I'd like to disagree - at least for my university, which to be fair is notorious for being brutal in terms of workload. It's not unusual for me and many of my friends to have so much work for classes and extracurriculars over the course of a week or month that there literally isn't enough time to do all of it and also eat and sleep in the 168 hrs/week that you have.
Not at my university, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhat true generally. I think a valid comparison might be between a hard sciences student at a top school who's also involved in a lot of extracurriculars and up at all hours just to stay on top of everything, and someone working on an early stage company where there's always something burning. The opposite end of that would be the investment banking intern spending 100+ hours a week at the office spinning their wheels or college student who does nothing all week and then stays up to make themselves feel better about failing the exam. That's sleep deprivation for the sake of appearances.
Thanks for that point of view, and that's totally how I'd approach it, but because of the new joint program I'd be able to get the master's in the same amount of time that I would spend on a bachelor's anyways, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I definitely wouldn't spend an additional year or two doing a master's otherwise, but this program reduces the opportunity cost pretty significantly.
The app is basically a service for ordering/dispatching couriers/deliverypeople, so it's definitely real-time(ish) - the core functionality is for users to be able to order a delivery (with real-time cost estimate) and for human dispatchers to be able to process the deliveries through a private portal. At the bare minimum I could honestly just do it through a basic form that sends emails to a dispatcher account, so I might do that for an MVP (didn't know that term before), although that would be a very, very temporary solution. You guys have suggested a ton of useful options, so I'm going to have to spend some time just reading up and seeing what would be a good approach. Thank you for the help, everyone - it's been really useful information, and I'd appreciate it if anyone has more to add as well.
That's not really realtime. Realtime is a chat app - i.e even a delay of 10 seconds is too much. Realtime is a multiplayer game with 1000 users all at once. I'm afraid I was a little vague when I said realtime. Node.js is for concurrent realtime. Meaning it's good for a product where you have thousands of users that need to be connected all at the same time all communicating with one another.
Your app seems like a fairly standard SaaS app. The cost estimate is only "real-time" in the sense that there is some data that is crunched on the server before it's served up to the user. Users just deal with a form and they punch in their data, and then that data is shown to couriers. That's pretty standard CRUD and you don't need anything fancy. Node.js is really cool, but you're going to be a lot more productive and you're going to have a much easier time by sticking to a standard, mature web framework like Django (or Rails).
How are the different online-education websites in terms of being able to take courses at your own pace? I'm interested in trying an online course out to pick up some statistics and machine learning, but I probably wouldn't be able to follow it week-by-week (and not having to wait for a given start date would be great).
All Coursera courses are deadline based. Some of the courses remove their material at the end of the course. Others, such as the database one, are later opened up as self-study but do not offer a certificate of completion.
In the case of edX, MIT's 6.00x course is strictly deadline based. CS50x allows you to take the course at your own pace as long as you finish everything before the 13th of April, 2013.
But those aren't the ones you're looking for. Udacity meets all your requirements. They have open enrollment, meaning you can join in at any time. Furthermore, they have no deadlines. As long as you complete all the problem sets and give the final exam, you get a certificate.
Here are some Udacity courses that might interest you:
Something I found out recently: there are many courses that pull their course material when the course is finished. Even if you are/were enrolled, you lose access. I found this out from the Statistics One course (since you mention statistics), which cut me off in the middle.
Obviously, you can avoid this by downloading all the videos and slides as soon as you have access.
If a big proportion of business-travel-miles are flown over oceans (which seems reasonable between the most common routes like New York-London, SF-Tokyo, SF-HK...), would it not be cost and time efficient to use low-drag but noisy planes and just hit the speed of sound over the ocean? Flying .9 Mach over the land and 1.5 (or whatever was reasonable) would still save a lot of time and wouldn't disturb anyone.
Continuing in the evolutionary psychology vein, though, the two viewpoints can be reconciled - humans evolved in an environment where it would likely be more acceptable for women to reproduce without a steady partner, so it would be advantageous for groups to protect women more than men for the reasons cited in the original article. However, in modern society, those tendencies could well be unjustified, since contraception and the increased payoffs of committed parent pairs in a society where it's expensive to raise children have made it less likely that a single woman would have children by a man that hasn't committed to her. So we may well be in a situation where we're wired by evolution to protect women more than men despite the practice not being demographically justified in a modern society.
I believe the predominant evolutionary theory actually does have an explanation - sexual reproduction serves to produce offspring that are different from their parents and have a better shot of being adapted to a constantly changing environment on average (particularly relevant to parasites/diseases). These children still carry their parents' genes, though, so it is in the parents' best genetic interests to die once the kids are self-sufficient so as to avoid out-competing their own offspring.
W.R.T. humans, the predominant evolutionary theory does have an explanation, and it's exactly what jwegan said. Your scenario is only relevant to organisms who live in niches very far from our own. Humans have always lived in ecosystems large enough that our kids' share of the burden of our claims on resources is infinitesimal, and certainly no comparison to benefit that kids derive from their alive parents.
This is a cool engineering project, but hardly seems like an efficient approach, at thousands (hundreds at best) of dollars a pop. Traditional chemical elimination methods (C02 traps, pesticides) seem much more effective, and biological approaches are probably the most promising (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique).
I think the problem is they attract various types of insects indiscriminately, which can be disastrous for the ecosystem. IIRC, the laser's tracking mechanism only detects the mosquitoes' wing frequency range.
Not necessarily, it depends what causes the defender to draw. It may take you ~200ms to react, however it also takes the drawer time to act on their decision, and may take longer as there's an incentive to aim as there's no point in shooting first and missing.
Button pressing /= drawing and aiming.
The defender has less incentive to aim, and besides your brain already has the calculations made. In hunting the snapshot is a frequent killer due simply to reaction with no conscious aiming. IIRC the NRA has ~40,000 bullseye shooters who have to have rapidfire accuracy on multiple targets to attain the grade. This requires the ability to make snapshots.
I'm not going to believe any result on gunslinging until someone picks up a properly weighted pistol that has to be aimed and fired (whether it be a blank or using an LED sighter). Otherwise it's not scientific, you're fucking with the variables and the very nature of the experiment.