I agree completely. I am in a field where these sorts of textbooks would be tremendously helpful. In fact, it would be fairly straightforward to put together my own textbook with my own images and movies and diagrams and offer it as a free download to my students. Then, as needed, I could update the book with the latest info. I would offer the material to students without iPads/iPhones/iPod Touches for free, it just wouldn't be quite as pretty. I was planning on my students never having to purchase a textbook again but now this will make it much easier to do that (unfortunately, they'd have to read my own book but at least it would be free, probably about what it would be worth).

We know from brain studies that our brains seem to peak in our mid 20s (although I've seen that number range to 40). Whether or not this translates into cognitive changes is debatable but I'd expect us to start having declines (usually speed of processing - how quickly we can handle information) around that time. However, other research (I can't find the citation right now) shows that for many of our other cognitive domains (other than processing speed) - memory, language, etc. - we see increases until the ages 40-65 (depending on cognitive domain) - and then declines after that. What this means though is that by the time we are old (in our 70s), unless we've developed dementia or some cerebrovascular disease, our abilities are generally as good as they were when we were teenagers or in our early 20s. Basically, our abilities increase and then decrease so we end up not much worse off when we were young (and sometimes still better).

Yes, some areas of cognition do start declining earlier than 45 (probably in our mid 20s) but testing changes are not always significant in the real world. Our tests (neuropsychological/cognitive) do not have as much external (ecological) validity as we would like. So what if we decline? What does that mean for real-world performance? Not always as much as we might think. We are usually good at compensating for deficiencies.

To answer your question though, having 45+ in a longitudinal study is inadequate but better than what we've had in the past (at least with huge samples). These are a good set of data. I'm sure there are some methodological flaws in the study in how they handled repeat testing (my Master's thesis was about how to handle longitudinal cognitive data; i.e., how can we accurately analyze it, accounting for unexplained variance?) but the linear mixed models they used are pretty good statistics (I just don't think that the methods account adequately for regression to the mean and unpredictable test characteristics).

As someone who administers cognitive tests for both research and clinical work, I can state that the Mini-Mental is not a very useful test (we sometimes use it clinically {because medical doctors want it} and for research {because some reviewers think that it's necessary information, which is ridiculous given the amount of other cognitive data we collect}). It's a screener that is easy to administer but it is neither sensitive nor specific. The test, frankly, doesn't tell us very much. There are other alternative and better screeners out there, the MMSE is just the most widely used. The sooner that it stops being used, the better; then we can start giving more useful tests. I'm not saying the MMSE is useless, it's just no big loss if there is copyright being claimed now. We'll move on to something else.

"If your ATM card has the backing of Visa or Mastercard and used as a Credit Card, then you are in the worst case scenario out $50."

That's because of the protections offered by Visa and Mastercard (to the bank or card issuer, which can then pass them on to you), not usually the bank (although some credit unions offer those protections).

The trick is to find the credit card companies who have the best customer service. I have one issuer with awesome customer service. They offer all sorts of protections on travel, car rentals, lost/stolen cards, etc. without obligating me to pay anything in the case of loss or fraud. Additionally, there are some credit card issuers (e.g., American Express) that offer additional warranties on products you purchase with the card. So, for example, if I purchase a laptop with a one year warranty, some credit cards (even ones with no yearly fees) will extend that warranty to two years (you just work through the card issuer and not the company). But again, the trick is to find the issuers with good customer service who don't make things too difficult for you (they exist, a few of my cards are though companies with good customer service.

Because the merchant already raised prices, it behooves me to use a credit card. If I don't, I'm subsidizing those who do use cards; if I do, then I'm receiving the reward. Now, if everyone stopped using credit cards, merchants could lower prices. That would be great but it probably won't happen (and I won't be leading the charge [pun intended] in that battle).

Credit cards can be bad - I've worked with people who have had terrible self control issues with credit cards. It's almost tragic. However, it's not entirely the credit card's fault; people with spending problems have other issues that are the real problems.

