orp

I think you're belittling their work.

The Nobel Prize wasn't just for the method of extracting graphene, it was for 'groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene'. This includes extracting, identifying and characterizing the material.

Interesting to note, by the way, that the real innovation was in being able to identify (and characterize) the material - the same extraction method was used by another team.

To me, this is the essence of science - observing a phenomena (in this case - a material) and understanding it.

Equating Experimental Physics 'engineering' is a little to 'Sheldonistic' for me.

Most Israelis get drafted at age 18. They get out of the army at ages 20/21 or so. People out of top quality computer related military units have a lot of experience both as hackers and managers. There's really no being 'whisked away by the military' once you've served your term (Other than reserve duty, but that's relatively minor).

'Also it should be borne in mind that this kind of activity isn't really making any constructive or lasting contribution to society. It's really just moving money around slightly more efficiently than previously. If you really want to change the world, do something else.'

I agree completely. While have reasonably efficient capital markets is necessary for society, its very hard to show that the marginal improvement offered by this kind of activity justifies the massive amounts of effort that go into it, just because: 1. It's cool. 2. It can make a lot of money.

But unlike making money out of making something people want (e.g. providing value), here you're making money (if you succeed) out of very small market inefficiencies that are probably not hurting anyone, or even just by being 1ms faster then the other guys who were already catching them anyway,

When I interview programmers I start off with this question:

Write a function in C (on the whiteboard) that takes an array of integers and returns its sum.

I explicitly explain to candidates that this is a warm-up question to start the interview, and that I'm looking for the textbook solution, no tricks.

The advantages are: 1. It takes a reasonable candidate 3 minutes to write down the answer. 2. Answering a question correctly gives them confidence, always important in an interview. 3. It provides a good basis for a little advanced discussion (overflow, speed, error handling, supporting infinitely large numbers, etc).

Amazingly enough, some candidates have actually failed this...

Can they do real time? They sound like a batch oriented system, and the financial fraud market is all about real time.

Personally, I'd don't see why this is an inappropriate forum, as long as the comments are intellectual in nature.

To address your point, I agree with your general claim that there's no logical inconsistency in a monotheistic view by itself. Suffice to say that the matter has been discussed so much that if there was a conclusive 'proof' against it, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

However, the argument against theism presented here is pretty effective against a standard, simplistic argument of religion which is basically 'how can something believed by so many people possibly be wrong' (which is how I interpret 'How can you not believe in God'). Holding up the multitude of religions, past and present, is a pretty good rebuttal.

Not an inconsistency, but a good argument.

To my knowledge, the religious decree about slaughtering goats is the same today in judaism as it was 2,500 years ago.

The reason it's not practiced today is 'just' because the decree also states that you have to perform the sacrifice at the great temple on temple mount. That poses a technical problem, since: 1. The temple was destroyed 2k years back, and there's a pretty famous mosque standing in its place. 2. Religious jews have to do a special kind of purification in order to even be on temple mount, and this purification is impossible at the moment, again for weird technical reasons (they need a red cow, don't ask).

BUT, if there was a temple, and there was a purification rite, religious jews would, in all likelihood, be happily burning offerings 3 times each year.

In short, not as different as you may think.

Sarcasm?

Israel.

I wonder at the ambitiousness of your recruiting vs. the salaries you pay. Can you reasonably expect to get a world class programmer for 100k and stock options?

According to your criteria, you're thinking more of 'potentially world class', which I guess is more in line with your price range. The world class guys work for Google.

I'm not sure that works when it comes to major breakthroughs. I'm hardly an expert, but I'm not sure Einstien's work, for instance, could be replicated by a 100 physicists 'breaking it into easier parts.

Not mention you're contradicting Heinlein, and we all know that's never good.

Do you seriously think that in a functional relationship (as opposed to a dysfunctional one) a boyfriend get to do 'anything he wants'? Or a girlfriend, for that matter?

It's perfectly legitimate (not to mention a fact in 99.99% of relationships by my estimate) for partners to have different needs and wants. And limits. Yes.

Compromises are a way of life for a good couple. Having 'special occasions' is not a bad way to go about these compromises, doing something for your partner you wouldn't want to do on a regular basis, with a nice socially acceptable rhythm to it.

To pick an example at random, I wouldn't buy my jewelry every day (or week, or month), but a couple of times a year for special occasions (birthday, anniversary) are cool.

Wrapping up, if there was an increasing cultural effect making my wife expect (and hint at) increasingly weird and tasteless things that she'd like for her birthday (I'd getting shivers just imagining examples), believe you me I wouldn't be happy about it, and saying no would still not be easy.

BTW: if you comment above was sarcastic and I missed it, consider this comment moot.

Hi,

Cool project.

The only issue I found with it so far is that unlike the old logo, the borders of the 'world' aren't circular. That means that if you type 'go(500)' from the opening position, the turtle disappears.

But it's a minor issue, really. My kid is 4 and I'm going to show it to him tomorrow, see how he likes it.

There's no such thing as 7% yearly interest without risk. It just doesn't exists.

If you look at government bonds (a.k.a. TBills), they'll tell you exactly how much interest a truly risk free investment is worth (in yearly interest). Anything higher then that is risky, by definition.

On top of that, you have to factor in inflation.

In other words, it's good to save money, but managing saved money is hard. Be ready for that.