How comes you think that the primaries are in any way supposed to find exactly two candidates to choose from in the general elections? The primaries are solely a way for a party to find a suitable, electable candidate to rally for. Any party could hold primaries, and if the U.S. had more than two big parties whose candidates had a fair chance at winning the general elections, you would have three or four primaries, where three or four candidates emerge.
The Republicans and the Democrats decided that having a public primary would work best for them. The primaries have several tasks to fulfill: weed out candidates with not enough appeal to a broader electorate, prepare the candidates for the general election battle, find the topics and the positions on those topics that get votes, raise the candidates to prominence and create some trade mark to use for the advertising campaigns.
The Republicans for instance found out that their conservative platform of "small government, family values, promote free trade everywhere" does not get enough votes, as their voting base wants something else. The Democrats found out, that a big part of their voting base is leaning toward more socialist recipes, not enough yet to unsettle the party itself, but a trend to watch for as it seems to appeal especially to younger people.
Any party, even both Democrats and Republicans, could decide that public primaries aren't the best tools for them anymore, and look for a new way to find their candidates. They could throw dices or hold a public poker tournament, they could have only a single, U.S. wide primary election for their candidates, they could have each local organisation send a delegate to a state conference, and then each state conference send a delegate to a U.S. conference, which then decides for a candidate from the delegates, they could just put up an announcement in the classified "election canditate wanted, apply at party headquarters" or whatever they think will get them a candidate with a high chance of winning the next elections. Primaries are not a given. They have just proven to work for both big parties.
No, it isn't. Natural course of evolution is that the species survives which can have viable offspring. How the species gets to the point to have viable offspring is not regulated. If a species manages to work together to get more people through life, it will wins the evolution game against all other species which don't.
Even if the single person would prove itself inept at the task at hand (crossing a road), it might have other interesting abilities that will help other people to overcome other obstacles in life. Every single specimen who survives and procreates, broadens the DNA pool, and adds more variability to it, and if there comes a massive change in the environment, species with larger DNA pools have better chances to find the DNA combination that helps the species to survive.
At the KT boundary, famous for wiping out the dinosaurs, it was not exactly the dinosaurs, which got wiped out, it was in fact all animal life with body sizes of more than three feet at land and a little more in the oceans. If a species grows larger, it has less specimen, and thus less DNA variability to speedily find a new DNA combination fit for survival under new conditions. Large species only thrive if the conditions stay constant for a long time. At the KT boundary, all small dinosaurs survived, known as birds today. And all small, furry animals living in caves survived too, known as mammals. Small reptiles survived too, snakes and lizards and small turtles. Small vertebrae in the oceans survived, today's fishes and some water turtles. Mosasauridae died out.
Whoever thinks that letting people die and thus "improving the DNA pool" is a good idea, does not really understand Darwinian evolution.
If you look at the salary of teachers, you will find out, that's not the teachers who caused a quadruplication of costs. It's the buildings, the laboratories, the new media installations, and, as an very expensive part: the administration, which caused the prices for the education to rise.
Differently than teachers, the salaries of school and school district administrators have risen tremendously. And from the administration, you get all the talk about how teachers' unions would cause higher education costs. If you load your schools with more and more administrative tasks, be it constant evaluations of pupils, of teachers or both, or be it a thorough documentation of about anything and constant reports to be filed, you raise costs. And you get yourself an expensive adminstrative monster and rising education costs.
If you had the same type of school than in the 1960ies, where blackboard, chalk and quad paper are the only teaching tools, without any laboratories, libraries, beamers or any type of technical infrastructure, at the housing prices of 1960 and without all that administrative overhead of today, you suddenly would notice a significant drop in education cost.
Basicly you are saying that the sexist bias that exists in the movie industry is just a reflection of the sexist bias that exists in society. So your point being?
Yes, and this works because we have a theory which states that the length of the day doesn't vary very much. While the length of the time between dawn and dusk varies over a year, the time between two noons stays remarkably constant, and thus there was the theory that it actually is constant and can be used as a time normal.
When we were able to measure time more and more exactly, we found out that the variation in daylength is too large for very exact measurements, thus we needed an new time normal.
Because it is Art. Art. Art. It is not science. It is not a "complete survey". It is not "a comprehensive list of places".