I don't pay fees for credit cards. Okay, that's not true any more - I have one card where I pay fees but I paid $69 for a year and received $800 in rewards (3 round trip airline flights, which I've already redeemed). That's a good return on investment - pay $70 and receive $800. I'll most likely cancel the card before I have to pay the fee again (my credit score can handle the small hit it will take for a few months), although . All my other cards have no yearly fees (some of them have given $200-$300 in signup bonuses). This means at this point when I use the cards, the cash back I receive is just gravy to me (which I need as a grad student).

Exactly, although the rewards do also come from transaction fees charged to vendors. Credit card companies love people like me who use cards responsibly (there was a WSJ article about this a couple months ago). Even though they do not earn interest on my credit card payments, they receive the transaction fees and they know that they will receive the money I owe them on time and without having to chase me down for it.

I use a credit card for everything I can because of the rewards I earn. I've received thousands of dollars in rewards (I just received what amounts to $800 in rewards for signing up with a credit card) and cash back (anywhere from 1% - 20% per transaction, depending on the situation and retailer) over the years. The trick is to use credit cards like debit cards by paying them off completely every month. Living on credit can be stupid (most people need a mortgage to afford a house though; having a mortgage is "living on credit") but we shouldn't confuse using credit cards with living on credit. I'll use debit cards as soon as they offer rewards as good as credit cards (they won't though because of regulations as well as other reasons).

It's the scholars who are making the connection in this case. The online article is quite true to what the scholars are saying about the tablet. I'm not saying that they are necessarily right but this tablet does date to the time of Nebuchadnezzar II.

If you read the article you read: "'Here we have for the first time an illustration contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar II's restoring and enlargement of the Tower of Babel, and with a caption making the identity absolutely sure,' the Schøyen Collection stated on its website."

They're not saying Nebuchadnezzar built the original Tower of Babel, they're saying it looks like he might have (tried to) restore it (rebuild it). "Calling himself the 'great restorer and builder of holy places,' he also reconstructed Etemenanki, a 7-story, almost 300-foot-high temple (also known as a ziggurat) dedicated to the god Marduk. Biblical scholars believe that this temple may be the Tower of Babel mentioned in the Bible."

The article makes this pretty clear. Also, if you read the collection's website (http://www.schoyencollection.com/historyBabylonian.html), it is clear that this is simply a depiction of the rebuilding of the original tower. I don't see how the author of the article mangled either philology or biblical theology. The reference to the confusion of the languages ("God concluded that they were simply trying to gain power and caused the workers to speak many different languages. Unable to communicate with each other, the workers gave up the project.") was background about the original tower; the author was not implying that it occurred during Nebuchadnezzar II's reign.

They grow their food in the places that are not city (most of the world, based on the first link) and import it in. They'd just have to leave open the most fertile growing regions and put the city elsewhere. Or, they grow their food vertically in vertical farms (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming). I'm sure we could come up with some sort of technological solution to where and how we grow food if we all lived in one large city.

"As a platform - the important thing - Apple's star is waning"

You misspelled "winning".

I own an Android-based phone; I'm running a custom 2.3 ROM and will upgrade to ICS as soon as it is available (when someone ports a ROM) but Apple's ecosystem and OS are still quite a bit more advanced than Android's. I really like my phone and I enjoy Android but compared to Apple's ecosystem, it's not that great. I had to root and install a custom ROM to make the phone more than barely functional. That's not entirely Google's fault but it is partially the result of the ecosystem Google didn't-quite-create. I know some people prefer the flexibility of Android (I like many things about it; I also run Linux at work and home) but Apple's star isn't waning; Apple is doing as well - even better - than they ever have. Apple defines the market and the other manufacturers mostly copy them (not that that is a bad thing, it's just that Apple is the market leader). Market share is far from everything.

"many students will use the device to play Angry Birds or check Facebook instead of paying attention in class"

So? If they didn't have that they would be sleeping or doodling or writing something else or planning out their week or checking out the other students. Professors should be able to hold the attention of most of the students; if not, maybe they should try something other than teaching. I've taught a number of university courses and always tried to make them sufficiently interesting and engaging so that the students would want to pay attention. There are always the students who will do other things but they also usually do not do well in the course either.

"I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100%"

I'm not saying the parent poster's numbers are correct but the poster did state: "top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue)" so the percentages should be more than 100% (because the federal government spends more than it takes in).

Since when are medical doctors scientists? Most in the U.S. are decent in science classes but few are scientists.