The West has been buying Russian plutonium from old weapons and from surplus stockpiles under the idea that it's better to use it as fuel in a power plant than in a weapon.
Actually, we've been buying it on the assumption that the Russians can't prevent it from being sold to anyone who wants to make a bomb with it, but we can. We don't use it as fuel, we just park it in a storage facility (think of the warehouse that the Ark of the Covenant is stored in, but with more lead shielding).
The forces I was referring to were electrical, magnetic, and gravitational. (Yes, OK, I know there are many other forces than that. What is the opposite of frictional force?)
Electromagnetic is one force. Not two. And has no "negative", though it does have a direction. "Frictional Force" isn't a fundamental Force. And has no negative, either, for that matter.
I did not mean to imply that light does not have a variable speed. Indeed it does; we know it travels slower through glass than through a vacuum. I am saying that perhaps it isn't coupled with time.
My bad. I miswrote. Light does NOT have a variable speed in vacuum. Alas, it must be coupled with time, since speed is distance/time. Nor is the Speed of Light in anything other than vacuum especially relevant to a discussion of Relativity, or the lack of same.
'Easy to figure out...' I did say "seems." And I think the concept is simple (although implementation may be really difficult). Is there more to it than looking at the known universe, looking again in 5 years, and then again in another 5 years and figure out if it has accelerated? (Aside from needing complex telescopes that can see into deep space?)
I think if you think it "seems" easy, then you don't know enough physics or astronomy to have a meaningful opinion. No, it's not a matter of just taking two measurements. It helps to know the mass of the universe, for instance. That pesky gravity thing is dependent on mass. Likewise, it helps to know the size of the Universe, so you can have a chance of determining how far apart things are. Again, that pesky gravity thing is dependent on distance.
But you still left my 3 questions unanswered. Please, I really want to hear your conclusion... or at least your explanation:
I doubt that, since you asked me to be polite.
1. A person's perception of time is hinged on the movement of molecules in their body? (Yes or no?)
Doesn't seem to be, no. Their temperature is so dependent, but noone has ever found a hint that time-perception is based on temperature. Other than the whole Alive therefore we perceive Time, Dead so we don't thing.
2. Slow down electrons and molecules and you slow aging, as well as perception of time? (Yes or no?)
Probably not. Simple experiment though - have your own body temperature lowered to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and see if your aging slows down.
Hint: Your aging actually WILL slow down in this experiment, since death is generally considered to stop aging. And yes, death is not automatic if you so lower your body temperature, unless you leave it lowered for a while. And you won't notice aging effects quickly. So you'll have to leave it lowered for a while.
Another Hint: Anyone ever found a reason to suspect that fish perceive time to be passing slower than the mammals among us? Most, though by no means all, fish are cold-blooded, and so tend to operate at lower temperature than the mammals.
And another: does your time-sense speed up when you have a fever?
3. Moving an atom may affect speed of the electrons' orbit?
No. Not a chance in Hell. Not under any theory of electron motion we've ever had. Note that if this were so, there'd be a measureable "center" to the Universe. There isn't, unless Earth is at it. And if Earth is at it, then it won't be so for long, since it moves relative to the Sun, and that Sun moves relative to the center of the Galaxy.
3's answer appears to have at least two outcomes (if you are traveling near the speed of light):
If NO, then it means that at least for a part of an electron's orbit, it can travel faster than light can.
A beautiful, livable AND dense city for technology-oriented companies to open offices in. Optimal outdoor space use generates congregating areas that people actually want to go to. Easy to use and clean (in terms of power) public transportation with private transportation for those who want it; sustainable agrarian supply of perishables - imagine buying groceries from the corner store and having them be delivered from forty feet away instead of a thousand miles..
What you end up with is a city that is too expensive to live in, and thus has no inhabitants.
The water table is a few inches below ground level here (when I stick a shovel in the ground, the hole is full of water). Basements are not only not used, but completely impractical to build.
