writers wouldn't know grammer or spelling if it hit them in the face. The editors fixed everything for them...
I'm betting that you weren't one of those editors.:)
Oh, I don't deny that people can be successful as they get older, but that's also because older people have more experience to compensate. Just for instance, and I'm not saying this is necessarily true about your friend, when you're 19 there are a lot more distractions from school, like girls (or boys), drinking, girls (or boys) again, partying, etc. A 40-something year old is probably better at avoiding these distractions and focusing on studying. That's where the experience comes in, when they realize that they are no longer able to stay out all night, cram through the books in the morning and still retain it all. So even if there is a little bit of loss of mental quickness it can be made up in other ways.
Now as far as sheer brain power, where just being "brilliant" is important, it's interesting to look at the field of Mathematics. Most mathematicians reach their peak in their 20s, or even earlier, and then fade after that: GÃdel published his incompleteness theorem at age 25, Descartes did most of his math work before he was 30, Newton invented calculus when he was 25. OF course there are exceptions, like Gauss and Euler, but there are very very few that remain productive (in a pure innovative sense) all the way through their lives.
Many food costs are higher than they would be otherwise because of artificial price supports. The same kind of price supports that many people here think are a good idea.
Rent goes up, and you are without a job.
Rent is extremely flexible. In any extended downturn rents will drop dramatically. So if you're out of a job but rents are going up, it means that there are lots of jobs, but you are just looking for the wrong ones.
Yeah, I've noticed how affordable those Athlete-endorsed sneakers are now that they pay foreign labor sub-subsistence wages to make their product. They're down to - what - $175 now?
I wouldn't know, I don't pay for athlete's names on my shoes, I usually just get them at Costco for $20/pair or something. And these are brand-name shoes (I will pay for a brand name, there's usually some correlation with quality there). So yes, I do think that shoes are pretty cheap.
No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.
The name of the school is Caltech. One word. Upper case C, lower case t. If you can't handle that, then try "California Institute of Technology".
Of course, the AP article got it wrong too. But then it was probably written by some ignorant liberal arts graduate.
Obligatory Stupid Hydrogen Comment: Hydrogen gas is so light that when released into the air it will eventually float away and leave the earth's atmosphere (and destroy some ozone on the way, i guess). This means that hydrogen gas, once released, is gone forever. It's a non-renewable resource! What will we do when all the hydrogen is gone???? OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
You got it exactly. The problem is that the poster is unhappy with his job. Saying that they have too much work is just a lame justification. There's nothing wrong with wanting to leave if you're unhappy. Hell, you should leave if you're unhappy. But don't make up excuses. Of course, when you're unhappy with your job, ANYTHING feels like an unreasonable amount of work.
And even the right to free speech has limits, such as the government's compelling interest in protecting secrets.
And the first amendment still protects the right to divulge these secrets if you didn't break the law to obtain them. This is how reporters can disclose "leaked" information given to them by a third party. And a good thing too, otherwise a corrupt government could declare certain nasty details to be "unreportable", and cover it all up.
(Now I just know that someone has some example of how the EVIL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT has tried to do just that, and I'm sure that they are right, because something being illegal doesn't meant that some idiot or over-zealous beaurocrat won't try it, but that doesn't mean that these cases actually hold up in court.)
The point, simply put, was that the US is who crippled the UN
The UN was crippled from the start, and you can blame that on the Soviets, Chinese, French, and pretty much anyone else who has cynically used the UN for their own political purposes. Solely blaming the US is ridiculously myopic.
The USA is in more direct material violation of UN resolutions than any other country.
The UN is an organization that elects Cuba to their human rights commission, is currently ignoring the deaths of 3,000,000 people in Congo, and in general has ceased to see itself as an organization to prevent war (which it has failed spectacularly at), but instead sees itself solely as an method to counter the United States.
The United Nations is a failed, disgraced, and corrupt organization. It is far better to be in violation of politically motivated UN resolutions than to kow-tow to countries that would see millions of people die if it meant that the United States lost a debate.
Amnesty International yesterday published a report detailing exactly why the actions of the USA of the last few years have done so much to destabilze the world and make the overall security situation (including the security of the US itself) much worse.
Let's see: 2 years ago Al Qaeda operatives (who were not Iraqi, but thrive in the environment of despotic regimes like the one that Iraq used to be) were crashing 757s into major American landmarks. Today Al Qaeda is reduced to blowing up fellow Arabs in their own backyard. Despite what the biased Amnesty International organization claims, I believe that the security of the United states has been increased, and that governments around the world are beginning to realize that "looking the other way" when terrorists live within their borders is not a safe way of doing business.
