Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Nov 24th 2012 5:57PM Thank You to everyone involved in making and bringing this video to us! My first impression was how athletic Sunita was in controling herself in the cramped, weightless area. She seemed quite as comfortable as a fish in a reef. My other surprise was how cluttered things are when square inches cost a fortune. I am so glad that I got to view the tour. So few are able to go and it gives a realistic tour that almost makes me think I was there. Great job!
Apr 28th 2010 8:56PM I must be the only person that is confused about mouse studies. If the results are bad for mice, they immediately assume they are bad for humans, but if the results are good for mice, they immediately say that years of testing will be required to find out if the results translate to humans, and the good results rarely, if ever, seem to benefit humans. They also gorge the poor mice with multiple times the dosage of whatever because they really don't see any interesting results when they use a more proportional dosage. I don't think anyone should put any great hope or fear in mouse studies.
Mar 24th 2010 8:47PM Everyone has just confused me. I thought the whole point was to get to know someone. How many times have I heard quotes from women about how the guys don't really see the real me and my mind? I'm sure we have all met someone, and the physical attraction is huge. It may or may not be mutual. If the attraction is mutual, either gender may wonder the next day, or soon, what they are doing with that numbskull. I see nothing wrong with starting as friends and finding out what you might have in common. You might find out that the friend is even more compatible in bed, and the immediate physical attraction turns out terrible in bed. I also think it is time to get rid of the sterotypes. I have known as many, if not more, women that are thinking about hopping into bed than men.
Finally, when one of you makes it clear that it is friendship only, there is a difference in giving a flower or doing something nice and taking every opportunity to grope the other.
I have known guys that I couldn't stand that became best friends. It works across gender lines also.
Mar 11th 2010 1:48PM One major advantage of a ranch style for baby boomers is the lack of stairs. I have lived in large two story homes when I was young, and carrying laundry up and down stairs is dangerous. I bought a ranch from the 70's and I love it.
Dec 28th 2008 7:07PM The term "job creation" can mean so much more than Zac's limited thought process seems to grasp. Funding provided for alternative fuels can be used to create jobs by creating an infrastructure to support compressed natural gas, hydrogen, and solar vehicles. Any funding given to industry to develop cost effective auto conversions to the above should require that the product also be manufactured in the USA. I can see many long term benefits and jobs coming from short term job creation.
Dec 21st 2008 10:22PM Sherry, I agree with the Obama funding of alternative energy, but they have to be careful. The push for ethanol to reduce pollution and cut foreign oil demand has been a disaster. Farmers are being paid a subsidy to grow crops for ethanol reducing the feed crops. The result has been a rise in the cost of all meat, milk, eggs, cereal,etc.
Unfortunately, those price increases hurt the lowest paid first.
Second, the cost of transportation is driven by the cost of diesel, which is priced significantly above gas, and shouldn't be.
Third, the funding of alternative energy for autos would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and provide an opportunity to force companies federally funded to manufacture in the US. The same goes for companies building inexpensive solar alternatives for homes. We need a growing manufacturing base in the US.
Dec 21st 2008 9:47PM I understand the concept of mark to market, but the issue is establishing the market value. The original Fed plan was to buy the toxic assets, and their problem seemed to be that their value could not be determined. In other words, the market value could not be established. If the value cannot be established, then what do the banks "mark" to? I can't believe that the banking industry would intentionally establish an arbitrary low market value and thus reduce their assets. Someone, somewhere has to explain how they determined market value, and why nobody seems to have any confidence in that number. I would love to have a day or two of meetings with one bank holding such losses. I would at least leave with an understanding of the method that I could explain in articles such as the above, and more likely find and point out how little they know about their own business. The size of an organiztion seems to be indirectly proportional to their ability to address huge problems. I have dozens of questions I'd ask in such a meeting, and I've only given it 10 minutes of thought.
I'll bet a lot of people would be working throughout the night to get answers ready for day two.
Oct 29th 2008 2:38PM Zac is an idiot, and shouldn't be allowed major posts.
Oct 18th 2008 1:45PM In short, the difference between a recession and a depression is the size, or depth, of the declines.
Our service industry based economy leaves little to fall back on.
Our local economy in north Texas claimed today that we added 3200 new jobs but unemployment rose to 5.1 percent, better than the national avg of 6.1 percent. It sounds good, but there is a problem with the numbers.
Later in the article it mentions that the biggest gain in jobs came from the government which added 4500 jobs.
In other words, the non-government workers really lost 1300 jobs, leaving fewer to pay for the salaries and health benefits of the 4500 new government workers.
It is all backwards. We should be reducing government employees at all levels. At the very least, stop hiring more.
No wonder the old formulas don't work anymore. I'd like to know two numbers. The percent of the workforce in all levels of government to the overall work force in1929, and the same figure for today. If that ratio isn't in your thinking, it should be.
Oct 18th 2008 1:14PM Peter, if the stated objective of the $125B was to ease the bank credit line, why was that not explicit in the stock investment agreement? How can I be sure that you are stating the facts correctly? We certainly don't trust banks at this point and based on your changing view of the economy over the last few months, we are disinclined to trust you either.
Is your point that the banks had money to loan, and were afraid to do it? We give them the $125B to loan, and they loan it, but don't loan the money they were cluching to their chest. The point was to get the money loaned, and that was accomplished. Are you now concerned about what they do with the money they were afraid to loan? It seems you are ignoring the money that flowed out as planned, and are assuming the worst about the money they are still holding. We didn't nationalize them, although I still think that threat might scare them into responsibility.