Perhaps in your social circles, but not in mine.

There's only one person I know who even uses the word "tweet." Everyone else I know thinks it's stupid. Most people I know that use twitter still say "sent a twitter alert", "sent a twitter update", "posted to twitter", or "follow me on twitter" because "sent a tweet" and "follow my tweets" both sound about as stupid as Steve Ballmer sounded when he talked about "sending a squirt" or "squirting" data between devices.

No one can say for sure, but my money is on "tweet" becoming as archaic as it is juvenile & it will be largely forgotten.

Cut your arrogance, sir. "Not Yet" implies that it's something that is believed to be possible to achieve... which it isn't.

Any physicist will tell you that super-conduction depends on keeping atoms in a specific tight arrangement. At room temperature, there is too much movement of atoms and space between them even in crystalline structures to allow for superconductivity. Superconductivity is a state of matter. There are no super-conducting gasses or liquids (and there never will be!) and there will very likely never be any super-conducting solids at room temperature -- ever. The hottest temperature known for any material to super-conduct is 133 kelvin = -220.27 degrees Fahrenheit. That's not much warmer than liquid nitrogen at around 77 K.

It's not arrogance to say that superconductors will NEVER work at room temperature... at least according to the laws of physics as we understand them.

The colder super conductors work because atoms mesh into a quantum state only possible at cold temperatures. The hotter ones appear to work by aligning electrical spin of electrons -- a completely different method, but it too stops working above a certain threshold of heat. Heat adds motion and disorder to the system causing a breakdown in the state of matter.

To clarify, there will NEVER be a room temperature superconductor. It's literally impossible at room temperature to achieve the state of organized matter necessary to provide superconduction. To say otherwise is as ridiculous as saying one day we'll have a super-conducting gas (duh... gasses can never super-conduct either... nor can liquids).

There, fixed that for ya...

"Not Yet" implies that it's something that is believed to be possible... which it isn't.

Any physicist will tell you that super-conduction depends on keeping atoms in a specific tight arrangement. At room temperature, there is too much movement of atoms and space between them even in crystalline structures to allow for superconductivity. Superconductivity is a state of matter. There are no super-conducting gasses or liquids and there will very likely never be any super-conducting solids at room temperature -- ever. The hottest temperature known for any material to super-conduct is 133 kelvin = -220.27 degrees Fahrenheit. That's not much warmer than liquid nitrogen at around 77 K.

So, to clarify... superconductors will NEVER work at room temperature... at least according to the laws of physics as we understand them.

FTFY... anonymous coward with pie in the sky dreams and no understanding of the topic

Capitalism works, in theory, by survival of the fittest and is subject directly to consumers' support providing for their self-interests. It is the perfect solution for creating the fittest organizations to provide the goods and services people want at a price they want. It is fueled by people's selfish needs to grow and prosper by working hard as well as their selfish needs for goods, services, and the perception of wealth. It's really the only system that allows for a certain level of greed. Socialism is perfect in a perfect world with a benevolent, wise dictator where everyone agrees that we should all do equal work for equal pay and equal outcome... and the dictator tells us all what we should make, how much, and of what kind, shape, color, etc. etc.

The standards I use to say other systems do not work is that there hasn't been one yet that worked. The USSR tried and failed. Do you know that there was once a glass company that told its workers they would be paid by the hour, so they worked long hours and produced almost nothing? Then they were told they would be paid by the square inch produced, so they produced thin sheets of glass that would easily snap. Then they were told they'd be paid by the weight of the glass, so they added lead and other heavy metals to the glass and made it too thick to fit into standard window sizes. Eventually, they had to state every specification for the product and how much to be produced. It would've been so much easier if the company's income were based on the demand. Command Production and Quotas implemented by the USSR had detrimental consequences USSR

All systems have flaws -- they just take time to surface. Even capitalism requires government interference to provide laws to prevent monopolies, price-fixing, fraud, etc... but I have yet to hear of a system that works better to allow the masses to prosper.

car is a general term for any conveyance for passengers or "cargo"... elevator cars, boxcars, cable cars, etc etc... and yes, it was a general term for a cart, chariot, carriage, etc as well. Basically any area for storage or passengers on a vehicle is the "car"

It's origin is the Latin word for a Celtic / Gallic 2 wheeled wagon which was generally pulled by an animal such as a horse.

http://www.tfd.com/car

While I agree with you that it could be argued that this vehicle is indeed a "car", it's a valid point that the unconventional design of the vehicle and its limited purpose make it border on becoming not what the average person would consider to be a car in terms of an automobile.

