Jessica wishes the world to know she is 8 months pregnant in that picture, not just fat.

What more can Stanford really do?

He goes there tuition free, his room and board are free, and he gets subsidized work during the summer. It was two weeks between when the semester ended and he started receiving his summer work paychecks - he really couldn't have saved up enough cash to cover two weeks over the course of a year?

On top of all that, he frankly has no right to be at Stanford with a 1300 on his SAT. I had a friend who was rejected from Stanford even though he was class valedictorian (at a ludicrously competitive school), captain of several school teams, and had a 1590 SAT.

He might be a bit bright, but Stanford has already bent over backwards to accommodate him. It's his fault if he isn't willing to do a little work himself. How hard is it to do 10 hours/week of research (paying $15/hr) during the school year? I (and most other people I know) often do so. He'd have several thousand dollars saved up without too much trouble (since Stanford is already paying all his expenses).

Quoting the great Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

Interesting how so many people who know NOTHING about Science are SO sure that global warming is caused by man. Such dogma reminds me of the times of the 16th century Inquisition: no amount of evidence will ever convince the nutcase warmists that there MIGHT be a possibility that global warming is not caused by humans.

Dyson is a top physicist. Just because he dared to go against the mainstream dogma, people seem to want to lynch him. I thought that we, humans, had evolved from our tribal and primitive ways. But we still get carried away by mass hysteria and delusion.

There's no place for politics or ideology in Science. Only observation and experiment matter. Dyson is not alone. Many other physicists have been cautious and warned that we should not jump to conclusions based on noisy, ambiguous and incomplete data. They, too, were ostracized. So much for tolerance...

Looks like my plan for my all-black outfit to have a "slimming" effect backfired :)

With articles like these, it's no surprise that Chronicle is going out of business. I was a low-income student in Staford, this article is a curious mix of misleading and plain wrong. I know that time is ripe for class warfare, but come on.

* Financial aid does not cover housing during the summer because Stanford undergrad is not in session during the summer

* Seeing how Stanford covers tuition and all the expenses for low-income students it's actually cheaper to go to Stanford than to stay at home. It's vastly harder for middle-income families to afford full cost of Stanford, than it is for low-income. Welcome to the modern elite college price discrimination/income redistribution.

* having a car for an undergrad is unnecessary and uncommon in Stanford (it's a large and self-sufficient campus), it's a luxury or cost of doing business if you have an off-campus job.

* there are good opportunities for low-income students got make a little extra money. Taking out a bit more in federally subsidized loans (reasonable if you expect your income to increase past college) and subsidized on-campus jobs which pay more than most post-undergraduate starting salaries would be good options.

* so on, so on ...

The lower-than-Berkeley Pell grant percentage is interesting. In addition to irrational belief that Stanford is "school for rich kids" I'd also point to the following rational reasons:

* Stanford is more selective. You get drastically fewer poor kids as you move to the right of the bell curve.

* Stanford practices affirmative action based on race. Berkeley is prohibited by law from using race and does it based on socio-economic status. Meaning that relatively to Berkeley Stanford discriminates against poor kids to free up space for protected minorities.

The one thing I've found that has helped me the most is exercise. I wouldn't have believed it myself and most of the evidence I have is just my own subjective experience, but there is one incident that stands out where one day my boss mentioned that my attitude had completely changed for the better at some point. I didn't think it had, but apparently there was enough of a change for him to mention the observation. Of course, I can't say for sure it was the result of exercise, but I couldn't place it on anything else I had been doing at that point. It was enough to convince me that exercise is something I just need to do regularly.

Comparing global traffic for Justin.TV and Hulu borders on being idiotic since Hulu is, um let's see, not accessible outside the US. How can TC write a whole article about this and not even mention this pretty pertinent fact?

Edit: It's been pointed out that the article does mention that Hulu is only available in the U.S. Sorry, totally missed that. The article still seems trollish though.

In other news, TechCrunch has a bigger audience than The Bold and the Beautiful amongst male programmers that do not own a TV.