If you just state that fact, some people will see it as implying blacks have an unfair advantage and therefore racist. Those people will say that simply doing the research, asking the question, and stating the results is racist even if you don't explicitly add "And therefore blacks have an unfair advantage."

Unnecessary. Irrelevant in fact.

Scientific discussion of racial differences is not the same as racism. It's amazing how afraid some people are of frank discussion about race. They want to shut it down as soon as it begins, typically by denying the question ("there's no such thing as race!!") or personal attacks like you're doing ("you're racist for even suggesting that!!!").

You typically start with data gathering and classification before hypotheses are even formed. But that step of the process is still "science." So no.

So, you're making your own ridiculous assumptions (good at business = cunning? really? how so?) and ascribing them to the book and then labeling it racist.

Why's that, do the Christians in those videos promote violence? Do they threaten harm to others?

Just another false equivalence between Islam and other religions.

Skin color certainly does not define race. It is part of it though, which you're admitting is genetically determined.

So the question how do you define race, and which parts are not genetically determined?

Teach him to read numbers well, then start looking for things with numbers. I'm looking at my car registration renewal letter and it has dollar figures, dates, descriptions, rates ("tax rate per $100 value"), tabular data, etc. You can make math problems out of these, like "what is the total of city and county tax?" that will require him to read words like "city" and "county" in the table.

I don't know how serious of a reading problem your son has, but if he's clearly behind a 1st grade class I'm guessing he's having trouble even reading words aloud. Even short things like this letter might help him get started.

Of course if you just mean he's behind a little bit because he isn't interested in reading, but knows the fundamentals, that's a different matter.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that? It seems to me if your daughter spent that extra time working on something she enjoys and is good at, and the other kid spends extra time working on math, they'd both benefit more than if they spent extra time working on what they are not interested in. Of course some minimum level of achievement is necessary in all subjects, but it seems like you're talking about how time should be budgeted when going beyond the minimum.

I'm reminded a bit of some economics class I took once talking about international trade and specialization. If your country has a climate suited to coffee and another country is more suited to beets, then you produce coffee and trade for beets with the other country. No point wasting resources producing beets yourself, you're just not as good at it.

You're confusing mean with median. The median is the midpoint of the data, where 50% are greater than (or equal to) the median and 50% are less than (or equal to) the median.

That's "mode" which is a different measure of average. Like I said, most people think of average as "mean."

Perhaps that was true at one time but it's changed and continues to change. Now there's a standard called Chinamax which is specifically designed for, well, China.

Panamax ships on the other hand, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Your source says the Panama Canal generated $800 million profit last year. If you look at their budget (same page) of $2.4 billion you can see there are a lot of costs as well, so revenue is much higher than $800 million.. we can estimate $3.2 billion if the 2015 budget is similar to the expenditures for last year.

The reason I bring up revenue instead of profit is that the new canal will not necessarily face the same costs as the Panama Canal. For example, the Panama Canal is currently undergoing an expansion program at a cost of about $6 billion since 2006, which is included in their budget and thus affects profits. Clearly the newly built Nicaraguan Canal would not need an expansion program, so that cost should be ignored and counted as profit.

Furthermore, the reason they are expanding the Panama Canal is to allow bigger ships and more traffic which will increase revenue. The Nicaragua Canal is designed to allow bigger ships as well so those projected numbers are perhaps more applicable. Based on http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2... they expect profits after the expansion program is complete to be around $3 billion per year.

If the Nicaraguan Canal is similar to that figure, it's looking like a pretty good investment, especially since as others have pointed out they have more to gain than just profits from tolls... substantial control of a major shipping lane is worth something.

These kinds of concerns are why the high speed rail "project" (I hesitate to call it that.. more like "pipe dream") near where I live has been in planning and environmental impact studies for 10 years, whereas the Chinese estimate for building the whole canal is 5 years.

This project, even if it fails miserably, will create more jobs and pump more money into the economy than surf tourism would in 100 years I wager. The canal budget is 4 times the entire GDP of Nicaragua. What percent of GDP does surf tourism provide?

People tend to think of average as mean, so it's entirely possible (and likely I think) that most drivers are better than the mean.

That's because there are a bunch of decent drivers, and a few who are really atrocious and shouldn't be driving. I'm guessing the distribution looks something like:

2% Excellent: not only do they not cause accidents, they avoid them and make everybody safer with their driving habits
88% Good: not always 100% defensive so susceptible to things like sudden braking, but generally good drivers if nothing unexpected happens
10% Bad: weaving through traffic, speeding in residential areas, turning or backing up without looking, etc

So 90% of the population is "above average" (mean).

Those are excellent people to have on a watchlist. If the FBI can "groom" them, they would presumably be responsive to real terrorist groups that contacted them as well.

Probably not many. There are plenty of crazy looking, crazy sounding Muslims in Dearborn. Just watch the Youtube videos of the response to Christian provocateurs who protest during the yearly Arab culture festival there. Most of the Muslims in those videos should be on watchlists.

It's probably not something like MD5 or SHA1 since they're dealing with images. More like http://research.microsoft.com/... which says:

or

http://www.hackerfactor.com/bl...