Keep in mind that streetcars, subway cars, monorail cars, and railroad cars are still "cars" because they also cross terrain, though they require tracks of some sort for their function. (even an elevator car is a "car") This new car requires nearly perfectly flat land, a rocket for propulsion, and very specific aerodynamics to adhere to the ground to reach its top speeds. It likely won't allow for much steering at those speeds, so it will have to mostly go perfectly straight as well.

At what point does such a specialized craft no longer qualify as a "car"? Technically, I could put a large rocket with a small compartment for a human being at the tip of the rocket on an elevated track and still call it a "car". If there were a requirement that it have wheels, I could put wheels on it that touch the ground, but they'd be rather unnecessary. Is there a rule against tracks? Possibly, but if so, it's arbitrary. At some point, someone defined the rules for qualifications for the fastest land speed record of this type, but I would argue that the spirit of the rules has been skirted long ago. This is really a rocket with wheels that has been crafted to hug the ground so as to stay within the letter of the rules of being a land vehicle.

You do realize that trade agreements, tariffs, bans, etc. are all bargaining chips in diplomacy & that when it comes to bargaining w/ China, we have to use these tools very delicately, right? Banning trade with China makes about as much sense as shooting your conjoined twin through the heart you both share. One ban in one area on one thing leads to retribution in another area and possibly escalation & so on. Trade barriers almost always lead to higher prices on goods, so there's another side-effect as well.

China has 1.3 billion people and zero care for the environment. That is not going to change anytime soon. They did a decent job cleaning up for the Olympics, but that was only temporary & for show for visiting countries (& to make the air clean enough for athletes).

Our options are limited & our bargaining power to force change in China is limited, so get used to the status quo or come up with a viable alternative. Do you know WHY we choose to buy our goods from China? It's because they have low wages, no benefits, and no environmental policies, so companies can afford to set prices low. It's cheaper to ship raw materials to the other side of the planet to be processed & then shipped BACK than to have them processed here in the US with US labor. I kid you not. We send wheat & flour to China to be processed into noodles & shipped back.

Why choose environmental policy as a stance for trade barriers? Why not human rights or worker conditions or even minimum wages? If you're going to get upset over subsidies, we subsidize food which we export & we and other countries subsidize banks, auto-manufacturers, etc. etc. It's much more blatant than lax environmental laws, too.

Why don't we just ban all trade w/ everyone but democratic 1st world countries with high environmental and working standards? -- Because the cost increase on goods will be astronomical, that's why!

If you're going to be all high minded and idealistic about our trading policies & threaten sanctions on our biggest trading partner and investor, you'd best be ready to back it up & have a backup plan for the consequences...

Unless you live in a mobile home where the mortgage company owns the title to your home until you complete the terms of your contract, your mortgage company does not own any part of your home. Your home is merely collateral which can be seized to repay any portion of the amount of your contract you are unable or unwilling to pay.

Nope... you and whomever modded this as +5 informative needs a course in business law. Owning 51% or more in a company gives you complete and unquestionable authority over what actions a company can take unless a signed contract says otherwise or your shares are specifically "non-voting" stock. If the Fed. govt. as 80% owner decided to release all documents or even liquidate the company, the owners of the other 20% would have no say at all and no legal recourse.

You do have a point about the apparent fragmented strategies of Microsoft and Google. (I say apparent b/c we truly do not know their master plans, so perhaps the pieces will all fall into place one day and amaze us.) However, not all big, expensive companies have such fragmented strategies and large R&D departments. Microsoft and Google are competing in areas with rapid change and innovation, so I can't blame them for trying to stay ahead of the game. Often, R&D leads nowhere... or failed products, but it's difficult to know which ones will succeed. Much like a venture capitalist, large R&D departments spend a chunk of change on lots of projects in the hopes that one out of 100 will become huge successes. In short, they have both the cash and the NEED for the spagetti gun approach. lol. Not to mention, they learn quite a bit from their failures as well.

I think Google's just beginning to coalesce its many projects into one service... phone and/or netbook with andriod/chromeOS running chrome and accessing gmail, google calendar, google docs, google maps with GPS-like capabilities, etc. etc. Microsoft is slowly but surely spreading its empire as well. I never would've dreamed they'd be so successful with the XBOX. They have plans for a multimedia set-top box as well. Perhaps we simply don't know the 5 to 10 year plans these companies are reaching for and their releases simply seem fragmented b/c we don't know the long term plans.

