cj001f

At what? Book knowledge - certainly. A large number of the Chinese I've met, including PHD's, are often useless when required to do something non regurgitory or theoretical.

The problem with your theory is that there is no way to know who posesses insider information (trading on inside information is illegal). It wouldn't be far fetched to have a CEO hold his stock while pumping it publically, while telling all his friends to dump it (harming the public) Monitorring who exactly is a friend of the CEO who would be impossible.

From the Publications search engine on the Nat Geo website, May 1968 is the one your looking for. $2.05 including shipping on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=280&item=6904888298&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Or you don't have freinds to pardon you

Hmmm.... I'm fine with classifying ecoterrorists as terrorists. As long as the next anti-abortion protester or white supremacist or other right wind fruit job gets charged as a terrorist. Yeah he made his own choice. But like the Boy who burned the Bush's boat randomly throwing the book at someone isn't justice.

Gee. I guess a life's worth $400k to Greg. Correction $40k. 22 years in prison for $40k damage? And Neil Goldschmidt gets off for Child Molestation to Oregon Justice.

Gee. I guess a life's worth $400k to Greg.

But at what level of significance, Mr. Smarty Social Science Pants? Alpha = .05? Are you willing to accept that one time out of twenty you might see an observation more than two standard deviations from the mean? Consider THAT carefully when buying your next jacket. 6 Sigma quality for weights in clothing! It's all about 6 sigma!

I would be fine with this. As was evidenced in the Florida election debacle, the general population cannot grasp this concept.

It's called process variance. Unless you show me (or Arc'teryx) that the average weight of their product (sample of say 100?) is greater than they claim, they ain't going to care.

He was on the Terrorist Watching Squad.

Good good you weight weenies are funny. Arc'teryx should have asked "How recently was your scale calibrated? Triple Beam Balance? Relative Gravitation?" As has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, there are very few manufacturers whose advertised weights match their actual weights - usually for the exact reasons given.

Johnson was impeached 126 to 47, the vote on the charges was 1 vote short of the 2/3's majority required to convict.

Shortly after 9/11 someone walked into the Hudson Trail Outfitters in Fairfax, VA - and Bought EVERY piece of pro they stocked. All Cams, Nuts, Hexes - even Lowe Ball's

How much do you spend a month of insurance/upkeep/maintenance? Property taxes?

I'm trying to make the point that there are quite a few periods where if you bought a house, it wouldn't have gone up much at all. By your own admission, about 50% of the last 2 decades. And we are probably heading to another period of housing price stagnation.

I pay $9k a year in rent + expenses. With taxes, increased insurance, utilities, etc. I doubt I would see much of a difference in monthly norecoverable expenses. Not to mention a decrease in my quality of life moving to a more afforable location. If you believe housing prices will continue to go up, not a bad deal. I don't.

2 Wrong. Which 2? Correct. Andrew Johnson & William Clinton

Uh - wrong. Average KingCounty House Sale Price from above link: 1980 - $81511 1990 - $169202 (108% increase) 1995 - $183700 (9% increase) 2000 - $315300 (72% increase - in five years!) 2002 - $339200 (8% increase) I'm not saying a home isn't a good investment. It can be. It's just not the surefire investment that everyone seems to think they are nowadays - and when everyone thinks something is a really good investment, odds are it isn't.

Jim- You've just shown most of the flaws into the buy a house now argument. 1)The attached charts shows what could be the beginning of a stabilizing in housing price increases. No, it won't get cheaper, but it won't necessarily get much more expensive 2)I chose those years to make a point. If you had bought a house in 1990, and sold it in 1995 - you'd have seen a 10% increase in your home price. I'd venture to say the early 80's in Seattle were similar to the early 90's in this regard. Not all eras are like the last 6 years, where housing prices have skyrocketed. 3)Yes you loose 100% of the money you spend in rent. You also don't pay property taxes, increased utilities (if you live in an apt now), maintenance (often not small), increased insurance. Yes you don't have deductible interest - you also don't have the longterm debt.

In the past 6 years. Like most of the other posters advocating buying a home, your assuming a rise in house prices. This hasn't always been true - King County saw less than a 10% rise in home prices between 1990-95 http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/agr/agr03/03AGRCH4b.pdf A home is a good investment - IF your willing to put in the effort for maintenance (most people don't accuratley account for either the time or money spent on home improvement projects) and you intend to stay for more than 3-5 years - there are large costs associated wiht buying/selling. It's also a change in lifestyle.

This weeks Economist has a 20pg survey on Argentina.

You mean was. You said the Ducks program's designed to build lean mass? Aren't most football players looking to bulk up? This could explaing the duck's performance.

See earlier comments about the housing bubble.

Ou est les chats avec des tetons grandes?