And some things just seem completely missing from our understanding of physics altogether; for example, every force seems to have a positive and negative... except gravity? I suppose it isn't described because it doesn't naturally occur (anywhere that we know of). Does that mean negative gravity doesn't exist?
And the Strong Force. No negative for that.
Oh, and the Weak Force. No negative for that either.
If I interpret what you said correctly, you seem to indicate that the speed of light and time are locked together. I think perhaps they are not; and so light can be variable speed without time being variable.
Alas for your beliefs that light, as measured (not theorized, measured) doesn't have a variable speed. Note that if we were to go with the "electron motion affects time" theory of your's, then Speed of Light would vary between Winter and Summer, since the Earth is moving faster around its orbit in Northern Hemisphere Winter than in Northern Hemisphere Summer. It is, in fact, moving faster than the error in our measurements of Speed of Light. A lot faster.
Note also that if the Speed of Light is invariant, Time cannot be Absolute.
Consider, that in just my life time alone, I have seen science flip-flop from the notion that the universe is slowing its expansion and will one day implode on itself, to that the universe is actually speeding up its expansion and will never come back together. And that one seems like a relatively easy one to figure out!
My, you have an interesting view of "easy". Hint: in order to figure that one out, we've got to measure the size and mass of the Universe reasonably accurately. Another Hint: it's hard to measure things that you can't see or otherwise detect. As your telescopes get better, and your measurements of what you're seeing get more precise, the answers may change.
However. If you'd like to put some numbers to your Theory, so they can be measured against reality, I'm sure you can find someone who will do it. If he can stop laughing at you. It's really rather straightforward, given that all you have to do is come up with numbers that work for ALL the experiments that have failed to invalidate Relativity to date. And Quantum Theory, of course, since your Theory invalidates that as well.
but you may argue that they have produced evidence that supports the theory.
No, you can't.
I agree. Physics is an attempt to model the universe mathematically. The fact that two models agree says nothing whatsoever about whether either is an accurate map of the universe.
I believe the population argument is bogus. Increasing wealth and standard of living is strongly correlated with decreasing fertility rates in every culture and nation on earth. Most population projections which include this effect show the earth's population peaking within 100 years, and then declining, and it's unlikely that a significant colonization effort will be underway within 100 years. (Sorry, can't find the population references.)
I agree that the population argument is bogus, but for different reasons.
Current world population growth rate is around 2% per annum. That's about 350,000 per DAY. Which is how many people you'd have to move off-planet to have any impact on the population issues. Let's see...350,000 per day...Shuttle carries seven, so that's 50,000 Shuttle flights per day just to get them to LEO. Shuttle takes two months to return to service after a flight, so we'd need 300,000 Shuttles. At current manufacturing rates for large aircraft, that's about 500 years to make the Shuttles needed NOW. Not going to happen, by any stretch of the imagination.
All that aside, I agree that population growth is declining, and has been all my life. If it continues as it has since I was born, we can look forward to a negative population growth rate within the century.
Can he get to Mars in six months? You need somebody who's got a terminal illness but will survive long enough to get there--bit tricky, that.
A free-return trajectory will get you to Mars in about six months. And that's the most likely one to be used, since it means that he comes back here if something goes wrong on the way and he can't actually go to Mars.
As to the cancer-patient concept. Silly idea. But I have cancer, and I'd be on my way to Cape Canaveral like a shot if I were offered the chance.
And Drudge did not say that he got the photo from someone in the Clinton campaign. If someone in the Clinton campaign had sent it to him, of course he would have said so (the story would have been a hundred times better). He did not say so, ergo whoever sent it to him was not in the Clinton campaign.
From your original post:
It was Matt Drudge who asserted it was the Clinton campaign circulating it.
There seems to be a slight contradiction here.
How would his saying he got the photo from an anonymous source in the Clinton campaign burn that source?
You don't think that the Clinton Campaign would bend every effort to locating and silencing a source if they knew for a fact that there was one. Especially one that was leaking dirty tricks to the media. It's not terribly hard to trace this sort of thing if you really want to bother.