As for dividends, I'm not sure why you prize them so highly. You spend money to buy stock b/c you believe it to be a better investment than actual money in a savings or money market account, yet you'd rather get money in the form of dividends from the company stock than have the stock rise in value? Every publicly traded company has a duty to "maximize shareholder wealth." By giving out a dividend, a company is basically admitting that you could invest that money better than they could, so they're giving it to you. It's insane... especially since they assume that company stock is a good investment and you should turn around and spend that money on buying more stock... so why incur fees buying more stock instead of simply allowing your stock price to rise to reflect the cash/investments/whatever within the company? If you believe the stock isn't a better investment than you could find elsewhere, then why not simply sell your stock and collect the money from the sale?!?! Dividends often lead to trouble down the road b/c once you start paying one, people expect you to continue and will see a halt or lowering of dividends as a bad sign, thus lowering the value of the stock... so once a company begins paying them out, they have to continue forever -- through good times and bad... even when it hurts their bottom lines.

I really don't understand why you would want a dividend.... if you want a return on investment in the form of a check, then perhaps a money market fund would be better. The point of owning a stock is to own a piece of a company in the hopes that it will be successful and make your shares worth more for when you finally decide to cash out. Typically, one should invest with an intent not to sell the stock for at least 5 to 10 years -- perhaps many decades for retirement. (day traders should be shot imho) With this in mind, one would want a good company to re-invest its profits within itself to grow bigger and even more profitable over that time. If one doesn't have faith in an individual company, then probably an index fund would be best... but I digress.

Point being... a company's profits are the shareholders' profits... whether they are re-invested or distributed as dividends. If a company holds on to the money in the form of cash or equivalents, then the stock price will rise to reflect that... in which case, if you wanted cash, you could sell the stock at a higher price instead of getting a dividend... however, the company should invest the money into R&D or expansion, or some other strategy to yield even more profit down the road. You're really better off choosing to either keep the stock without the dividend or selling the stock and putting your money elsewhere where you believe you'll make money.

I think you're confusing the word "metabolize" with "atrophy." Unused muscle will atrophy, and unused muscle while your body is in starvation mode will atrophy even faster... but the body doesn't choose to metabolize it for fuel as it does fat from fat cells. Body builders have an insane amount of muscle mass, so naturally that muscle will atrophy unless they continuously work out to prevent atrophy. This is a different mechanism than metabolizing protein, which does not happen unless all fat reserves are depleted.

I'm not sure where you picked up this myth, but you don't lose muscle unless it atrophies from either age or not using it in general. What you lose first from cutting calories is water weight. Your body stores sugar water in the liver, and since the body generally prefers to burn sugars over fats, it'll deplete the sugar reserves first before moving to a more balanced mixture of sugar and fat burning... so before you lose fat, you lose that sugar, and the body expels the excess water that was holding the sugar. For some people, that can be several pounds.

So, typically what happens is people cut calories, watch a few pounds drop off over the course of a week, then get discouraged when the pounds don't keep coming off at that rate... thinking they lost fat when it was really just water weight

Perhaps this myth comes from the look of loose skin on people that don't replace muscle with fat.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but your statement is a bit misleading. As such, I'm not sure why it's +5 Informative. If you are trying to say that cutting calories alone could lead to a slower metabolism causing lethargy and thus lead one to exercise less and therefore lose muscle mass due to atrophy, then yes... that's a possibility, but it's not a common occurrence and would depend on how extreme the calorie reduction was (and it would depend on how far their calorie intake was below the number of calories required for an individual to maintain their current weight given age, gender, muscle mass, fat percentage, activity level, etc).

You're quite right that the body isn't a simple machine. It's extremely complex and still mysterious in many ways, but it does conform to the laws of physics. In this case, energy in (Calories) - energy burned (Calories) = energy gained or lost in the form of fat (Calories).

"Resting metabolism" may change somewhat initially as one's body switches from predominantly burning sugars to burning a mixture of sugars and fats, but as a percentage of daily calories burned, it's very minor. An individual may feel more lethargic, but it still takes about the same number of calories for them to walk, talk, eat, breathe, heat their bodies to 98.6 degrees, maintain bodily functions and provide fuel to all their cells, etc. Unless one takes in such few sugar calories that their brains cannot function properly (the brain requires sugar to function.... fats don't cross the blood/brain barrier), this is really more of a mood issue than a change in how well one can burn calories. As one loses weight, resting calories burned (not overall metabolism) always drops unless muscle is gained. Less mass, less energy required to support the body.

