Old Man's War by John Scalzi

The real question is, how did I miss the dragons!

Yes, triple their wages, causing massive inflation in China making the poor in China even worse off. You cannot dump wealth into an economy like that. The Russians tried it after the fall of the Soviey union and the result was so disasterous that they've ended up with an oligarchy and had to be grateful that a few people sucked up all the money because the economy was a mess.

While I am all for fair-trade, and increased quality of life for the workers, paying them more has harmful knock on effects in that it drives inflation of basic necessities and means those not lucky enough to have a decent income suffer more, not less. It's all about relativity.

Fostering job creation rather than giving aid is the way to go. It gives people something to feel valued for, and makes them self sufficient so you don't have to keep giving aid. Bear in mind that he suicide rate in Foxconn is significantly lower than the Chinese rate of suicide in general.

The theory of special relativity predicts gravitational behaviour very well indeed, but I want to know HOW! What the is mechanism! Where is my GODDAMN FLYING CAR!

It's because Atheism is a religious position. Thus, having taken a religious position, they do what many others who have a religious position does, a rubbish everyone else. The joke is that it seems most athiests don't recognise this.

On the other hand, I'm agnostic so I just laugh at both sides.

Must. Resist....

Actually, I can't. Abiotic oil is still up for consideration (although it's never got much traction outside the former Soviet Union). I'm not a geologist and I don't work in the oil industry so I can't say how realistic or not this is.

Also, can I refer you to plenty of issues with the Policy Summary of the IPCC AR4 which is damaging the real science that is performed in the many, many fields that were reviewed. Statements blaming AGW for everything from the reduction of the Kilimanjero glaciers (it was deforestation) and the reduction in size of the Himalayan glaciers (carbon soot from cookers in China is the main culprit) to the author's missing socks does not help. And before there's a counter that the Policy Summary isn't the document - it's probably the most important part of it because it's what most will read.

I leave the last word to Nils Axel Mörner, was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden until 2005. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and was leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner studied the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. A bit of a loon about some things, but then many are and he's undoubtedly a sea-level expert.

and

Use some kind of tablet/e-reader for your books, but use paper to take notes. Physical writing has several advantages, not least that the act of writing aids recall later. You take notes in class, and refine them and tidy them afterwards - this serves the double purpose of going over the content twice, and having to understand it better to condense it for the notes you store. Messing with multiple pens, or using a device in class disrupts your concentration and hence makes everything harder than it needs to be.

Memory, recall and learning (understanding concepts) are fairly complex and everyone's slightly different. The above is my own take on it.

If you go that way, the Kindle works quite well for displaying papers (with graphs and the like) although there's no colour for diagrams. I find that the grey background and no back-light with black text is easier on your eyes particularly if you'll be studying those books intensively over a longer period. This is a concern because as your eyes get tired it affects the rate at which you can take things in and you will need more frequent breaks or lose concentration. Anything with a reflective screen should be right out - the shine if the lights are on can make it difficult to read. Don't pick something too bright either, you'll distract those around you!

Best of luck to your wife

You're not quite correct about that - the Japanese were discussing surrender internally and the Emperor was in favour. This led to an attempted palace coup and he STILL couldn't convince the majority of generals (who were where the power lay) until after the bomb was dropped. No surrender offer had been made and the Americans could not have known that the Japanese were thinking of surrender. Sure there were other geo-political benefits to dropping the bomb, particularly around Soviet relations, but the American High Command who didn't know about the bomb gave those figures and estimates and expected a horrifically bloody 3 year war on the Japanese islands. They did not expect a Japanese surrender as things stood.