What? No. How would "a law requiring any political party that gets more than 40% of the popular vote in a presidential election to schism into two" ensure at least four parties at all times? Example: three parties, each with 33.3% of popular vote. None over 40%, and less than four parties. I reckon the rest of your post is just as wrong.
Republican Party and Democrat Party ALWAYS get more than 40% of the popular vote for President. Therefore both would split, leaving four Parties. Rank and File, alas, will not split, so two of the Parties will wither away, and the two remaining ones will both get more than 40% of the popular vote next cycle, splitting into four Parties. Repeat endlessly. There is no reason to suspect that only ONE of the two major Parties would be affected by this rule, and that things would then work out magically the way you want them to.
Your fundamental assumption is that if there were three viable Parties, they all three would approximately split the vote. There is also no special reason to believe that this is so, since it requires the assumption that the voters are going to split up evenly between the two new Parties - most likely, the voters would stay with the Party they were familiar with, in spite of requirements that they divide themselves into two teams and change their names.
Ultimately, you are assuming that the voters will split up along the lines required by this rule. If they do not, then your desired outcome will never come to pass....
I believe that the Theory of Relativity is slightly flawed.
I think that the reason time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light is simply this: You are made of atoms. Electrons whiz around the nucleus of atoms at roughly the speed of light. Well, if nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then think about what happens when the electron is on the side of the orbit that is traveling in the same direction as you -- at close to speed of light... that would put the speed of the electron over the speed of light (and that can't happen) so it maxes out. So, I think for that portion of the orbit, it has maximum speed (a speed limit, if you will) -- and from your perspective, the electron slows way down.
When it reaches the crest of the orbit, and goes back the other way, it doesn't try to make up for the difference; it just goes the speed of light relative to your velocity. So all of your atoms' electrons are oscillating (equally) from normal speed to slooooow speed, to normal speed. (Instead of sloooow speed to superfast to sloooow).
This is why it would affect your aging as well as your perception of time. Since, on the whole, your "clocks" are being slowed down (due to the electron speed limit), then also your perception of time would be sped up (that is, if you could see those events).
I think this allows for an absolute time. It is only your perception that has changed.
I think it would be similar to putting yourself into a slow stasis. To everyone else, you have become frozen. But to you, everyone else around you goes into hyper-speed. But did that change the real time in any way? No, just your perception of it.
But it's just an idea.
I see. So, in addition to thinking Relativity is flawed, you also think that Quantum Theory is incorrect. Note, by the way, that there isn't any reason to suspect that "time" is linked to the movement of electrons, as you have just proposed. Nor does your "idea" explain how both the Speed of Light and Time can be invariant. In fact, the fundamental premise of your "idea" seems to indicate that Michelson and Morley made a mistake in the experiment that bears their name.
You've just tossed into the proverbial crapper about 100 years of physics research.
Somehow, I suspect you're not the next great genius who will rewrite physics as we know it. Especially since you seem determined to move us backwards to just before the Michelson-Morley experiment in our understanding of the universe.
Yes but the 60% statistic isn't relative to those tested but relative to the total population. If there are 10 prisoners and 2 are tested, half of those found innocent the rate is 10% not 50%. That is obviously simplified and the sample is larger but you get the idea
Let's see if I can explain this simply. The crimes that can be reolved with DNA evidence generally reduce to two - murder and rape. Occasionally an assault can be solved that way, once in a great while a robbery can. but generally, it's murder and rape.
Murder and Rape make up a great deal less than 10% of the prison population. So if that 60% statistic were relative to the total population, then EVERY murderer or rapist would have to be innocent. Which is excruciatingly unlikely, even if they charged people at random.
However, that said, we haven't done DNA testing of every murderer or rapist, much less the general population. Nor have we done that for 60% of the population. Therefore, the 60% statistic either (a) refers to only the subset of the population that has been so tested, a self-selecting sample, or (b) was made up out of whole cloth.
I'm inclined to say (b), myself.
Note, however, that Texas has freed at least 30 people due to DNA testing, the highest number among all the States. Which means that rather less than 1500 have been so freed, nationwide. Out of a prison population of about 1.5 million. That's fewer than 1/10th of one percent. Not 60%.
