Before anyone takes anything an AC says seriously: the Van Allen belts extend up to about 50,000km, while the moon is over 350,000km away. And we've sent humans to the moon.
Earth's primary photosynthesizers used to be purple; which would make sense since the suns output peak is in the yellow range, so that would be the frequency you'd want to absorb. One theory claims that green plants evolved to take advantage of the light these organisms weren't.
In other words: it's not that simple.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
He's only really calling fructose toxic, and only when it isn't ingested with enough fiber to blunt its absorption. (So an orange is fine, but pulp-free orange juice will slowly kill you.)
"Processed" vs. "Natural" is Magical Thinking
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you actually watch his lecture, it has absolutely nothing to do with processing. According to it, unprocessed pulp-free orange juice is JUST as bad as a can of Coke, because fructose (which is half of the natural-occurring sucrose polysaccharid) is processed like a toxin.
There is no need, and it would be unscientific, to introduce some magical theory of "processed" foods versus "natural"foods: if the chemistry is identical, the biology is identical. The lecture is well grounded in the science of biochemistry.
I noticed the same thing playing the (original) Assassins' Creed. Just before you assassinate someone, they are invariably shown performing some terrible crime; either the commission or ordering of brutal murder, the threat thereof, slave trading, or human mutilation.
"Close to state of the art"? Not even. The plant is over 30 years old, the design closer to 40. It was one of the oldest still-operating nuke plants in Japan.
And then it was hit by an earthquake 10 times more powerful than it was designed for, and a tsunami twice as high as it was designed for, and two weeks later, NO ONE has died because of it.
Pepsi can make ads that say "4 out of 5 people prefer the taste of Pepsi over Coca-Cola!" even though they're (*gasp*!) making money and the term "Coca-Cola" is trademarked.
Trademark is a consumer-protection law: as long as you don't falsely claim or imply that your product is being produced by, or is affiliated with, or is profiting the owner of the mark, you're on good legal footing. When Pepsi says "We're better than Coke!", it's obvious that they are not claiming that their product is manufactured by Coca-Cola, and no one who buys a Pepsi think that their money is going to the Coca-Cola company.
Similarly, it is obvious that these buttons are not produced by, affiliated with, or profiting, the Tolkien estate, and therefore, the trademark is not being violated, and there is no legal leg for them to stand on, and so Zazzle's terms of service don't compel them to comply with the request. Similarly, you can't get a copyright on something as short and factual as a last name.
I've been writing about approval voting for over two years now./.ers should love it; approval is the kid-sister of range voting (approval is range, with a range of 0-1), which is used for by Fedora, and extensive computer simulations have shown that it's a better system than the Condorcet method used by Debian and Wikimedia.
Well duh, instant runoff voting is CRAP. After FPTP, it's the worst possible choice. Approval though, is one of the best options available. Simulation results are pretty conclusive.
Making the parties pay for their own primaries is perhaps a good idea (there's a bill up in.... Kansas? to do that; right now, all 50 states foot the bill). But that will do NOTHING to prevent two-party domination. Single winner plurality districts always tend toward two party domination. Duverger's Law.
This legislator's primary goal in proposing this legislation is, apparently, to reduce the number of ballots that have to be discarded for overvotes (too many marked candidates) in MULTIWINNER house elections. (In some precincts, voters are suppose to pick as many as, I think, 13 candidates. If you mark 14 though, they throw your ballot out; he wants to end that. That it institutes approval voting for the single-winner elections is, apparently, a convenient bonus.)
Arrow's theorem only applies to rank-order based methods. Approval is not a rank-order based method, and, under a naive extension of his axioms to cover non-rank-order methods (including range voting and approval voting), approval satisfies all of them. In beats the impossibility theorem. Now, it's still not perfect, but it's probably the best.
Oh, I should have replied to your "5" instead of your "2". Same parent, same reply: In the face of tactical voters, approval voting is more-likely to elect the true Condorcet winner than any "real" Condorcet method, including Schlze.
Except maybe Vermont, where the Vermont Progressive Party is already winning elections. Over 15% of the state house now. (And, arguably, but unofficially, a US Senator in Bernie Sanders.)
It happened this year with the Alaska US Senate seat. Public Policy Polling showed that McAdams had >50% approval, while Miller and Murkowski both had 35%. But Murkowski won anyway; McAdams-favoring voters were afraid Miller would win unless they voted for Murkowski.
"in the late 1800s it was pretty common for neither the R or D party to have a dominant majority."
Where? Not the US House, that's for sure. Yeah, immediately after the civil war, things were a bit wonky; the Unionist party won 31 house seats in 1860... and no 3rd party has had that many since. Republicans held CRAZY majorities for years after that, since many southern states weren't allowed to seat their representatives under reconstruction. Just ONCE, in 1878, the Greenback party had enough seats to prevent either major party from holding a majority, but there were still more congresses with >66% super-majorities than with
Maybe you're just talking about the NH house? I don't have data for that, so there's a slim chance you could be right in that narrower sense... but there's no evidence, US-wide, that it was ballot-access laws that killed third parties. Telegraph/phones, and the ease of interstate communication it brought, did more than ballot access laws. Small, local parties dried up when large, national parties became easier to organize.
So, the first use of nuclear power plants was in submarines. Which is to say, these engineering concerns have been being addressed for as long as we've been using nuclear power.
