Except there is no evolutionary pressure to select for thicker skulls. The injuries cause problems long after the players have ended their career and have had their kids.

Ticker symbol(s). Emerging markets have done well, but I find it hard to believe that your returns have been so consistent for 12 years. 2008 was a real bear market in the emerging markets. Many funds lost 40% plus, even the more conservative ones.

Slight correction. My return was about 12% for the final 10 months of 2012. This is money I had rolled over from a prior employer so had full control for only the 12 months. I was in index funds before that as well, but can't easily roll those gains into the numbers I reported.

In an efficient market, all players have the same information and you cannot gain additional return without additional risk. And the fact is that unless you are an insider, you won't even meet the optimum risk/return frontier. I'm willing to bet if we looked at your returns, you'd be well below the frontier. It is good that you but and hold, but the downside is that it takes a handful of bad picks to bring you down and bring you down hard

My approach guarantees I will make market returns with average risk. Doing as well as the market is not a crime and is quite good. I pay almost no management fees. Even in my non-tax sheltered accounts I pay almost no taxes because nothing is realized. Brokerage fees are similarly insignificant. Anyone who claims to consistently beat those returns is taking additional risk or plain out not understanding their real returns. On top of it all, I spend a whopping zero minutes a week doing research as I really don't have to. And you can research your funds all day long, but you'll never have the insider info a lot of private analysts have and which affect the market.

I am invested in the US mostly, with significant minorities in Europe and Hong Kong. My total return in 2012 was just a shade under 12%. Not bad for a low risk strategy.

In fine Slashdot tradition, let's hear from 52 people telling us that correlation does not imply causation and that only people with brain trauma or predisposed to it play football.

There are no religious grounds here. I am Christian, have read the Bible front to back a couple of times and don't recall any prohibition on flu shots. Basically this person has a personal conviction against flu shots. That is absolutely fine. However, that means the nurses are in violation of company rules which make a lot of sense. It is the hospital's right to fire them.

No controversy here.

FTA: "While 2008 is famous for a huge summer spike that drove the average above $4 a gallon, price weren’t as consistently high as this year, leaving 2008 in third place overall at $3.25."

I think you are thinking of 2008 as your "couple of years ago", and the article does a good job of talking about that.

A 90 second search revealed the following "A common choice is to choose units such that the maximum possible efficacy, 683 lm/W, corresponds to an efficiency of 100%"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Is there a theoretical maximum lumens / watt ratio? My 30 second search on Google does't show any relationship between the two terms, but I have to imagine there is some type of maximum...

It is called a joke. Sorry you didn't get it, but I promise not to make fun of slow individuals like yourself.

Title: New IE Vulnerability Used In Targeted Attacks; IE9, IE10 Users Safe
Sentence Two: While IE9 and IE10 are not affected, versions IE6, IE7, and IE8 are
Then: "We are actively investigating reports of a small, targeted issue affecting Internet Explorer 6-8,"
Then: People using Internet Explorer 9-10 are not impacted.""

Could someone please tell me which versions are vulnerable and which ones are not?

Although acceleration is not the same as speed, AC is right. Even if you assume the probe's weight is negligible, you begin to run into issues with thrust to weight of fuel. Over the five years cited in this story, the ion thruster consisting of fuel only would get you to 75km/s, or about a 14,000 year flight to alpha centauri. Scaling up doesn't help much as the ion thruster has to accelerate a larger mass.

Just realized how careless I was. My calcs assume acceleration from propulsion only. Voyager 1 took up much less fuel but is going at a pretty good clip due to gravitational assists. So the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Voyager 1 has used about 80 kg of mass to get to its current speed, but a good part of that was due to energy from being placed in orbit and from a slingshot around Jupiter.

Most likely this thing was not aboard any ship or probe or any other object in outer space. This thing is being developed, so it is likely attached to some instruments in a lab where they can monitor it continually and make sure there aren't any problems. Likely they shut it down periodically to look for any problems, signs of breakdown or other signs that this cannot be scaled up for any reason.

So how far and how fast are irrelevant. There are enough numbers in the summary that you can do your own calculation on any object you like.

This ion thruster placed on Voyager 1 would have taken it up to 37 km/s over 5 years compared to the 17km/s it is going now. Not part of my calculations is that Voyager 1 would have been slightly lighter due to the reduced fuel load. i don't have exact enough numbers to do the calc, but it would have likely been in the low 40's km/s.