Two reason that I can guess (before reading any comments or the article).

1. More energy is lost the wider the loop is. This is because on a truly round loop, the cars would be pushing hard against the widest part of the circle as the cars change from going from right to left (or vise-verse). By not going out as far, you don't have to come as far back to get to the top of the loop.

2. The geometry of the loop is tuned partially based on the number of cars. Most roller coasters have between 6 and 10 cars. You want the first one to be starting on the way down way before the last one all the way to the apex. This uses gravity to help with overall velocity. The easiest way to achieve this is by distributing the sharpest part of the angular transition at the top of the loop.

Perhaps I should not post a comment before reading, but I am curious to know what others think (off the cuff).

The original statement was worded in a slightly misleading way. Medieval Christians weren't confused about virtuous people before Jesus. As you point out, they knew the Old Testament. What they were confused about was the idea of the "virtuous pagan."

Oh great, you read the Bible. The Christians you're talking about hadn't even written the thing in their day and age.

The Bible was certainly written before the medieval period. The Biblical canon was pretty much set by the late 4th century. And all of the books included in the canon had been complete before that point.

>Cheating in academia is exactly the same as piracy: It is a service problem. If classes taught useful information/skills in a non-boring way, cheating would be significantly reduced.

This is true, but only for certain subjects. I largely agree with you when it comes to many Comp-Sci courses. Differential Equations, not so much.

You can't stop 100% of the cheaters, but if your differential equations professor speaks little English and lectures from the book without caring one iota about presentation, then that professor will have higher rates of cheaters. It's about controlling the variable that can be controlled.

Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all.

Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.

>Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

On two conditions only. Much of our false wealth must be shed (which will happen within the next 10-20 years) and we must stop enabling/encouraging non-nuclear family population growth. There has to be real consequences to fatherless children and women with 5 kids from 5 daddies. Now we just give unwed mothers money, free stuff and moral permission to do it again and again.

Visas? you are talking about bringing in people from other countries to start companies here right? Is this because there is not enough founders born in the US? Wow, I go to a coffee shop in bay area and everyone there assumes that I am some kind of startup founder. Everyone is talking about their company they started and asks their neighbors what they are founding. IT is really quite annoying. We really need more of this? I guess the more that is thrown against the wall, the more has a chance of sticking huh? What about those imports who make it, thwarting the native born competitor's company by a small margin? Now you have hurt the native for a ever so slightly better product or perhaps one that just made it to market slightly earlier. 10,000 more startups a year than now? Really? This can't be good.

Physical work isn't necessarily easier for those with ADHD than desk jobs. In high school and college I had some physical jobs. Those jobs are often menial, and the monotony and repetition are really the opposite of what those with ADHD (especially those with ADHD and high intelligence) are "naturally" suited for.

  Do we say the same the same thing for aspiring athletes 
  who weren't born with the muscle mass to play pro 
  football?

We don't "pump them full of steroids" because unlike the (admittedly imperfect) ADHD treatments we have now, muscle-building steroids have negative side effects that greatly outweigh their benefits.

We do give them the best medical care possible. If an aspiring athlete breaks a leg or has plantar fasciitis, we treat those things. We don't just say, "guess you weren't meant to be an athlete."

  It used to be that if you had ADHD, you probably weren't a
  banker, lawyer or politician. 

Yeah, and if you had bad eyesight, you were probably steered away from those professions as well.

And if you were left-handed people assumed you were under demonic influence or something.

And if you were dyslexic people assumed you were stupid.

I'm glad people like me are winning against people like you.

>Physical work isn't necessarily easier for those with ADHD than desk jobs. In high school and college I had some physical jobs. Those jobs are often menial, and the monotony and repetition are really the opposite of what those with ADHD (especially those with ADHD and high intelligence) are "naturally" suited for.

You simply had the wrong type of physical jobs. There are physical jobs that are mentally challenging as well.

>We don't "pump them full of steroids" because unlike the (admittedly imperfect) ADHD treatments we have now, muscle-building steroids have negative side effects that greatly outweigh their benefits.

