She needs to get all the mileage out of her position at Vandy that she can before August. She's the uncle Ruckus of Vanderbilt.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2017/01/23/carol-swain-announces-retirement-vanderbilt-university/96959004/

Definitely a replicant.
No Voight-Kampff needed.
Retire it.

I live about 5 miles inside the city limits, just enough to get taxed good and proper. I told my wife that once she retires from UT we are moving out asap. I'd move now but the traffic is horrible and they keep trying to fix it by adding more buses and screwing around with light rail that only goes to a few places in the city. That and turning roads we already paid for into toll roads.

It's not on par with really bad traffic like in New York or LA, but for a town this size it is brutal. Traffic in Houston moves better than it does here.

I lived in EPA in the late 80's, and again in the early 90's. We heard gunfire nightly, but never had a serious problem.
We went to Mountain View from there. We paid $800 for a 2 bedroom apartment for years, then left in 96, ending up in far northern California where we could afford a decent house with 2/3 of an acre in a nice neighborhood.

My advice would be to buy what you can live with and afford, then sell and move out of the city when you retire and buy someplace cheap to live with the proceeds. You'll be way better off with that money still in your pocket rather than someone else's, and have far better options when you retire. Just my opinion, but it's working for me. Real estate has been the best investment I've ever made by far, infinitely better than the stock market has done for me (sadly I invested an inheritance in the stock market in early summer '08, and lost my shirt).

LOL, East Palo Alto. I volunteered at the Boys and Girls Club there for a year when I lived in Mountain View. Two cops got shot and East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate ever that year. It's utterly insane how on one side of the 101 you have these multi-million dollar mansions and Stanford University and on the other side you have gangland.

Meanwhile, back on topic, when I moved to Mountain View in 2002 my rent was $800 a month for a studio apartment. The rent went up by $100 a year every year until I finally called it quits in 2007 when they wanted to charge me $1300 a month. I gave up ever actually being able to own a home in the Bay Area (let alone rent) and left in 2009.

In Japan now, and things aren't quite as bad as the Bay Area, but we've been house hunting recently and we're shocked at the disparity between what we want versus what we can actually afford, even with both us being full-time professionals. I know that 2nd place he goes to is supposed to be a joke but it's not that far off from the truth, at least as far as our experiences go. While the places we've been shown by the real estate agent are certainly habitable, they aren't particularly nice. So we're going to have to decide whether we want to live someplace not so great with the advantage being the mortgage will be paid off by the time we retire or just rent in a place we're comfortable with and wind up having to really budget hard after retirement since rent will consume a sizable portion of our pensions/social security.

His only other incident in the past 17 years (the crash in Santa Monica) was due to mechanical issues. You could debate whether a 74-year old man in general should be flying solo, which I think is a decent argument. Most pilots retire at age 65.

Your video, There is no such thing as a RETIRED racehorse, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Nah, I got out when things were good. I have friends who still work there that complain every time we talk about how the entire culture internally is toxic and backstabby now. Besides, I had the good fortune to work at Dell in the 90's and Apple in the 2000's, when both were at the top of their game. Working for another company would be anti-climatic and probably require me to move to California. Between my partial disability and my stock investments, I have enough money to live comfortably with my wife. She will probably retire early as well, since her UT pension will be fully vested in around 7 years.

Wow, retire early already? You should had taken over his role! I would had if I could since I am a stubborn/picky arsehole too. I'm almost your age and trying to find a new job since 12/16/2016 after my 1.5 years contract ended

Well, Steve was an odd duck. He was a huge asshole, but when it came to people coming up with new and innovative ideas, he would support you into either success or failure (god help you if it was failure though). Once he died, there was a noticeable shift in direction towards conformity and the bottom line.

As an example, one of the managers I worked with had a team that was breaking customer satisfaction records because he had them actually caring about the customer. Unfortunately, it also meant they weren't pulling in the same amount of profit because they weren't trying to ram Applecare contracts down customer's throats, they were also supporting some customers that were just outside their free support, and finally they were using the internal program put in place under Steve that allowed escalation reps to go beyond the norm. Like helping a smaller school set up a mac mini server network without forcing them to go to server support and paying 300 bucks for a one time call. Yeah, bottom line wise, Apple lost a 300 dollar support call fee. But they later sold quite a few macbooks to the students who were used to hearing how good Apple was.

Anyway, after some of the other groups started complaining, that manager was quietly removed and put over a non support team. This pattern continued to grow worse right up until the time I left, whatever brought in the most money was king and thinking outside the box was verboten. It certainly influenced my decision to retire early, as it did others who went on to other jobs.

Umm. By far the biggest reason for the shift is the specialization factor, mainly spurred by NOT playing both sides of the ball (offense and defense). Which to be fair, the video did point out.

The video didn't come right out and directly say that was a bad thing, but heavily implied it. I disagree, and think that it is one of the coolest things about American Football. Different positions require (or at least reward) different skillsets and physical attributes. So at the highest level of play, yes, O linemen are going to be huge and stable on their feet. D linemen are going to be slightly less huge, but faster and more aggressive. D backs and receivers are going to be tall and fast. Running backs can excel by being smallish, elusive, and quick, OR large and resilient. And so on.

That specialization makes the game fascinating -- seeing how teams with different balances of specialists can compete with each other and be more or less effective in different situations or against different teams.

Are NFL linemen going to be more at-risk for conditions like heart disease? Of course -- any sample group made up of people that weigh as much as NFL linemen is going to have greater occurrence of heart disease. But that isn't something unique to football players / the NFL. In fact, if you compared rates of heart disease in current / former NFL linemen to a sample group with the same average weight who were NOT football players, they'd probably have a lower rate, because like the video said, those linemen generally still had to be in very good physical shape -- just heavy.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems weird to insinuate that it is a bad thing for the NFL / football in general to "encourage" health issues directly or indirectly because they select for large / huge players. If you want to point out unique risks of playing in the NFL, there are way more pressing and direct issues -- like RBs having LOTS of mobility problems after they retire due to all the bone / joint damage from getting tackled all the time, or increased risk of chemical dependency in football players in general due to all of the pain and other meds that teams pump into players to keep them going.

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

They should have just kept specialised aircraft for specialised roles. I can't believe they are retiring the A-10 "Pussyhog" without a viable replacement.

Fire the DNC....yes....AND anyone working for the Clinton campaign. They are all poisoned, and poison to the party now.
Don't put Sanders in as head, we need him in the Senate. He's not the only honest person available, find another or wait until he's retired please.
Removing big money, first from their own campaigns and then if elected from the election in general as a platform base is, perhaps, their ONLY possibility for survival now. The days of accepting 90% of funding from <10 people and still winning elections are over....for the Democrats at least. Working for the people rather than donors....well, removing the money should make that automatic, but perhaps it still needs saying.

Sadly, I think he's right, Democrats in power will snicker at all of those proposals, won't adopt any of them, and will lose even bigger in 2018. We need them to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror, do an honest critical assessment of the election and how and why they lost against someone so terrible as Orange Kanye, and have an epiphany, or we're just going to be moving farther and farther to the 'right' for the foreseeable future while the Democrats only whine and cry that things aren't fair and it's someone else's fault.