It is Art. Are you complaining that Whistler didn't paint all of his family, just his mother? Are you complaining that Shakespeare set one of his plays in Danmark, but none in Norway and none in Sweden? Are you complaining that Picasso made his famous Guernica painting, but none about Coventry and none about Rotterdam?
Actually, that's all what a theory is about: Declare some events to be impossible. And a theory is better, if it correctly declares more events to be impossible. Imagine how many events are declared impossible just by the theory that brought us the first calendar (way back at least 7000 years, if we interpret the Goseck circle correctly).It declared it impossible for the sun to rise in the West. It declared it impossible to have less than 182 or more than 183 days between two equinoxes. It even declared it impossible to have days shorter than 24 hours.
A theoretical physicist should go around all the time and say: According to Theory T, this should be impossible!
You got it in reverse. Because (beside other things) the EU forced standard Windows installs not to bundle Internet Explorer, but to leave the choice of a browser to the consumer, other browsers could compete on their merit. And now we have several viable browser alternatives.
Apparently the logic of the EU regulators had the desired effect.
You could effectively root out terrorism by just shooting everyone at sight. It will also kill all terrorists at sight, and thus terrorism is rooted out.
But for some reasons, people don't like this method of rooting out terrorism -- at least if it is happening at their own country. (In other countries, apparently, this method is often applied, and it is hailed to be a Good Thing[tm]).
So no, for some reasons we like to withheld some tools from people tasked with a job, though the tools seem to be very effective. They have some very problematic side effects.
Luckily, there are other places which keep weather records, like the Royal Gardens at Schoenbrunn Palace, Vienna. And they do it since 1732. And they report a 2 K (or 4.5 F) increase right now. And their evidence gets corrobated by the glaciers in the nearby Alpes, where the lower limit of the glaciers is steadily going up, as you can tell from postcards with pictures of the mountains for over 150 years. While the actual mass of a glacier is determined by multiple factors like local snow- and rainfall patterns, the lower limit is solely determined by the average temperature over long times. Last year for instance, the glaciers in the Austrian Alpes lost on average 23 meters in length, with a single exception, one glacier that lies solely on the northern side of a mountain and is shadowed most of the day even in summer, which grew a little.
Additional to what? To the 60 Kelvin we have right now? You realize that even a minimal change in the green house effect will cause a few Kelvins in difference, right?
Ah. There is your mistake. We actually have a green house effect of about 60 Kelvin right now. The black body temperatur of the Earth is about 255 K, but due to the reflection from clouds and the water surfaces of the oceans, the actual spectrum of the emitted radiation fits a 228 K warm body. But the average temperature of the Earth's surface is about 290 K.
And yes, there is some feedback loop. Higher surface temperatures will cause more clouds and thus a higher albedo (reflection) of the Earth, but only after the temperature has increased and the additional clouds have formed and can stop further temperature increase. But the additional clouds won't lower the surface temperature back to the original levels. They just limit the increase for a given amount of additional energy.
From a purely theoretical point of view, a black hole could be of any mass, and thus the Schwarzschild radius could be of arbitrary size.
A different question is what mass a star must have, so that after it lost all its ability to fusion atomic nuclei, it collapses into a black hole. As far as I remember, it was three sun masses. Such black holes are called stellar black holes. Stars lighter than that will end up as white dwarfs and finally as neutron stars.
Those are factolets you get from all those junior tech books some of us nerds have read when we were children. I don't claim to be an ornitologist nor an aeronautics engineer.
Birds always start against the wind, so they get maximum uplift. If your car is going with the wind, birds will fly up in the direction of your oncoming car. It's not that birds are dumb, it's that it is the fastest and least costing way to get airborne. This is an observation which already the Wright brothers made when they were studying the flight of birds before the construction of their first motorplane.
Even commercial airplaines start against the wind if possible, so the layout of an airport is always with the landing stripe in the main wind direction. If that's not possible, airports have at least a second landing stripe at an angle to the first one, and they choose the landing stripe that is as close as possible to the current wind.
Probably because the german spelling of the name of the lead scientist contains the "sz" letter, his family name apparently got omitted from the submussion. His full name is Johannes Rossnagel. (If you don't have the ß, use ss instead!).
Most interesting is that the imaginery is still called schlieren optics. Schlieren is a german word meaning the streams and runmarks that can be seen if you mix two liquids of different optic properties like ink and water or Hydrogen peroxide and water.
