I think that's exactly what's going on here =P. Grad school in STEM generally pays enough to prevent further debt, or even pay old debt off...

She seemed to have a little bit of a problem expressing herself there. While this would perhaps fail a logic diagram, the meaning is conveyed nonetheless...and I think that 'doing good for your own personal sake' is far from a stupid thing to say in a place of enlightenment.

I'm not religious, but if this is why you're an atheist as suggested by your playlist, you might need to try harder =P.

I wouldn't blame history as it relates to gender dominated careers as a reason for why some jobs pay less. Veterinary medicine used to be completely dominated by males, and then starting ~40 years ago, it became completely female dominated. I would sooner blame poor pay for vets based on economic supply and demand of healthcare for animals!

As Jerykk said, the reasons for less women choosing to go into science and engineering is indeed complex, and has been a longstanding hot topic for intense academic study. Many people blame societal reasons, and the way we bring up our kids. Maybe you should let your girls play with trucks and power tools!

Simply by having the same education level does not grant you equal pay (unless you're working in government). You're paid for the supply and demand of your skills. There are by far MANY more men than women in engineering and physical sciences, and those fields pay rather well. There are by far MANY more women than men in veterinary and educational fields, and those fields pay atrociously.

It is indeed unfortunate if any discrimination occurs, and even if women achieve 99% of men, it is still not nice. However, recognize that nobody is particularly certain about these numbers. I see numbers ranging from 87% to 103% in this video, so our certainty is horrible. Inequality is bad, but if you're going to get particularly opinionated about it, crunch the numbers for yourself instead of letting other boneheads skew the numbers for you.

The statistics can be pulled either way by horrible analyses, and trying to compare 'equal jobs' can be hard...particularly when you factor in cost of living differences, seniority, relative success of different companies, etc. The most compelling evidence was the Yale study where identical resumes with different names were awarded different amounts of speculative money. That was the only real telling evidence that, at least among the people in that study, there is a bias towards paying women less for exactly the same job. However, the statistics can be pulled either way in a study like that as well; what is the uncertainty of the pay level for that poll? Is it random chance and statistical noise happened to end up with the woman paid less in that study? If they surveyed an order of magnitude more people, would the average salaries converge to the same value? In most polls and studies like this, the sampling size is usually quite poor, and getting such an exact dollar figure difference with high certainty is nearly impossible. It would be great to see that study to make an assessment of how much uncertainty was present for myself.

Understanding why so much anecdotal evidence exists is certainly worthwhile! The following link cites many studies on double blind tests for MSG sensitivity.

http://www.businessinsider.com/msg-allergy-doesnt-exist-2013-8

Glutamatic acid (which is what MSG turns into after solubilizing in water, along with a sodium ion) is one of the 20 amino acids that is the basis for all proteins and life, since the beginning of life on earth. It is in relatively high concentration in every cell of your body. Consuming MSG would be akin to consuming 'protein' in your diet, and is commonly labeled as protein in food labeling: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html

Consuming too much protein in your diet can cause problems, but you need to be eating it to a relatively obvious excess (a gallon of milk per day). Weightlifters who protein supplement far too much quickly experience heart problems.

The business insider link suggests that there are some people who could potentially be sensitive to Glutamate, and be activating the vagus nerve in the stomach...though it seems to be speculative in that article.

The idea that another ingredient is causing the problem is far more likely. Americanized chinese restaurants all taste the same, because all of their food comes from the same place. A group in China has monopolized the american chinese restaurant market, and provides food and resources at unbeatably low prices. To remain competitive, almost all american chinese restaurants invariably purchase from this group. Given China's track record of putting all kinds of crazy stuff in their produce, it seems entirely likely that some ingredient other than MSG is a much more likely culprit.

I know a couple of people in particular who have reacted extremely badly to chinese restaurants in america, and even went to the emergency room for it. Given the details of their story (a mystery glob of black sauce that they ate from the black sauce egg tray), I could only imagine what kind of horrible things they could have ingested other than MSG. 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' may indeed be a relatively accurate term for what people are experiencing.

This is a really nice example of sinusoidal motions and Lissajous trajectories! The center of mass of all the points makes a circular 1:1 Lissajous trajectory, which gives the false impression that the points are curving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve.

However, to mark this as an 'illusion' is a bit of a stretch. Illusions are created by a failure of our assumptions about a system we are viewing, and strong illusions maintain this failure upon viewing even when the mechanism of the illusion is revealed to the viewer. Many people may have the 'illusion' that the balls were traveling in arcs in the beginning, but once it was pointed out that the balls were traveling in straight lines, viewers have no problem viewing the original movie without being deceived. To call this an illusion would be like calling horse galloping an illusion: http://100swallows.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/horse-dont-hop/, which is another case where people were just incorrectly applying their intuition, rather than properly observing the details.

