I work in the physical sciences and it's frustrating to see the pass that climate science gets stating the certainty of their conclusions. In any other field, the uncertainties introduced by solar weather, CO2 contributions, ocean temperatures, global humidity, and orbital mechanics would render conclusions about 2 degrees Celsius variation as an unproven (i.e. null) hypotheses. Yet because of a well-orchestrated popular opinion driven by media, actual scientists have to mute their observations and conclusions.

East of Jordan?

Not sure if the sarcasm tag is missing, but the song is 'What a Wonderful World.'

If you want to know a lot about development of nuclear submarines and assorted espionage (mostly Russia/US though), look up Blind Man's Bluff on Amazon. Great book.

I was about to post this, but you were first.

Except the stats don't back up the 'sky is falling' position...the world is much better now than ever before. And it is much better for the poor than it was before.

I, for one, don't miss polio, small pox, massive deaths in wars, and a lack of access to information.

Leftist, centrist, rightist...the one thing they all have in common is they are pessimists. Put on some Louis Armstrong, enjoy the sun, and then make the world even better for the future.

Or perhaps it's the massive energy released by local volcanic activity warming the region.

Except Evernote launched beta in June, 2008, and One Note first was released in November, 2003.

The data are interesting; however, to draw a conclusion on storm intensity (which isn't defined in the paper) from lightning strikes is a stretch. If you look world-wide, the trend is a lot of lightning strikes along the equator, where the local strike concentration is higher. Especially in the region of that paper.

Remember, science is the continued review of the hypothesis with testing and observation, not an interesting data set.

As long as the ads aren't obtrusive, I don't see this as a bad thing. The site needs to pay its staff and for server time.

She doesn't have a Stanford degree, she finished one year.

My understanding is that London and San Francisco are near equivalent in terms of real estate prices per square foot/meter (London is moreso, I think) to buy. To rent, San Francisco is much more expensive (according to Numbeo, and if non-tech workers can't afford to live near the city (the whole market is getting bad), then how can we have servers at our restaurants?

Mortgage terms vary, typical is about 3.5 to 4.0 percent over 30 years fixed, but others have variable 5 year fixed etc. The banks have gotten much tighter in lending requirements.

The biggest obstacle is contingency sales, i.e. you'll buy the house if your other house sells. Many people only have the equity in their home as a down payment, and it's not liquid. If someone has the full down payment and proof of financing from the bank, that is as good as cash.

Most prices are 20-30% greater than other regions in the country because of the cost of a store lease is very high, and you have to pay at least $10/hour, usually more, for minimum wage labor.

I live in Silicon Valley. The nominal tax rate for the top bracket was 52% in California, not sure what it is with the new tax bill. Last year, my effective tax rate was about 38% excluding sales and property taxes, which would bump me up to an effective tax rate of about 43-45%.

The hardest part is the down payment and the lack of inventory. Every time you put in an offer, you're competing against a lot of people with fresh RSUs and no contingencies, so unless you have 25% to go down (usually 200-400K), you're not likely to get a place you want. A lot of people are paying almost 50% of their after tax income to mortgages.