Your argument is that because species die out anyway, and this is seen as a natural process, we shouldn't care if species die out because of human involvement. And so I wondered, if you also would conclude that because humans die all the time, and this is seen as natural, we shouldn't care if humans die because of human involvement.
Or as a climate scientist puts it: There are people who don't like the consequences. And because they can't find a flaw in the reasoning for the consequences, they try to attack the preconditions.
Climate science is the same science that puts out the weather predictions every morning.
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution.
Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
Ah, the famous "it would have happened anyway" fallacy. According to your logic, we shouldn't investigate homicides and prosecute murderers, as people will die anyway.
If you don't use it at all, the battery life increases. What takes the most power with e-Ink displays is changing the content. So every page turn takes power. If you don't turn pages, only the natural discharge of the battery cells drains energy.
Even that is a claim, that is just a prejudice and not corrobated by any evidence. A hint: "not wanting to be exactly like you" is something very different than "not wanting to integrate".
This is a handwaving argumentation. "Why would someone point out a correlation if he didn't want to hint at a causation?"
That's your opinion about the article. That's not what the article states. All the article does is saying that they did some data mining in their 70 mio comment database and found some strong correlations, which they list in the article. It's solely you who concluded that the article somehow constructs a causality.
No, all the article does is to point out the strong correlation. The "because" is something you read into it. I wonder why you might feel so inclined to conclude that the correlation pointed out in the article is actually a causation.
Slashdot Mirror
The Republicans and the Democrats decided that having a public primary would work best for them. The primaries have several tasks to fulfill: weed out candidates with not enough appeal to a broader electorate, prepare the candidates for the general election battle, find the topics and the positions on those topics that get votes, raise the candidates to prominence and create some trade mark to use for the advertising campaigns.
The Republicans for instance found out that their conservative platform of "small government, family values, promote free trade everywhere" does not get enough votes, as their voting base wants something else. The Democrats found out, that a big part of their voting base is leaning toward more socialist recipes, not enough yet to unsettle the party itself, but a trend to watch for as it seems to appeal especially to younger people.
Any party, even both Democrats and Republicans, could decide that public primaries aren't the best tools for them anymore, and look for a new way to find their candidates. They could throw dices or hold a public poker tournament, they could have only a single, U.S. wide primary election for their candidates, they could have each local organisation send a delegate to a state conference, and then each state conference send a delegate to a U.S. conference, which then decides for a candidate from the delegates, they could just put up an announcement in the classified "election canditate wanted, apply at party headquarters" or whatever they think will get them a candidate with a high chance of winning the next elections. Primaries are not a given. They have just proven to work for both big parties.
Even if the single person would prove itself inept at the task at hand (crossing a road), it might have other interesting abilities that will help other people to overcome other obstacles in life. Every single specimen who survives and procreates, broadens the DNA pool, and adds more variability to it, and if there comes a massive change in the environment, species with larger DNA pools have better chances to find the DNA combination that helps the species to survive.
At the KT boundary, famous for wiping out the dinosaurs, it was not exactly the dinosaurs, which got wiped out, it was in fact all animal life with body sizes of more than three feet at land and a little more in the oceans. If a species grows larger, it has less specimen, and thus less DNA variability to speedily find a new DNA combination fit for survival under new conditions. Large species only thrive if the conditions stay constant for a long time. At the KT boundary, all small dinosaurs survived, known as birds today. And all small, furry animals living in caves survived too, known as mammals. Small reptiles survived too, snakes and lizards and small turtles. Small vertebrae in the oceans survived, today's fishes and some water turtles. Mosasauridae died out.
Whoever thinks that letting people die and thus "improving the DNA pool" is a good idea, does not really understand Darwinian evolution.
Differently than teachers, the salaries of school and school district administrators have risen tremendously. And from the administration, you get all the talk about how teachers' unions would cause higher education costs. If you load your schools with more and more administrative tasks, be it constant evaluations of pupils, of teachers or both, or be it a thorough documentation of about anything and constant reports to be filed, you raise costs. And you get yourself an expensive adminstrative monster and rising education costs.
If you had the same type of school than in the 1960ies, where blackboard, chalk and quad paper are the only teaching tools, without any laboratories, libraries, beamers or any type of technical infrastructure, at the housing prices of 1960 and without all that administrative overhead of today, you suddenly would notice a significant drop in education cost.