Note also that 1500 is fewer than 60% of those on Death Row alone. It's a bit less than 50%, actually.
And keep in mind that 1500 is the MAXIMUM conceivable value, since 30 is the LARGEST number for any of 50 States.
So, any way you slice it, the 60% number isn't about the "total population" of anything (other than, possibly, inmates who have requested DNA testing in order to prove innocence).
Without the sudden (orchestrated) disappearances from the race by the only serious contenders (Giuliani and Romney), McCain was in for a long and ugly fight.
Nonsense! Romney and Giuliani didn't have a chance in Hell of becoming President. We've managed to elect ONE Catholic President ever - we're not ready for a Mormon President. And Giuliani didn't collect enough money to make a reasonable campaign possible - a good sign that he was unelectable.
Yah, if those two had stayed in the race, it likely would have made for a more lively Republican Convention, but that's about all.
Note, by the way, that I don't like McCain. I haven't liked him since the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act was passed. And it's unlikely I'll vote for him. But I wouldn't have voted for any of the other candidates either.
One would have thought that people would have learned after voting for GWB, a man with no experience, but here they are doing it a second time.
Third time, not second. Note that Bill Clinton, the governor of a minor State, had no real qualifications for the Presidency either.
Note also that Bill and Hillary ran in 1992 on the grounds that he wasn't a Washington insider. That was considered a good thing. Now, Hillary is running on the grounds that's she's been a Washington insider for years. That's considered a good thing.
Which is, of course, typical for politicians.
Note, finally, that there isn't any real measure of "qualification" for the Presidency that puts either Obama or Hillary at the top of the list. Luckily for all concerned, noone gives a rat's ass about "qualifications" for the Presidency....
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that.
Whyever would you believe that Democrats are beyond racism and sexism? Is it because you've never actually talked to a "typical" Democrat? Remember, MOST Democrats are not part of the upper class, but rather lower class to lower-middle class.
Note, by the way, that if you want to see a sample of racism at its worst, spend time with the upper class....
Note also that Clinton is dominating in her usual demographics - White women, and non-college-educated white men. Does that give you some hints about the "average" Democrat?
If economies are cyclical, why is it that the bad economic policies always precede the down cycles? Wouldn't they mistime it and hit an up cycle once in a while?
Like at the end of Clinton's term? Remember, we had a recession then too. Note that the word "recession" was carefully not used until the Presidential Election, but was used liberally afterwards.
Note that, historically, most decisions by the Federal government that were intended to "prevent a recession" failed, no matter the Party involved in the decision. Fact is, the economy is far too complex (especially in these days of a global economy) for any "solution" to be more than a Dilbert moment - try something, and take credit if it works, or fire someone else if it fails.
Note, by the way, that both Parties have exactly the same solution to any threat of recession - lower taxes.
The only question is "who gets the lowered taxes?" The Republicans tend to argue (reasonably, I think) that actual taxpayers should get the lowered taxes. The Democrats tend to argue (reasonably, I think) that the people most in danger from a recession should get the lowered taxes, even if that means negative tax rates.
And, since the Constitution is based on the Declaration Of Independence, a qualified citizen should have that memorized also.
You had me right up to here. Alas, the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, and the Lawyer thing, too. I've not met many Lawyers who realize that there are TEN Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Most can manage about four of them, few can handle as many as eight.
I would support a law requiring any political party that gets more than 40% of the popular vote in a presidential election to schism into two; it would assure that there were always at least three viable parties, and encourage coalition governments. But who in Congress would propose, much less pass, such a law?
First, it would ensure that there were always four parties.
Second, it would NOT ensure coalition governments, except in name. A "political Party" is just an association of people with common interests. There is absolutely NO reason that if the Republican Party were FORCED TO split into the Republican-Democrat Party and the Republican-Libertarian Party that the two could not work together more or less automatically.
Especially since you can't force the rank-and-file (that's the Voters, fyi) to split nicely into two Parties.
