On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.

I found the following. A bus fuel efficiency is about 5 mpg [1]. That is with fifty-five passengers, which is the maximum capacity and therefore our lower bound. In my county, the average load-factor over all of 2012 was 479 million passenger miles divided by 44 million vehicle miles, or 10 passengers per mile.

Our average fuel consumption over number of passengers then is 50 mpg, which is not far worse than cars for energy efficiency. In 2006, the average mpg of a private vehicle on the road was about 20 mpg. Even with two people in such a vehicle, the average-loaded bus is better.

I did not dig very deeply; I was more trying to find your data and stumbled into data that seems to paint a different picture. It's quite possible that my data paints the wrong picture and you were using much more sound data, but because you did not provide it, I must ask for a citation now.

Which data had you used?

[1] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00o...
[2] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am...
[3] http://www.project.org/info.ph...

In my twenty years of using laptops, only Apple's trackpads were acceptable.

I was curious about how you came to believe and apply your generalization, because societal generations are interesting to me, and likely others in society. I don't care about your opinion of my personal education because that does not seem relevant to your opinion, your generalization, or your and my interaction.

Interestingly, you never did answer my actual question about candidates who went to schools that accept legacies but are not themselves legacies, which was the whole reason I posted in the first place. Instead, for an unknown reason, you gave me advice on how I might, if I wanted, get you to respect my education.

I phrased my question incorrectly; I'm sorry. How do you know which schools belong on your list of those that take legacies and those that do not? I could find no reliable published sources.

As to your second point: I don't care if you respect my education or not. I got my education to educate myself, not for your respect.

I like the Apple trackpads on their MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. I never run Windows on those, so I had no idea that software was a big aspect of their magic. That's interesting to note.

How did you decide which schools take legacies?Do you find that the quality of the candidates who went to those schools, but were not themselves legacies, to be poorly-suited candidates for your position?

I used to think all trackpads were terrible, then I used one that actually worked well and haven't used a mouse on a laptop since.

If it is showing the same results, that means Google knows who you are, even when using Startpage.

Especially since it appears sometimes bounty programs cost almost nothing to implement.

When the people writing the law state that one of the purposes they are introducing the law is, wait for it, "deterrence", they, by definition, are meant to stop things from happening. You cannot really claim that what a people did was not meant to do exactly what the people doing it stated they wanted to accomplish.

More common than Chalnoth means nothing. Three people on YouTube mean nothing. What percentage of Real Chance sellers are gaming the organization in such a way that the organization is unawares? *That* is the important question here.

Why would you make an excuse, when you can be honest and say "no, thank you?"

It's a shame, what happened to you, but that's no reason to start treating *other* people like they are abusers.

It means what it says. The verb used was subscribe, not use. Using one's neighbors wi-fi for internet while not subscribing to a service of one's own fits that options perfectly. The option does not at all mean "I don't use the internet." That would be a rather nonsensical reading.

$70,000 not being all that much money depends on how much you expect is "all that much". I was supporting a family in Seattle with a single income of $70,000 before taxes, with want of nothing.

But, that's not what prompted me to reply.He reduced his salary to 7% of its prior amount because he felt he had enough and wanted his company to better invest that money in its other employees. He could have six billion in cash sitting in accounts all over the world, and it wouldn't change the sense of his action.