Basicly you are saying that the sexist bias that exists in the movie industry is just a reflection of the sexist bias that exists in society. So your point being?
When we were able to measure time more and more exactly, we found out that the variation in daylength is too large for very exact measurements, thus we needed an new time normal.
It is Art. Are you complaining that Whistler didn't paint all of his family, just his mother? Are you complaining that Shakespeare set one of his plays in Danmark, but none in Norway and none in Sweden? Are you complaining that Picasso made his famous Guernica painting, but none about Coventry and none about Rotterdam?
A theoretical physicist should go around all the time and say: According to Theory T, this should be impossible!
Apparently the logic of the EU regulators had the desired effect.
But for some reasons, people don't like this method of rooting out terrorism -- at least if it is happening at their own country. (In other countries, apparently, this method is often applied, and it is hailed to be a Good Thing[tm]).
So no, for some reasons we like to withheld some tools from people tasked with a job, though the tools seem to be very effective. They have some very problematic side effects.
Luckily, there are other places which keep weather records, like the Royal Gardens at Schoenbrunn Palace, Vienna. And they do it since 1732. And they report a 2 K (or 4.5 F) increase right now. And their evidence gets corrobated by the glaciers in the nearby Alpes, where the lower limit of the glaciers is steadily going up, as you can tell from postcards with pictures of the mountains for over 150 years. While the actual mass of a glacier is determined by multiple factors like local snow- and rainfall patterns, the lower limit is solely determined by the average temperature over long times. Last year for instance, the glaciers in the Austrian Alpes lost on average 23 meters in length, with a single exception, one glacier that lies solely on the northern side of a mountain and is shadowed most of the day even in summer, which grew a little.
Additional to what? To the 60 Kelvin we have right now? You realize that even a minimal change in the green house effect will cause a few Kelvins in difference, right?
And yes, there is some feedback loop. Higher surface temperatures will cause more clouds and thus a higher albedo (reflection) of the Earth, but only after the temperature has increased and the additional clouds have formed and can stop further temperature increase. But the additional clouds won't lower the surface temperature back to the original levels. They just limit the increase for a given amount of additional energy.
A different question is what mass a star must have, so that after it lost all its ability to fusion atomic nuclei, it collapses into a black hole. As far as I remember, it was three sun masses. Such black holes are called stellar black holes. Stars lighter than that will end up as white dwarfs and finally as neutron stars.
Those are factolets you get from all those junior tech books some of us nerds have read when we were children. I don't claim to be an ornitologist nor an aeronautics engineer.
Even commercial airplaines start against the wind if possible, so the layout of an airport is always with the landing stripe in the main wind direction. If that's not possible, airports have at least a second landing stripe at an angle to the first one, and they choose the landing stripe that is as close as possible to the current wind.
Probably because the german spelling of the name of the lead scientist contains the "sz" letter, his family name apparently got omitted from the submussion. His full name is Johannes Rossnagel. (If you don't have the ß, use ss instead!).
Most interesting is that the imaginery is still called schlieren optics. Schlieren is a german word meaning the streams and runmarks that can be seen if you mix two liquids of different optic properties like ink and water or Hydrogen peroxide and water.
I never mentioned any lunch, by the way.
Climate science is the same science that puts out the weather predictions every morning.
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution. Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
Ah, the famous "it would have happened anyway" fallacy. According to your logic, we shouldn't investigate homicides and prosecute murderers, as people will die anyway.
If you don't use it at all, the battery life increases. What takes the most power with e-Ink displays is changing the content. So every page turn takes power. If you don't turn pages, only the natural discharge of the battery cells drains energy.
Even that is a claim, that is just a prejudice and not corrobated by any evidence. A hint: "not wanting to be exactly like you" is something very different than "not wanting to integrate".
Which is why for instance in French, the word for "stolen" and for "private" are the same: privé.
That's your opinion about the article. That's not what the article states. All the article does is saying that they did some data mining in their 70 mio comment database and found some strong correlations, which they list in the article. It's solely you who concluded that the article somehow constructs a causality.
No, all the article does is to point out the strong correlation. The "because" is something you read into it. I wonder why you might feel so inclined to conclude that the correlation pointed out in the article is actually a causation.