We're definitely on the same page, except that I might be guilty of being a callous bastard in this situation =P. I have many friends who aren't doing very well in life, and continue to make bad decisions for themselves to dig themselves into deeper trouble. I've offered some help a few times, and it's usually squandered. I wish they wouldn't do that, but I refuse to dwell on it or let it bother me more than a general wish for things to be better. They know they're being bad, and there's little that anyone can do about it. I may or may not be appropriately transferring the same logic to this situation, but from the information available, I abstain from letting it bother me.

I must admit that, If one of my friends did something as stupid as this, everything I said here would go out the window, and I would be messed up about it for a long time.

It would indeed be wildly malicious of anyone to say that he *deserved* to be run over, as if this were a necessary and required repercussion to his action. I would hope that everyone here would avoid running him over if they were in such a position, regardless of how stupid the pedestrian is being.

However, I believe that Lucky, who started this chain, had a highly valid point. If this person were mentally retarded and wasn't able to recognize this as a bad decision, this would indeed be a time for pity. However, when someone knowingly makes a bad decision, a person is certainly less deserving of our pity. Wishing the entire incident didn't happen would certainly be called for, but that person knew he was doing something bad when he was doing it. Perhaps we could instead pity the driver, who now must live with the horror that she has potentially killed or crippled a young man, with only a small amount of fault on her part (checking for people diving under your car isn't a normal part of making a left turn). The psychological repercussions of this will keep with her for the rest of her life.

A pretty neat historic video, and a nice illumination on a general trend!

However, I find his argument against the continuation of the trend for otherwise ordinary people to aspire to greatness to be a bit shallow. The idea that youngness and instant gratification (which is a recipe for impatience?) leads to the loss of ability of people to go through the 'difficult years' is a bit disconnected. It could be argued the exact opposite way; since all of the information we need to acquire inspiration for all great ideas can be googled in a few seconds instead of gathered from libraries across the state in a matter of days, the willingness of people to traverse the difficult years may be better than ever. I know that when I need to quickly get familiarized with a completely new and dauntingly technical subject, google and wikipedia really help a lot, and I would feel quite intimidated if I needed to go about it the old fashioned way.

The green screen idea is the easiest way in this situation; if you notice, the mirrored Jared doesn't completely synchronize with the actions of the first Jared. The mirrored Jared did that shot facing a camera instead of a mirror, and then the mirror was replaced with a greenscreen for the beginning of the shot. Once the camera zooms in past the mirror frame, the greenscreening effects are no longer needed.

Thank you! Your comments were also thought provoking, and surprisingly information rich concerning the studies of St. Johns wort.

So, this is a major misconception by the public about where the money actually goes when drugs are developed. Read the link you have there, but with a more realistic eye about where the money is going. Drugs are SUPER expensive, but only because they're super expensive to discover. 'Drug discovery' is a tremendously difficult thing, to the point where it is the wetdream of a professional drug discoverer in the pharma world to discover 1 drug in their 30+ year career. During that time, the team of pharma researchers all have to be paid for their PhD level of expertise, and the human cost in developed countries is quite expensive! If there are 1000 people in one pharma company, and each person makes ~70+ thousand, and benefits cost another 100+ thousand per person each year, then the human cost alone in that rough exercise accounts for 170 million yearly for just 1000 people, and can touch the billion dollar figure per year for very large companies. That is where the money is going in that 1.3 billion dollar figure.

The major problem lies in developing a substance that actually does something, and you know exactly what that something is, including all side effects. To get a statistically valid clinical trial is actually a rather hard thing to do; a poorly designed clinical trial can prove whatever you want it to. Considering your St. John's wort example, the most costly 'drug discovery' component is already finished, it would just need to go through clinical trials as a drug for antidepression. The body of evidence in place may already serve for early phase clinical trials, and it may just need to go through a couple of more trials to prove its efficacy (and determine side effects). It would cost some money, but it would NOT be so prohibitively expensive as starting from complete scratch.

Considering this, the idea that it's 'unfair' to make the supplements world actually prove their product does what it is promised to do (or at the very least, not be harmful) is a bit odd. Quackery is illegal for moral reasons, and hard to argue that what the supplements world is doing is not quackery; particularly with the Dr. Oz zeal, false promises are being sold millions of bottles at a time. It is in the public's interest to get this stuff tested and approved!

Or you could wipe your hands on your pants, like we all learned when we were 5. LIFEHACK

Despite the horror story that people told in the description that reminisces of 1950's experimentation, all of these dogs are very well socialized, and understand how to play with other dogs and humans very well. They don't seem like they were subjected to the conditions described.

It freaks me out that the original song is written about gloom & doom. I wouldn't want this sung at my wedding.