You say that "how much you eat impacts how much you use..." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Olympic athletes easily eat 3 to 10 times the number of calories of your average person, but so do morbidly obese individuals. Their use is entirely different. Granted, you didn't say there was a significant correlation, simply that there's an impact... but as long as one takes in more than 30% less than their daily caloric needs, there really isn't much impact assuming they have fat reserves to burn.

Now about metabolizing muscle... Again, if you mean to say that muscle will atrophy if it isn't used, then yes, that is absolutely correct... but "metabolized" usually refers to breaking something down for a purpose -- like for fuel. The body will NOT cannibalize muscle or proteins for energy until all sugar and fat reserves are depleted.

So, to break things down if I take your post literally and not for what I assume you might mean:

Your body is not a simple machine. Yes, it's a complicated machine

How much you eat impacts how much you use Not really, except in extreme cases

; simply cutting calorie intake will just cause your resting metabolism to drop. No, not really.... it's not significant

Worse, you might start metabolizing muscle. No, you'd have to be extremely malnourished with zero body fat for this to happen

Normally I don't reply to trolls, but I found your post spectacularly wrong in so many ways, yet peppered with enough economic and statistical jargon that you might actually convince some people of your false logic should they read it.

First, you fail at economics. Clearly you've taken an undergrad course and heard a few terms. I encourage you to go back and take a few masters level courses so that you understand them a bit better. You also fail at psychology if you truly believe there will be rioting and assassination attempts over the tripling of the price of anything which has substitutes in the marketplace. Just as an example, gasoline has extremely inelastic demand and has quadrupled in price over a few years without any rioting in the streets. Sure, there have been congressional hearings about gas prices because speculators have manipulated the pricing more than OPEC ever has of late, but there are no riots over congresses inaction in passing legislation to encourage the price of gasoline to go down (lower fed. tax rate, drill for more oil, give tax breaks to build a new gasoline refinery, make it illegal to hold futures contracts without a location to store the oil, etc. etc.).

"Meat" includes many products which will be affected differently by any price increase because they will have different elasticities of demand... however, since you've mentioned steak, I thought I'd point out that most economics professors would indeed classify a "standard steak" as a luxury good. It's not as much of a luxury good as say... lobster, but it's up there. Bologna would not be considered a luxury good, but it is a meat product. If a pack of bologna were to triple in cost from $1 to $3, demand would likely drop somewhat and shift to other cheaper sources of protein like soy products. If steak were to also triple from $12 per serving to $36 per serving, demand would likely fall more drastically and shift to other cheaper sources of protein... perhaps even bologna, hot dogs, and hamburgers instead of steak.

You make a LOT of assumptions. I have no idea what sort of tax would have to be imposed on meat products to include the full cost to society and environmental damage, but you assume it would triple the cost of meat in general (wild assumption... could be only a 10% increase which would have little economic impact.) You also assume surpluses and shortages and prices rising or falling, but don't state time frames. In economics, short term, long term, and extreme long term results for shifts can be very different, so your post is vague and sounds a bit like gibberish when you discuss these things. You assume that meat substitute prices will skyrocket without any facts to back up that hypothesis, then go on to say that they may become scarce with a shortage so some people will be forced to buy meat at high prices (another assumption). Do you realize that soy products are cheap and could easily provide a meat substitute even if demand for soy skyrocketed at a very reasonable price? even in the short-term? Have you even heard of price elasticity of demand? Did they not teach you that term in undergrad econ?

On a personal note, I am definitely a fan of meat... but I'm also a fan of taxing the hell out of things that have hidden environmental costs. You'd be surprised at how quickly businesses change their processes to produce less waste when they actually have to pay to clean up that waste. There are economical ways for all businesses to clean up their environmental waste and have a reduced impact on the environment (Note that 100% cleanup would likely cost an infinite amount of money because it is difficult to have exactly zero waste, but perhaps an 85 to 95% reduction might be feasible for some businesses). Yes, prices might rise on goods as companies pass along environmental cleanup costs, but I have no idea how much -- and nor do you unless you've done an environmental impact study on the matter.

Frankly, when you remove the gibberish and wild speculation from your post, it simply reads as "Waaahhhh... I love my meat and I don't want to have to pay more for it!" As you've posted as an anonymous coward, perhaps you already know this is the case.

odd... I always use the keypad for numbers, but I worked in data entry for a year and we had a LOT of numbers to enter :-)