OK then change steroids to HGH.

>We do give them the best medical care possible. If an aspiring athlete breaks a leg or has plantar fasciitis, we treat those things. We don't just say, "guess you weren't meant to be an athlete."

Apples to oranges. Bones heal naturally. ADHD does not go away by "resting".

>Yeah, and if you had bad eyesight, you were probably steered away from those professions as well.

And if you were left-handed people assumed you were under demonic influence or something.

And if you were dyslexic people assumed you were stupid.

I'm glad people like me are winning against people like you.

I see you are missing the point. How about this. In 20 years, 90% of people working in office jobs are taking ADHD medication Only 5% of them really have ADHD, but the rest have learned that they can concentrate longer and be more productive by using it. Now those with ADHD are no better off (on a relative scale) than those before these medications were invented. They often cannot compete with their non ADHD counterparts and lose their jobs (just like before ADHD meds came around). As a side effect, now billions of people on earth are taking a drug everyday that alters various things in their mind. They no longer think naturally and with the rational that they were born with. You think that this is good? This is where we are heading.

Like I said in another post, in those I know who changed careers VS those who take drugs every day, the ones who changed careers are far happier and have better quality of life mentally and physically.

Don't you want to be happier? Blame yourself and this system which has nudged you out of your natural path.

I think you're hinging a lot on this incredibly faulty belief:

  [Users of ADHD medication] no longer think naturally and 
  with the rational that they were born with. You think that 
  this is good? 

So which chapter of Scientology do you belong to?

Stimulants are, of course, psychoactive substances and nobody denies that, but you're blowing this so far out of proportion that you have zero credibility.

I bet you have lovely opinions about antidepressants and antianxiety medication as well. I suppose those people, too, should also just find lines of work that value depressed and/or anxious people just like Xenu intended.

>I think you're hinging a lot on this incredibly faulty belief:

First of all, this is not MY belief alone. It is listed among the side effects on the side of the box. Further studies have pretty much conclusively agreed that these drugs do affect reason and rational.

>I bet you have lovely opinions about antidepressants and antianxiety medication as well. I suppose those people, too, should also just find lines of work that value depressed and/or anxious people just like Xenu intended.

These are proven to be even worse of course. The sad thing is that many people who are on them do not need to be. This is like taking morphine when you have a broken leg and continuing to walk on it so it cannot heal, vs setting the bone and casting/resting it.

Also funny you should mention depressed people changing lines of work. A high percentage (over 10%) of people put on antidepressants have been found to have very low levels of vitamin D (something they never would have had if working outside). Many of them were also overweight and very out of shape. Many others were also later diagnosed with S.A.D. Something that people working outside rarely experience.

Antidepressants and ADHD drugs are often given as a quick fix. There are often alternatives that can fix the actual problem rather than mask the symptoms. That is all I am saying. You don't seem to be able to accept this fact, so out conversation must end here.

> The argument that it just isn't fair that someone's mind is more suited for a desk job than someone else, so we should put them on equal footing by administering drugs the rest of their lives is a flawed and slippery slope mentality. Do we say the same the same thing for aspiring athletes who weren't born with the muscle mass to play pro football? "Lets make things fair and pump this kid full of roids so he can be an all pro linebacker"...

Except that isn't the argument. Just like we don't try and save premature babies to try and "be fair" and we don't treat suffers of diseases to "be fair." There is no slippery slope argument here. The onus is on you to prove that there is in fact a slope and then to show how slippery it is.

> Physical work often creates the necessary stimulation that so many of these ADHD cases need.

Who are you to tell sufferers the best way to treat their condition? Don't you think it is best for people to get a say in their treatment?

The slippery slope is obvious. More and more people today are put on drugs to deal with problems that used to be dealt with naturally and without side effect. Secondly, more and more average people who don't really need these medications still get on them because they enhance their concentration and productivity. They give them abilities (an edge) that only a few in the general populace naturally have. Why is this bad? because these are mind altering drugs that people will take every day forever.

