I had one a couple of years ago for which I expressed interest as I wanted to move to the area anyway. The guy wanted all kinds of info that was already on my resume, but also wanted my SSN, and when I refused to give him that, he wanted the last four digits. I don't know if it was an attempt at identity theft or he was just stupid, but that ended things right there.

Another one went but better at the outset but insisted that the interview had to be done over a video link. I kind of figured, OK, fine, whatever, but when I asked about Skype, he said I had to go to some particular office that was about 40 miles away and use their setup. I couldn't download software and use my camera, because it absolutely had to be done at one of the offices they contracted with, and I was to wear a suit and tie. That really broke it--there was really no need to do that when so many other options for web conferencing were available.

A friend did recruiting for a while. He's transitioned to a technical role now because he can't compete with the resume mills. I don't know what it will take to get past them and get some decent recruiters back into the fray, but it can't come soon enough.

How many papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?

I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened, but I don't remember reading of any examples. Maybe it's my forgetful male memory? ;-)

In any case, can anyone cite other examples (in either direction)? If they exist, it might be interesting to look into the stories.

Last I heard, nothing invalidates suing anyone for anything. As long as defense is expensive, extortion will be an option.

Install the emacs plugin.

To an outside observer. I don't think it's the same in the inertial frame.

Before we call this real, we need to put one on some object in orbit, leave it in continuous operation, and use it to raise the orbit by a measurable amount large enough that there would not be argument regarding where it came from. The Space Station would be just fine. It has power for experiments that is probably sufficient and it has a continuing problem of needing to raise its orbit.

And believe me, if this raises the orbit of the Space Station they aren't going to want to disconnect it after the experiment. We spend a tremendous amount of money to get additional Delta-V to that thing, and it comes down if we don't.

Where do I send my check?

Send it to Larry Niven. I always wondered how his "reactionless drives" worked, and now I finally und-- actually, no, I don't understand how this works at all.

By having the user's view of your site not be "static content with no java or flash."

The additional engines allow for engine-out orbital capability, as has already happened on CRS-1, allowing the primary payload to reach orbit (the secondary payload failed, however). The failures of the N1 (which actually had 30 engines, not 27) weren't so much due to the number of engines as to the general complexity of operating a launch vehicle of that size. Each of the four failures varied in cause, and in only one case was the issue tied to an engine. Other failures were a pogo-induced line break (which might have been survivable had the computer not cut the engines), an uncontrolled roll due to eddies in a fuel tank, and a hydraulic shock wave from a planned shutdown of six of the engines bursting the fuel lines.

I correct the McDonalds case more often than I should have to. One of the things that I try to do is add context to discussions. Most recently, this has centered on attacks on Obama and Democrats in general, but I did the same thing when Bush was in office. I especially focus on Supreme Court decisions (and sometimes just oral arguments, which seem to be the recent topic with the same-sex marriage arguments just the other day) which sometimes seem to fly in the face of common sense but which, when read, show that they generally have come to a thoughtful decision, even if I disagree with it. (One exception is the eminent domain case from a few years back--that was just badly flawed from start to finish, as even most seasoned observers noted. If anything gets a constitutional amendment next, I expect it will be that one after a few particularly egregious examples. But I digress.)

Going somewhat non-partisan, those who attack a president for "taking a vacation" really don't understand what it means to be president. That's four years per term of never once having a day off. They have daily briefings, conduct necessary phone calls, make decisions small and large, and most of the other things they do on a daily basis from the White House. The only difference is that they're in an area that's largely off-limits to the press, and they get a few hours to do what they want to do at a leisurely pace, whether it's Obama golfing or Bush ranching or whatever.

Indeed, though there is often a more insidious effect. Suppose there's a claim that treatment T is effective for medical condition C, but it's actually a "placebo effect". If one study showed a (perhaps small) effect, and other studies showing no effect aren't published, a lot of money can be made selling T to customers. If the true negative results are published, the makers (and prescribers) of T lose that income.

This is one of many reasons for the low level of publishing "negative" results. Another reason is linguistic: In English and most other human languages, it's hard to make a clear distinction between "Our study showed no effect" and "Our study didn't show any effect". Most listeners won't hear a difference between negating the object and negating the verb, and the media frequently reports the former as the latter. Managers of scientific organizations are as prone to this problem as the rest of us are. "We want studies that show results, not studies that don't."

And, of course, there's the general cultural resistance to "negativity". This easily explains why many pseudo-scientific beliefs persist centuries after they've been disproved.

It generally costs more over time, but that's not the same as being less affordable. Affordable is when something can fit into a budget, and leasing provides that option. You compare it to renting, but that only undermines your argument. Most people can afford to rent a home; fewer can afford to buy a home, and far fewer still can afford to do so in cash.

Especially if Tesla wants to make this a game-changer the world over, it will be necessary to have that as an option. A ten-year warranty (with optional ten-year extension) means whatever replacements will be necessary are already being factored into the cost.

They will also offer an additional 10-year warranty that can be purchased at the end of the original for a comfortable 20-year warranty total.

They have a different product for utilities that will have longer service life and be available in much larger blocks of 100kWh that can be tied together. They wouldn't be used to replace pumped-storage or the like, but to help smooth out power. One of the constant complaints of those against wind and solar (which can include the power companies themselves) is that the varying input from short-term fluctuations is too hard to handle. With banks of batteries like this, it alleviates much of that problem.

They'll also be leasing the batteries. Should make it a lot more affordable.