And? The heat for every nuclear plant dissipates into a nearby body of water, and they all flow into the sea. There's no other way to efficiently move that much waste heat.
Slashdot Mirror
Before anyone takes anything an AC says seriously: the Van Allen belts extend up to about 50,000km, while the moon is over 350,000km away. And we've sent humans to the moon.
Damnit! Right after I posted it, I thought "wait, did I say the wrong theorem?"
And at this scale, it's got absolutely nothing to do with Heisenberg.
In other words: it's not that simple.
He's only really calling fructose toxic, and only when it isn't ingested with enough fiber to blunt its absorption. (So an orange is fine, but pulp-free orange juice will slowly kill you.)
There is no need, and it would be unscientific, to introduce some magical theory of "processed" foods versus "natural"foods: if the chemistry is identical, the biology is identical. The lecture is well grounded in the science of biochemistry.
I noticed the same thing playing the (original) Assassins' Creed. Just before you assassinate someone, they are invariably shown performing some terrible crime; either the commission or ordering of brutal murder, the threat thereof, slave trading, or human mutilation.
The solution would be the same as most for an academic: assign the work to a grad student.
And then it was hit by an earthquake 10 times more powerful than it was designed for, and a tsunami twice as high as it was designed for, and two weeks later, NO ONE has died because of it.
Neutron radiation is neutrons. The #1 neutron-stopper in use is water (or other stuff high in hydrogen).
This is step one in the creation of artificial inanity.
Trademark is a consumer-protection law: as long as you don't falsely claim or imply that your product is being produced by, or is affiliated with, or is profiting the owner of the mark, you're on good legal footing. When Pepsi says "We're better than Coke!", it's obvious that they are not claiming that their product is manufactured by Coca-Cola, and no one who buys a Pepsi think that their money is going to the Coca-Cola company.
Similarly, it is obvious that these buttons are not produced by, affiliated with, or profiting, the Tolkien estate, and therefore, the trademark is not being violated, and there is no legal leg for them to stand on, and so Zazzle's terms of service don't compel them to comply with the request. Similarly, you can't get a copyright on something as short and factual as a last name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Delta-vs_between_Earth.2C_Moon_and_Mars
It's about 1/3rd.
I've been writing about approval voting for over two years now. /.ers should love it; approval is the kid-sister of range voting (approval is range, with a range of 0-1), which is used for by Fedora, and extensive computer simulations have shown that it's a better system than the Condorcet method used by Debian and Wikimedia.
Well duh, instant runoff voting is CRAP. After FPTP, it's the worst possible choice. Approval though, is one of the best options available. Simulation results are pretty conclusive.
Making the parties pay for their own primaries is perhaps a good idea (there's a bill up in.... Kansas? to do that; right now, all 50 states foot the bill). But that will do NOTHING to prevent two-party domination. Single winner plurality districts always tend toward two party domination. Duverger's Law.
This legislator's primary goal in proposing this legislation is, apparently, to reduce the number of ballots that have to be discarded for overvotes (too many marked candidates) in MULTIWINNER house elections. (In some precincts, voters are suppose to pick as many as, I think, 13 candidates. If you mark 14 though, they throw your ballot out; he wants to end that. That it institutes approval voting for the single-winner elections is, apparently, a convenient bonus.)
Arrow's theorem only applies to rank-order based methods. Approval is not a rank-order based method, and, under a naive extension of his axioms to cover non-rank-order methods (including range voting and approval voting), approval satisfies all of them. In beats the impossibility theorem. Now, it's still not perfect, but it's probably the best.
Oh, I should have replied to your "5" instead of your "2". Same parent, same reply: In the face of tactical voters, approval voting is more-likely to elect the true Condorcet winner than any "real" Condorcet method, including Schlze.
In the face of tactical voters, approval voting is more-likely to elect the true Condorcet winner than any "real" Condorcet method, including Schlze.
Except maybe Vermont, where the Vermont Progressive Party is already winning elections. Over 15% of the state house now. (And, arguably, but unofficially, a US Senator in Bernie Sanders.)
It happened this year with the Alaska US Senate seat. Public Policy Polling showed that McAdams had >50% approval, while Miller and Murkowski both had 35%. But Murkowski won anyway; McAdams-favoring voters were afraid Miller would win unless they voted for Murkowski.
Where? Not the US House, that's for sure. Yeah, immediately after the civil war, things were a bit wonky; the Unionist party won 31 house seats in 1860... and no 3rd party has had that many since. Republicans held CRAZY majorities for years after that, since many southern states weren't allowed to seat their representatives under reconstruction. Just ONCE, in 1878, the Greenback party had enough seats to prevent either major party from holding a majority, but there were still more congresses with >66% super-majorities than with
Maybe you're just talking about the NH house? I don't have data for that, so there's a slim chance you could be right in that narrower sense... but there's no evidence, US-wide, that it was ballot-access laws that killed third parties. Telegraph/phones, and the ease of interstate communication it brought, did more than ballot access laws. Small, local parties dried up when large, national parties became easier to organize.
So, the first use of nuclear power plants was in submarines. Which is to say, these engineering concerns have been being addressed for as long as we've been using nuclear power.
And? The heat for every nuclear plant dissipates into a nearby body of water, and they all flow into the sea. There's no other way to efficiently move that much waste heat.