Let's see. The Green Party would love to have such a Law in place. At least until they found themselves affected by it, then it wouldn't seem such a good idea.
All that said, it would be struck down by the Supremes - sorry, Freedom of Association is part of the Bill of Rights.
I guess you pay too much attention to the mainstream news... you must think it was the Clinton campaign that "showed" Obama in the native garb. It was Matt Drudge who asserted it was the Clinton campaign circulating it. His source was anonymous, and he didn't get it from the Clinton campaign. Oh, and the Clinton campaign denied it immediately and the Obama campaign said they accepted the Clinton campaign's denial. But still the mainstream media went ahead and put it out there as "Clinton smears Obama with photo" because Matt Drudge rules their world. And you believed it.
The source was anonymous, but NOT with the Clinton campaign? I take it you are the source, or know the source personally, since you know this. Otherwise, I can't imagine how you could know it. Even if Matt Drudge had said as much, it would be meaningless, since he'd say as much just to keep his source in the Clinton campaign active - you don't burn your sources in public.
Note also that if Drudge said Clinton did it, and then said that his source wasn't the Clinton campaign, he'd have to be lying once. Just which time is a bit harder to tell, of course.
Note that even if Hillary herself was the source (which I don't believe - Bill might have done that, I doubt Hillary would), the Clinton campaign would immediately deny that.
Note further that even if Obama had proof that Hillary had been the source, he'd have to accept the denial, or risk serious damage to the Party's credibility in the coming campaign.
As an independent whose political beliefs have been picked from a variety of sources both left and right, I have to say that both Obama and Clinton seem pretty close to the center - with Clinton being holding a number of ideas that are definitely more right than left. McCain seemed to be solidly right-center a while back, but in this process (and from maybe a year and a half back when he was clearly setting himself up for this) he's been moving much further right - unhappily (for me) he's been seeming to pick all the worst beliefs of the right wing to glom onto.
HINT: ignore speeches, check voting records. They're all Senators, and their voting records on a variety of subjects are all publicly available.
The reason negative campaigning is used so much is basically because it works, no matter how much people hate it. Negative emotions tend to be more salient than positive emotions. In Dutch there is a saying 'Vertrouwen komt te voet en gaat te paard', which can be roughly translated as 'Trust arrives in little steps but leaves with large strides'. Politicians have to make a lot of good impressions to counteract a single bad impression.
Wish I could pronounce Dutch, so I could use that.
There is a parallel - in product/company reviews, it's generally been shown that one bad review cancels out about a dozen good reviews. Same thing in Politics - one nasty comment is remembered far more than a dozen nice ones.
I note that SNL is being partially credited for Obama's losses in Ohio and Texas (where he polled much better than he performed). Under McCain-Feingold, it is possible that the production costs for SNL those two weeks that they featured Clinton and Obama should be counted as campaign costs by the respective candidates.
I disagree with that. I believe it is absolutely possible to determine an order of events that occur no matter where they take place in the universe. I believe there really IS a "this exact moment in time" somewhere else, even millions of light years away. You just won't observe its events for... millions of years.
Really, all that must be done is simply to take into account the delay time for light to reach you, and subtract that amount from the time you observed the event. I can't see how it is any easier than that.
All time is really defined as "a sequence of events." And just because your clock gets messed up when it travels at the speed of light does not mean that time and events cannot be accurately measured.
So, you believe that the Theory of Relativity is invalid, eh? Interesting.
I take it you have some theory that explains everything that Relativity explains, but still allows for an Absolute Time? If so, I'd be fascinated to see it.
I understand the colloquial meaning of "theory" perfectly well, and I reject it, especially in a place like Slashdot. This is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." The language should reflect that.
You expect people who can't reliably distinguish between "there", "their", and "they're" (or "rain", "rein", and "reign") to make precise distinctions in the use of the word "theory"?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we've been buying it on the assumption that the Russians can't prevent it from being sold to anyone who wants to make a bomb with it, but we can. We don't use it as fuel, we just park it in a storage facility (think of the warehouse that the Ark of the Covenant is stored in, but with more lead shielding).