No! Deuterium behaves chemically exactly like hydrogen-1 (protium) in the compounds that it forms.
Did I say anything of the sort? I said that the hydrogen bonding properties are different, and they are, because of the added mass. Hence the change in chemical kinetics that you describe.
dude, i guess you don't ride. More lights == more visibility == safer ride. Actually, to be honest, I didn't put the lights on, the previous owner did. But I like them.
Deuterium has different hydrogen bonding properties from H-1. This is a problem because a lot of biology (DNA, for instance) relies on hydrogen bonding to hold things together correctly. If you started drinking a lot of D2O, the differently shaped molecules wouldn't fit together correctly and you would begin breaking down at the cellular level. If I recall correctly the effects are a lot like radiation poisoning.
I'm not surprised that Corbin motors went under. The people who run Corbin seem to have a problem with building a business to match their products. Their motorcycle seat business is the same way: nice products (I have one for my Ducati 900SS), but the company is known for extremely poor service and support. Reading the article just reinforces my opinion that they just don't understand that there's more to a successful business than having a decent product.
I saw a bunch of their car/motorcycle things here in Silicon Valley, but I'd never drive one when I could ride a real motorcycle. (And yes, that's a Corbin seat there as well).
It is more technically defined as "if two animals can interbreed and produce viable (ie fertile) offspring, they are the same species".
This is such an arbitrary definition: Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) can breed and produce fertile offspring, despite being different species. Of course, "Species" is just an artificial term anyways, so it doesn't really matter beyond giving people something to argue about.
that's not entirely true. at least not in terms of popular vote.
"Not entirely true"? You're dead wrong. Bush won the election fair and square. According to the constitution, he won. End of story. There is no special rules for winning the popular vote. There's no half-winning or half-losing. He won. Complaining otherwise just demonstrates a non-understanding of the US Constitution. Get over it.
And no, I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for Gore. And who do I blame for his loss? Gore himself, for running an awful, pandering, uninspired campaign. I also blame the Nader-ites, who, in their quest to make a political statement, managed to cut off their noses to spite their face.
The parent poster specifically referred to the modern military.
Vietnam was a pretty modern military. The big difference between then and now in the United States military is a matter of tactics and strategy, not hardware. Even the big bombs that you mention ("MOAB on yo'ass military") were first used in Vietnam (I'm speaking of the "Daisy Cutters" here).
You also seem to be speaking of the latest action in Iraq, where the mortars, RPGs, and "militia" of Iraq didn't do too well against the US Military. But you have to remember that the soldiers in Iraq were not very motivated. It's pretty easy to make a guy quit fighting if he doesn't care if he loses. On the other hand, if someone absolutely has to win, it doesn't matter if he's armed with a sharp stick, it's going to be tough to convince him otherwise.
I have to agree here as well. The best burgers I've ever had was when visiting a cattle ranch when we ate the hamburger from the animal that they keep for themselves every year. It was seasoned with the same salt that they use for the salt licks, as well.:)
On our ranch we didn't have cattle, although I did raise sheep, and we always had a lot of lamb sitting in the freezer. And while some people don't like lamb, this lamb tasted good.
Need "prof"? (Or is it "prooof"? We seem to be playing fast and loose with vowels today) Check out figure 2 of this article. U.S. Energy Consumption per Dollar of Output has been dropping since the early 70s. In particular, the US GDP now requires only 7000 BTU per dollar of production versus 15000 BTU in 1973.
The big reason for this has been the change in the US economy from an industrial/manufacturing economy to one that is more service and intellectual-property based. In other words, the US doesn't directly rely as much on resources such as steel and oil as it once did, because our major industries don't require as much as they once did.
This isn't to say that the US doesn't require these raw materials, and sure, if all the petrochemicals in the world suddenly magically disappeared, then the US (and everyone else) would be hurting, but my point is that the US economy is better able to tolerate changes in supply/price in these prices.
The articles that were linked to in the posting that I responded to claimed that the US is only invading iraq in order to secure oil resources in order to finance that US military. But in the 70s and 80s, when the US economy was MUCH more sensitive to oil price shocks, the US economy was still able to support a higher percentage of defense spending. Today, with a smaller percentage of defense spending, and less sensitivity to oil price changes, then claiming that the US is only going in to save its own economy is ludicrous.
The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world.
Wrong. There is no "standard currency" in the world. The US Dollar is widely used, yes, but that is only because there is a lot of faith in the stability of the US Economy.
We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars.
"We"? Who's "We"? The only people making money are the banks doing the exchange, as they charge a percentage for their costs of doing business.
Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
I meant "free as in speech", not "free as in beer". They're different concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked with a newspaper for a couple years, the writers wouldn't know grammer or spelling if it hit them in the face. The editors fixed everything for them...
:)
I'm betting that you weren't one of those editors.
Don't worry about it, you're not missing much. They're mildly amusing, but that's about it.
Oh, I don't deny that people can be successful as they get older, but that's also because older people have more experience to compensate. Just for instance, and I'm not saying this is necessarily true about your friend, when you're 19 there are a lot more distractions from school, like girls (or boys), drinking, girls (or boys) again, partying, etc. A 40-something year old is probably better at avoiding these distractions and focusing on studying. That's where the experience comes in, when they realize that they are no longer able to stay out all night, cram through the books in the morning and still retain it all. So even if there is a little bit of loss of mental quickness it can be made up in other ways.
Now as far as sheer brain power, where just being "brilliant" is important, it's interesting to look at the field of Mathematics. Most mathematicians reach their peak in their 20s, or even earlier, and then fade after that: GÃdel published his incompleteness theorem at age 25, Descartes did most of his math work before he was 30, Newton invented calculus when he was 25. OF course there are exceptions, like Gauss and Euler, but there are very very few that remain productive (in a pure innovative sense) all the way through their lives.
Ah yes... spoken like someone who's 19 and thinks that they're immortal.
Many food costs are higher than they would be otherwise because of artificial price supports. The same kind of price supports that many people here think are a good idea.
Rent goes up, and you are without a job.
Rent is extremely flexible. In any extended downturn rents will drop dramatically. So if you're out of a job but rents are going up, it means that there are lots of jobs, but you are just looking for the wrong ones.
Um, the prices are the same because they have to compete. Cheap imports create downwards pricing pressure, and that is what benefits everyone.
I wouldn't know, I don't pay for athlete's names on my shoes, I usually just get them at Costco for $20/pair or something. And these are brand-name shoes (I will pay for a brand name, there's usually some correlation with quality there). So yes, I do think that shoes are pretty cheap.
No, you know what happens? Goods become cheaper and better. I don't have to pay through the nose because some guy thinks he should get $40/hour just to enter numbers into some data base or make a powerpoint presentation. Things become more affordable, more people can afford them, and everyone's quality of life goes up. THAT is what happens.
Of course, the AP article got it wrong too. But then it was probably written by some ignorant liberal arts graduate.
Obligatory Stupid Hydrogen Comment: Hydrogen gas is so light that when released into the air it will eventually float away and leave the earth's atmosphere (and destroy some ozone on the way, i guess). This means that hydrogen gas, once released, is gone forever. It's a non-renewable resource! What will we do when all the hydrogen is gone???? OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
You got it exactly. The problem is that the poster is unhappy with his job. Saying that they have too much work is just a lame justification. There's nothing wrong with wanting to leave if you're unhappy. Hell, you should leave if you're unhappy. But don't make up excuses. Of course, when you're unhappy with your job, ANYTHING feels like an unreasonable amount of work.
And even the right to free speech has limits, such as the government's compelling interest in protecting secrets.
And the first amendment still protects the right to divulge these secrets if you didn't break the law to obtain them. This is how reporters can disclose "leaked" information given to them by a third party. And a good thing too, otherwise a corrupt government could declare certain nasty details to be "unreportable", and cover it all up.
(Now I just know that someone has some example of how the EVIL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT has tried to do just that, and I'm sure that they are right, because something being illegal doesn't meant that some idiot or over-zealous beaurocrat won't try it, but that doesn't mean that these cases actually hold up in court.)
The point, simply put, was that the US is who crippled the UN
The UN was crippled from the start, and you can blame that on the Soviets, Chinese, French, and pretty much anyone else who has cynically used the UN for their own political purposes. Solely blaming the US is ridiculously myopic.
The USA is in more direct material violation of UN resolutions than any other country.
The UN is an organization that elects Cuba to their human rights commission, is currently ignoring the deaths of 3,000,000 people in Congo, and in general has ceased to see itself as an organization to prevent war (which it has failed spectacularly at), but instead sees itself solely as an method to counter the United States.
The United Nations is a failed, disgraced, and corrupt organization. It is far better to be in violation of politically motivated UN resolutions than to kow-tow to countries that would see millions of people die if it meant that the United States lost a debate.
Amnesty International yesterday published a report detailing exactly why the actions of the USA of the last few years have done so much to destabilze the world and make the overall security situation (including the security of the US itself) much worse.
