foraker

I used to, but it's a well known fact that hanging around climbers lowers your IQ and your sperm count.

That's what she gets for lying around in her tent and letting the Sherpa's do all the work.

For all the sponsorship she's getting, it's an effing boring tale. She's a poor writer and pretty narcissitic to boot. You have no sense of place, no sense of the people that are with her and their personal dynamics, nothing. Just a lot of "Oh, I have to go through the icefall! Oh I hate it when they film me puking my breakfast!". Blarg. I've read more interesting things on the back of a box of cereal.

I guess she was thinkin' too hard about how to get her little Bratleigh and Snotleigh into The Right School.

Are you sure you aren't my office mate from grad school? This is the kind of thing he'd do in order to avoid working on his thesis.....

The Massachusetts HP used to do this even on good weather days. You'd see a line of MHP vehicles, all abreast, with a HUGE traffic jam rolling in lock step behind them.

http://douglas.min.net/essay/ The scary thing is, it looks like he got a '10' on both essays. I'd like to know if that's 10/10 or 10/100...... Maybe they're just following the 'whole language' approach to writing....

I would say "Hot, willing, and available" beats "Hot and Republican" or "Hot and Democrat" anyday.

yup. in my last climbing gym, most of the hotties were in the back bouldering.

You know, I'm not much for bouldering myself but I have been amazed by the raw power and ability I've seen on some really hard routes. That said, what is more lame?: 1) someone out bouldering 2) someone sitting behind a computer complaining about the lameness of bouldering? I'm reminded of The Far Side cartoon depicting "Wasted and Useful Lives"....

Southern Alps of New Zealand. :-) Alaska, because I grew up there.

Real Climbers don't have Really Important Job Interviews. I'd think again about that jammer. The range is only 15 meters (about 50 feet)

just sat and sun or all 3? where? trad?

I received the following from Prof Saez asking for a reference for The Nation article quote:

I think, and I believe most economists might agree, that focusing on a single statistic is a bit sketchy. It's simply inflation adjusted income and not an indication of people's quality of life (I make no comments about whether those indicators are up or down). However, I do find it more shocking that the real income (sans capital gains) for the top wage earners has so far outstripped everyone else. I can't believe the 'marginal utility' of the top wage earners is that great, if the executives I've met are any indication.

mind you, i just took a quick squizz at the reference while I was here at work doing other things. :-P

The Nation article did not cite a specific reference, they were just talking about data so is this the right reference you should be looking at? I notice that they are talking about the top 10% of wage earners, not the bottom 90%. For example, they seem to be comparing the differences between between, say, the 90-100% group vs the 99.5-100% group. In that case, the 0-90% group is not covered there. I also don't see any of the other numbers quoted for the highest income wage earners (e.g. 599%). If nothing else, ask the authors.

If you don't want to shell out for photoshop just to resize a pic, download Irfanview. Supports a lot of the graphics types and it's free.

Suppose I should amend this to say that I work M-F/8-5. I don't have weird hours.

mmmm. extremely pointless pissing session.

Pic of Dragontail from 4/10/04

All your base are belong to us!

I'm glad to see so many people paid attention during their earth science classes. Did my thesis on mid-ocean ridges. :-)

Gir sez: "Awwww, someone needs a hug!"

I'm waiting for someone to suggest the 'whole climbing' approach (a la 'whole language' and 'whole math'). Who needs to learn how to tie knots when cratering is a much better teaching tool?