zpconn

I found a number of sources online that disagree with you.

https://www.quora.com/Escape-velocity-is-supposed-to-be-24-0...

Multiple answers explain that there isn't a fixed minimum change in velocity required for an object to escape Earth's gravity.

https://www.quora.com/Does-rocket-always-need-the-escape-spe...

The first answer here explains the same thing, using basically the same example (1 m/s instead of 1 mph).

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4688/couldnt-i-esc...

The answers here overwhelmingly reiterate and support the same example in this thread.

I don't think popular culture is on your side. Even Time Magazine's biography of him describes him as aloof:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,...

I would gladly accept all those issues over working in an open floorplan any day of the week.

I'd prefer private offices to remote distributed work. But I find it's actually easier to find remote jobs than software companies that make an effort to provide private offices.

Heart surgeon? No. But lawyer? Yes. Chemical engineer? Yes. Physician? Yes (private family practice is a dying art in the US). Movie star? Yes.

Very few career paths offer absolute job stability and an infallible guarantee of employability. That's no reason to be embarrassed of a career choice.

Rule #1 for anybody who only cares about their bonus: don't anger the person who decides your bonus.

Based on my friends' experiences, you often have to fight tooth and nail to actually get overtime at some retail or fast food places. In other words, simply working more is not always an option.

If that were to become an obstacle, one solution may be to get a second job.

And yet the OP writes that he's having trouble getting even one of these jobs. It may be hard to believe, but some small towns have a vast, vast excess of people wanting these jobs.

Just from playing around with it and reading the TC article, I think the title of the home page (as in, the title that is put in your web browser's title) is a good description: "Paper for the Web."

Here's a memorial for a polar bear: http://padlet.com/wall/nqgbzhfs77

A thank you board for NYC shelter and sanitation staff during the hurricane: http://sandyheroes.com/

(Both those are from the article, by the way.)

It's amazing how many companies have tried to pull this little accounting trick, or variations of it. Most of them have failed or else fallen from glory.

That may be true, but students at top schools still tend to come from more affluent backgrounds. Yes, there are "homeless to Harvard" stories out there, but generally speaking Harvard students were able to dedicate as much time as they wanted to school and extracurriculars and exploratory learning in high school because they weren't distracted by a difficult home life or forced to work just to help provide for their family.

I realize this isn't exactly what jmspring meant, but it is still true, in a certain sense, that not everyone can afford a top school. The difference is that the costs come before you even send out your applications.

I don't think that quote is really relevant to any of this. This isn't about cutting off entire sources of information. Nobody is saying that it's not right for a person to use a smartphone or an iPad or Google Glass. They're just saying that there are certain situations where it is rude to do so. But there are countless situations where it is not.

To me and many others, a date is one of the situations where it's rude to be seeking out revelations on your cell phone. Presumably you'll have plenty of time later that night or the next day to look for revelations in the digital world.