Electromagnetic is one force. Not two. And has no "negative", though it does have a direction. "Frictional Force" isn't a fundamental Force. And has no negative, either, for that matter.
My bad. I miswrote. Light does NOT have a variable speed in vacuum. Alas, it must be coupled with time, since speed is distance/time. Nor is the Speed of Light in anything other than vacuum especially relevant to a discussion of Relativity, or the lack of same.
I think if you think it "seems" easy, then you don't know enough physics or astronomy to have a meaningful opinion. No, it's not a matter of just taking two measurements. It helps to know the mass of the universe, for instance. That pesky gravity thing is dependent on mass. Likewise, it helps to know the size of the Universe, so you can have a chance of determining how far apart things are. Again, that pesky gravity thing is dependent on distance.
I doubt that, since you asked me to be polite.
Doesn't seem to be, no. Their temperature is so dependent, but noone has ever found a hint that time-perception is based on temperature. Other than the whole Alive therefore we perceive Time, Dead so we don't thing.
Probably not. Simple experiment though - have your own body temperature lowered to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and see if your aging slows down.
Hint: Your aging actually WILL slow down in this experiment, since death is generally considered to stop aging. And yes, death is not automatic if you so lower your body temperature, unless you leave it lowered for a while. And you won't notice aging effects quickly. So you'll have to leave it lowered for a while.
Another Hint: Anyone ever found a reason to suspect that fish perceive time to be passing slower than the mammals among us? Most, though by no means all, fish are cold-blooded, and so tend to operate at lower temperature than the mammals.
And another: does your time-sense speed up when you have a fever?
No. Not a chance in Hell. Not under any theory of electron motion we've ever had. Note that if this were so, there'd be a measureable "center" to the Universe. There isn't, unless Earth is at it. And if Earth is at it, then it won't be so for long, since it moves relative to the Sun, and that Sun moves relative to the center of the Galaxy.
If NO, then Relativity takes hold, and it can
What you end up with is a city that is too expensive to live in, and thus has no inhabitants.
The water table is a few inches below ground level here (when I stick a shovel in the ground, the hole is full of water). Basements are not only not used, but completely impractical to build.
You misunderstood me. Colonization isn't even a short term fix for overpopulation.
And the Strong Force. No negative for that.
Oh, and the Weak Force. No negative for that either.
Alas for your beliefs that light, as measured (not theorized, measured) doesn't have a variable speed. Note that if we were to go with the "electron motion affects time" theory of your's, then Speed of Light would vary between Winter and Summer, since the Earth is moving faster around its orbit in Northern Hemisphere Winter than in Northern Hemisphere Summer. It is, in fact, moving faster than the error in our measurements of Speed of Light. A lot faster.
Note also that if the Speed of Light is invariant, Time cannot be Absolute.
My, you have an interesting view of "easy". Hint: in order to figure that one out, we've got to measure the size and mass of the Universe reasonably accurately. Another Hint: it's hard to measure things that you can't see or otherwise detect. As your telescopes get better, and your measurements of what you're seeing get more precise, the answers may change.
However. If you'd like to put some numbers to your Theory, so they can be measured against reality, I'm sure you can find someone who will do it. If he can stop laughing at you. It's really rather straightforward, given that all you have to do is come up with numbers that work for ALL the experiments that have failed to invalidate Relativity to date. And Quantum Theory, of course, since your Theory invalidates that as well.
I agree. Physics is an attempt to model the universe mathematically. The fact that two models agree says nothing whatsoever about whether either is an accurate map of the universe.
No. Realistically, Chain of Custody requirements will force them to keep the actual hard drive, NOT a copy of it.
I agree that the population argument is bogus, but for different reasons.
Current world population growth rate is around 2% per annum. That's about 350,000 per DAY. Which is how many people you'd have to move off-planet to have any impact on the population issues. Let's see...350,000 per day...Shuttle carries seven, so that's 50,000 Shuttle flights per day just to get them to LEO. Shuttle takes two months to return to service after a flight, so we'd need 300,000 Shuttles. At current manufacturing rates for large aircraft, that's about 500 years to make the Shuttles needed NOW. Not going to happen, by any stretch of the imagination.