This type of behavior modification has always had (and always will) consequences.

> More and more people today are put on drugs to deal with problems that used to be dealt with naturally and without side effect.

You mean like HIV/AIDs, cancer, autism, epilepsy? Of course there aren't side effects if you aren't treating.

> more and more average people who don't really need these medications still get on them because they enhance their concentration and productivity

You are begging the question. First you are assuming their is some growth to the number of people being treated that don't require treatment. Secondly, you assuming that they are bad because they are "mind altering."

>You mean like HIV/AIDs, cancer, autism, epilepsy? Of course there aren't side effects if you aren't treating.

I can see that you cannot even reason logically and understand simple comparisons. No comparison can be made between trying to naturally cure HIV/AIDS and someone with a short attention span while sitting at a desk all day switching to a more suitable job.

>You are begging the question. First you are assuming their is some growth to the number of people being treated that don't require treatment. Secondly, you assuming that they are bad because they are "mind altering."

This is not my assumption. It is a proven fact. The criteria for diagnosed ADHD has changed so dramatically over the last 20 years, a person who is suffering from stress or sleep deprivation (with side effects of a lower attention span and concentration abilities) is commonly diagnosed with ADHD and put on meds.

This conversation is done. I refuse to try and reason with an illogical and senseless person.

Lets just be really clear about one thing, focus related drugs have been pretty common in academia and highly intellectual professions for decades now. Similarly, drugs like Ritalin are legal in Israel and can be had by anyone if they just get a script from a doc (no need for a diagnosis). In the long run I think we as a society need to grow up about this stuff, as use of some of these meds in moderation is fine either for light occasional use by those without severe focus issues, or prescription based moderate use by those that have ADHD.

Instead of sitting around and writing articles about 'omg millions of college kids and high intellectual work professionals take drugs, holy shit no one has ever taken drugs to create things before!', we just need to get real and be responsible about the reality. Don't stigmatize it, and allow people to responsibly explore the option with their doctors and see what works. Now if you disagree with this approach, you must argue that the health effects of moderate use is too severe, or the medication gives people an unfair advantage.

As far as changing careers, sure, that's an option an individual can explore. If they feel like they can deal with life acceptably with some medication, what's wrong with that? Are they assholes now? Frauds? Phillip K Dick was a anphetamine abuser (which no one advocates), but incredible writer. I would never dare suggest someone limit their potential if there are options they can reasonably try.

>Phillip K Dick was a anphetamine abuser (which no one advocates), but incredible writer. I would never dare suggest someone limit their potential if there are options they can reasonably try.

This is very telling and I believe that it defines pretty clearly the rift between our convictions on this.

In the near future, we will have the ability to augment our brains via drugs and implants to make us many more times smarter and more productive. We are starting down this path already. Where does our humanity end up after all of this. There will certainly be a tradeoff.

I believe the present and future of humanity is better off letting us reason with out own natural brains vs enhanced/inhibited (enhanced/inhibited always go together because there is always a tradeoff, even if eventually the only side effect is an imbalance of abilities). I am not saying that I never condone the use of ADHD drugs and Antidepressants, but when they are handed out like candy - I see that as being a problem. Clearly you do not, but that is the difference between us.

A couple hundred years ago I would have been essentially blind because a lack of these "unnatural" glasses. There's a good chance I'd be dead because of "unnatural" vaccines and antibiotics.

No, technology hasn't made normal people have a medical condition. We already had a medical condition. Science and technology allows us to understand that, and to improve our lives beyond just "give up and get another job".

One, who the hell cares? Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. If you want natural, go live in a cave and risk dying whenever you get a cut or a tooth infection. There's nothing wrong with improving things.

Two, again, it's a real condition that seriously affects quality of life. Your argument is about as reasonable as telling crippled people they shouldn't have wheel chairs, or depressed people they shouldn't take anti-depressants, or otherwise blind people have glasses, etc. It's absurd and offensive.