A good idea. BUT, you also need to record the location location and direction you're facing. Bring a whiteboard and write stuff like "Downstairs powder room, facing front" and put that in the frame. Without walls and fixtures, it can be really hard to tell what you're looking at -- that's especially true if, for example, you're taking a photo of the ceiling.

AS an added benefit, if your handwriting is neat enough, then Google photos will recognize it and then you can just do a search for "powder room" and you'll get all the photos from there.

So, things got more distant from each other at a rate that was faster than the speed of light?

? The surface doesn't have a center, but the balloon does. If all the mass was on the balloon surface, then there is a point inside the balloon that is, effectively, the center of mass of all that mass. That's X. And, presumably, not ALL of the mass expanded outward, otherwise there would be a massive empty space in the middle of the universe. (As far as I know, that hasn't been discovered.)

That doesn't really help -- if everything was extremely close to everything else, then just pick 'X' to be the geographic center of all of that -- the exact center of the uninflated balloon if you like. At the beginning, we may not have been precisely at X, but we were very very close to it.

(Also, I intended X to be where we are now, not where the mass that is currently the earth was at the point of the big bang. But, that was not at all clear, so I'm just going with 'X= point of the big bang.')

So, here's the question: In the big-bang, everything ejected from this one point and spread throughout the cosmos. We are, at this moment, some distance from where that occurred at a location I'll call "X." This photo claims to show light emitted not long after the big bang. It's not possible to travel faster than light.

Q:. How did we get to X faster than the light?

I enjoy music by later composers (Copeland, Holst, Grieg) more than by the traditional Beethoven, Mozart, etc... , but generally do not enjoy opera (sorry -- too much singing in foreign languages) Do you have any recommendations for other composers I should be listening to?

Another answer is that airlines will rent you the earphones to use with the two-pin jacks. They make money by NOT letting you use your headphones.

(I don't see the two-pin jacks much any more -- last time I travelled with an entertainment system, there was a traditional 3.5mm jack. )

Yeah, but.... Contribute enough to the college, and they'll admit your kid. Always a couple of spots open every year for big donors.

>I'd suck a million miles of dick and cup a hundred million balls for 480k.

That's around 1/20th of a cent per dick. I've got a couple of extra bucks. What are you doing for the entirety of February?

When a state or other political unit has to be divided up into districts, with each district electing a representative, GERRYMANDERING occurs when one political party creates the districts in a way that most benefits that political party.

At some point on your wedding night, it's ok to go without a shirt.

I have no idea. Maybe it's because their working-class families rely on them more. Maybe it's because as people become wealthier, they become more self-centered or develop more of an "anything for the job" ethic. Maybe it's because working-class families tend to pressure their family members to stay put more than "professional" families do.

I'm in the US. My grandparents were I think what we'd call "working class." My father was an attorney and we lived 15 minutes from my mother's family, and 90 minutes from my father's. My siblings and I are all professionals and we all live 400+ from where we grew up (my sister is 2500+ miles). So, I see the dynamic in my own life. However, our experience could easily be distinguished just by time -- maybe people moved less in the past than they do now.

I'm also a little skeptical of the ability to test the hypothesis when the subject population are all on a 80,000 square mile island.

Except that it's comparing two groups of wealthy people -- they're all "professionals and upper management."

I think the more likely reason is that those who grew up in working-class families have tighter connections to their extended families. As a result, they are less likely to move away.

First of all, I LOVE that this article is putting the conclusion up-front, like newspapers used to do, instead of trying to force readers to read through. Maybe it's because they don't have ads.

Secondly, here's the conclusion:

>In a study of more than 8,000 professionals and higher-level managers, researchers found that those who came from a wealthy background were much more likely to move around the UK, and live in some of the most affluent areas, compared to those from working-class backgrounds.

That's a really odd definition of 'success.' Look at "professionals and higher-level managers" and, instead of defining success as "being a professional or higher-level manager," define it as "moving around the UK."