All that aside, I agree that population growth is declining, and has been all my life. If it continues as it has since I was born, we can look forward to a negative population growth rate within the century.
A free-return trajectory will get you to Mars in about six months. And that's the most likely one to be used, since it means that he comes back here if something goes wrong on the way and he can't actually go to Mars.
As to the cancer-patient concept. Silly idea. But I have cancer, and I'd be on my way to Cape Canaveral like a shot if I were offered the chance.
From your original post:
It was Matt Drudge who asserted it was the Clinton campaign circulating it.
There seems to be a slight contradiction here.
You don't think that the Clinton Campaign would bend every effort to locating and silencing a source if they knew for a fact that there was one. Especially one that was leaking dirty tricks to the media. It's not terribly hard to trace this sort of thing if you really want to bother.
Republican Party and Democrat Party ALWAYS get more than 40% of the popular vote for President. Therefore both would split, leaving four Parties. Rank and File, alas, will not split, so two of the Parties will wither away, and the two remaining ones will both get more than 40% of the popular vote next cycle, splitting into four Parties. Repeat endlessly. There is no reason to suspect that only ONE of the two major Parties would be affected by this rule, and that things would then work out magically the way you want them to.
Your fundamental assumption is that if there were three viable Parties, they all three would approximately split the vote. There is also no special reason to believe that this is so, since it requires the assumption that the voters are going to split up evenly between the two new Parties - most likely, the voters would stay with the Party they were familiar with, in spite of requirements that they divide themselves into two teams and change their names.
Ultimately, you are assuming that the voters will split up along the lines required by this rule. If they do not, then your desired outcome will never come to pass....
I see. So, in addition to thinking Relativity is flawed, you also think that Quantum Theory is incorrect. Note, by the way, that there isn't any reason to suspect that "time" is linked to the movement of electrons, as you have just proposed. Nor does your "idea" explain how both the Speed of Light and Time can be invariant. In fact, the fundamental premise of your "idea" seems to indicate that Michelson and Morley made a mistake in the experiment that bears their name.
You've just tossed into the proverbial crapper about 100 years of physics research.
Somehow, I suspect you're not the next great genius who will rewrite physics as we know it. Especially since you seem determined to move us backwards to just before the Michelson-Morley experiment in our understanding of the universe.
Let's see if I can explain this simply. The crimes that can be reolved with DNA evidence generally reduce to two - murder and rape. Occasionally an assault can be solved that way, once in a great while a robbery can. but generally, it's murder and rape.
Murder and Rape make up a great deal less than 10% of the prison population. So if that 60% statistic were relative to the total population, then EVERY murderer or rapist would have to be innocent. Which is excruciatingly unlikely, even if they charged people at random.
However, that said, we haven't done DNA testing of every murderer or rapist, much less the general population. Nor have we done that for 60% of the population. Therefore, the 60% statistic either (a) refers to only the subset of the population that has been so tested, a self-selecting sample, or (b) was made up out of whole cloth.
I'm inclined to say (b), myself.
Note, however, that Texas has freed at least 30 people due to DNA testing, the highest number among all the States. Which means that rather less than 1500 have been so freed, nationwide. Out of a prison population of about 1.5 million. That's fewer than 1/10th of one percent. Not 60%.
Note also that 1500 is fewer than 60% of those on Death Row alone. It's a bit less than 50%, actually.
And keep in mind that 1500 is the MAXIMUM conceivable value, since 30 is the LARGEST number for any of 50 States.
So, any way you slice it, the 60% number isn't about the "total population" of anything (other than, possibly, inmates who have requested DNA testing in order to prove innocence).
Nonsense! Romney and Giuliani didn't have a chance in Hell of becoming President. We've managed to elect ONE Catholic President ever - we're not ready for a Mormon President. And Giuliani didn't collect enough money to make a reasonable campaign possible - a good sign that he was unelectable.
