dunstad

It also makes for a nice summary if you read the article.

One: Since you're responding to his comment, it seems likely that you did, in fact, read it. True, it could have been read to you, or you could perhaps have used a Braille reader, or maybe you were bitten by a radioactive spider and developed the ability to psychically know what people's HN comments say without reading them, but statistically speaking it's probably safe to assume none of those are true.

Two: Assuming you did downmod his comment without reading it, you're exhibiting arbitrary behavior in a community of mostly reasonable and logical people. Perhaps this isn't the best place for you.

As an 18 year old who grew up/is growing up in the suburbs, this sounds ridiculously idealized to me. I'm not saying that it is, just that it's so far from my experience I have trouble comprehending it. Anyone with experiences similar to mine?

>>...as soon as Earth based missiles can...

Can != Should.

Fewer rich men than other types, though.

As long as your definition is consistent, I rather doubt it matters, for this purpose, whether acquaintances are included.

>one variable explaining 40% of the variation in another is pretty good in social sciences, where you expect all sorts of confounding variables, but quite bad in, say, (well designed) physics experiments.

I think this is part of the answer to your question, nhebb, but also I think we might have some confusion about r. In my understanding, (which is also limited to only AP Statistics) r is the value representing how well correlated the two categories are, and r squared represents how much of the correlation the categories you're using at that time accounts for. Does that sound right?

Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon) states that it's been widely attributed to Bonaparte as well. I wasn't under the impression that that means it's a mistaken attribution, but I could be wrong about that, and if it isn't supposed to be read as I did, could you clarify?

In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

The browser seems to be where Google is strongest, and I think they know that. Look at Maps, Translate, Gmail, Documents, even their plans for the Chrome OS. I think they combat Apple on other platforms more to antagonize them, leaving their main efforts for the web.

>>I'm my own costumer.

Would you mind posting some designs? I'm always interested in seeing others' ingenuity in the clothing industry. (/pun)

"Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman!" can be found here: http://www.gorgorat.com/

Some singers want the audience to love them. I love the audience. -Luciano Pavarotti

While some of the staying-up-lateness may be self imposed, my Google searches show that puberty brings with it a natural change in circadian rythym, which isn't something the teens can do much about.

http://www.healthcentral.com/sleep-disorders/caregiving-2708...

http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/adolescent.html

User experience, I believe.

You use 'principals' on this page when you should use 'principles'.

So people have a reason to make them, which will lead to improvement on the current systems.

The conflict between what's good for individual businesses and the national economy sounds like the prisoner's dilemma.

Does the above idea bear similarity to internet sales in that they both try to sell to more people for a lower price? I'm not sure I completely understood the excerpt.

Agreed; however, that's what editing is for: to make it look like you never got lost.

This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. Why do we think all students are murderers and race/sex/religionists?

This issue also bears similarity to airport security after 9/11. America's becoming an expert on inconveniencing the many based on the actions of a few.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm.

Misleading title, the recommended stop is only until a security fix.

The buildings were made to withstand hurricanes, not earthquakes. They chose the less frequent of two disasters to be exposed to.

I'm having difficulty matching the key with the graph for the thinner categories, and for some similarly-colored categories.

Ranking people has nothing to do with the people themselves. It's supposed to make the company more efficient.

I enjoyed reading it. Without getting too picky, the biggest thing I'd work on is making the article more cohesive. I get how superpowers and hypnosis are related, and I get how hypnosis is related to influencing people with words, but there's a lot of disconnect between A and C.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs bored me a bit, so I skipped down to the next section. I don't find the history of magic and hypnosis nearly as interesting as your experiences with it, though perhaps that's a personal preference.

I like the way you present words as tools to build or break bridges between people. That seems closest to what the piece is about.

Finally, take my words with a grain of salt. It's your writing, after all. (P.S. Stephen King's On Writing is a great source of writing advice if you're interested.)

The father's efforts would have been wasted without the son's motivation. Mozart practiced, guided by his father.

Everyone can stop the seat belt reminder by putting on their seat belt. Handicapped people can't use a different door.

This is an interesting idea, but realize that people will dispute your premise.