Let's see: 2 years ago Al Qaeda operatives (who were not Iraqi, but thrive in the environment of despotic regimes like the one that Iraq used to be) were crashing 757s into major American landmarks. Today Al Qaeda is reduced to blowing up fellow Arabs in their own backyard. Despite what the biased Amnesty International organization claims, I believe that the security of the United states has been increased, and that governments around the world are beginning to realize that "looking the other way" when terrorists live within their borders is not a safe way of doing business.
No! Deuterium behaves chemically exactly like hydrogen-1 (protium) in the compounds that it forms.
Did I say anything of the sort? I said that the hydrogen bonding properties are different, and they are, because of the added mass. Hence the change in chemical kinetics that you describe.
dude, i guess you don't ride. More lights == more visibility == safer ride. Actually, to be honest, I didn't put the lights on, the previous owner did. But I like them.
Deuterium has different hydrogen bonding properties from H-1. This is a problem because a lot of biology (DNA, for instance) relies on hydrogen bonding to hold things together correctly. If you started drinking a lot of D2O, the differently shaped molecules wouldn't fit together correctly and you would begin breaking down at the cellular level. If I recall correctly the effects are a lot like radiation poisoning.
Another way that D2O differs from regular H2O.
I saw a bunch of their car/motorcycle things here in Silicon Valley, but I'd never drive one when I could ride a real motorcycle. (And yes, that's a Corbin seat there as well).
This is such an arbitrary definition: Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) can breed and produce fertile offspring, despite being different species. Of course, "Species" is just an artificial term anyways, so it doesn't really matter beyond giving people something to argue about.
that's not entirely true. at least not in terms of popular vote.
"Not entirely true"? You're dead wrong. Bush won the election fair and square. According to the constitution, he won. End of story. There is no special rules for winning the popular vote. There's no half-winning or half-losing. He won. Complaining otherwise just demonstrates a non-understanding of the US Constitution. Get over it.
And no, I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for Gore. And who do I blame for his loss? Gore himself, for running an awful, pandering, uninspired campaign. I also blame the Nader-ites, who, in their quest to make a political statement, managed to cut off their noses to spite their face.
Vietnam was a pretty modern military. The big difference between then and now in the United States military is a matter of tactics and strategy, not hardware. Even the big bombs that you mention ("MOAB on yo'ass military") were first used in Vietnam (I'm speaking of the "Daisy Cutters" here).
You also seem to be speaking of the latest action in Iraq, where the mortars, RPGs, and "militia" of Iraq didn't do too well against the US Military. But you have to remember that the soldiers in Iraq were not very motivated. It's pretty easy to make a guy quit fighting if he doesn't care if he loses. On the other hand, if someone absolutely has to win, it doesn't matter if he's armed with a sharp stick, it's going to be tough to convince him otherwise.
On our ranch we didn't have cattle, although I did raise sheep, and we always had a lot of lamb sitting in the freezer. And while some people don't like lamb, this lamb tasted good.
Can you say "Actually, most bands suck."? I knew you could.
They supply us with millions of dollars of goods produced by slave labor in gulag camps.
Parents: Rhetoric can be fun to use, but please, be careful. Don't let it get into the hands of children.
Need "prof"? (Or is it "prooof"? We seem to be playing fast and loose with vowels today) Check out figure 2 of this article. U.S. Energy Consumption per Dollar of Output has been dropping since the early 70s. In particular, the US GDP now requires only 7000 BTU per dollar of production versus 15000 BTU in 1973.
The big reason for this has been the change in the US economy from an industrial/manufacturing economy to one that is more service and intellectual-property based. In other words, the US doesn't directly rely as much on resources such as steel and oil as it once did, because our major industries don't require as much as they once did.
This isn't to say that the US doesn't require these raw materials, and sure, if all the petrochemicals in the world suddenly magically disappeared, then the US (and everyone else) would be hurting, but my point is that the US economy is better able to tolerate changes in supply/price in these prices.
The articles that were linked to in the posting that I responded to claimed that the US is only invading iraq in order to secure oil resources in order to finance that US military. But in the 70s and 80s, when the US economy was MUCH more sensitive to oil price shocks, the US economy was still able to support a higher percentage of defense spending. Today, with a smaller percentage of defense spending, and less sensitivity to oil price changes, then claiming that the US is only going in to save its own economy is ludicrous.
Wrong. There is no "standard currency" in the world. The US Dollar is widely used, yes, but that is only because there is a lot of faith in the stability of the US Economy.
We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars.
"We"? Who's "We"? The only people making money are the banks doing the exchange, as they charge a percentage for their costs of doing business.
Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
I meant "free as in speech", not "free as in beer". They're different concepts.