Yah, if those two had stayed in the race, it likely would have made for a more lively Republican Convention, but that's about all.
Note, by the way, that I don't like McCain. I haven't liked him since the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act was passed. And it's unlikely I'll vote for him. But I wouldn't have voted for any of the other candidates either.
Third time, not second. Note that Bill Clinton, the governor of a minor State, had no real qualifications for the Presidency either.
Note also that Bill and Hillary ran in 1992 on the grounds that he wasn't a Washington insider. That was considered a good thing. Now, Hillary is running on the grounds that's she's been a Washington insider for years. That's considered a good thing.
Which is, of course, typical for politicians.
Note, finally, that there isn't any real measure of "qualification" for the Presidency that puts either Obama or Hillary at the top of the list. Luckily for all concerned, noone gives a rat's ass about "qualifications" for the Presidency....
Whyever would you believe that Democrats are beyond racism and sexism? Is it because you've never actually talked to a "typical" Democrat? Remember, MOST Democrats are not part of the upper class, but rather lower class to lower-middle class.
Note, by the way, that if you want to see a sample of racism at its worst, spend time with the upper class....
Note also that Clinton is dominating in her usual demographics - White women, and non-college-educated white men. Does that give you some hints about the "average" Democrat?
Like at the end of Clinton's term? Remember, we had a recession then too. Note that the word "recession" was carefully not used until the Presidential Election, but was used liberally afterwards.
Note that, historically, most decisions by the Federal government that were intended to "prevent a recession" failed, no matter the Party involved in the decision. Fact is, the economy is far too complex (especially in these days of a global economy) for any "solution" to be more than a Dilbert moment - try something, and take credit if it works, or fire someone else if it fails.
Note, by the way, that both Parties have exactly the same solution to any threat of recession - lower taxes.
The only question is "who gets the lowered taxes?" The Republicans tend to argue (reasonably, I think) that actual taxpayers should get the lowered taxes. The Democrats tend to argue (reasonably, I think) that the people most in danger from a recession should get the lowered taxes, even if that means negative tax rates.
You had me right up to here. Alas, the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, and the Lawyer thing, too. I've not met many Lawyers who realize that there are TEN Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Most can manage about four of them, few can handle as many as eight.
First, it would ensure that there were always four parties.
Second, it would NOT ensure coalition governments, except in name. A "political Party" is just an association of people with common interests. There is absolutely NO reason that if the Republican Party were FORCED TO split into the Republican-Democrat Party and the Republican-Libertarian Party that the two could not work together more or less automatically.
Especially since you can't force the rank-and-file (that's the Voters, fyi) to split nicely into two Parties.
Let's see. The Green Party would love to have such a Law in place. At least until they found themselves affected by it, then it wouldn't seem such a good idea.
All that said, it would be struck down by the Supremes - sorry, Freedom of Association is part of the Bill of Rights.
The source was anonymous, but NOT with the Clinton campaign? I take it you are the source, or know the source personally, since you know this. Otherwise, I can't imagine how you could know it. Even if Matt Drudge had said as much, it would be meaningless, since he'd say as much just to keep his source in the Clinton campaign active - you don't burn your sources in public.
Note also that if Drudge said Clinton did it, and then said that his source wasn't the Clinton campaign, he'd have to be lying once. Just which time is a bit harder to tell, of course.
Note that even if Hillary herself was the source (which I don't believe - Bill might have done that, I doubt Hillary would), the Clinton campaign would immediately deny that.
Note further that even if Obama had proof that Hillary had been the source, he'd have to accept the denial, or risk serious damage to the Party's credibility in the coming campaign.
HINT: ignore speeches, check voting records. They're all Senators, and their voting records on a variety of subjects are all publicly available.
Wish I could pronounce Dutch, so I could use that.
There is a parallel - in product/company reviews, it's generally been shown that one bad review cancels out about a dozen good reviews. Same thing in Politics - one nasty comment is remembered far more than a dozen nice ones.
I note that SNL is being partially credited for Obama's losses in Ohio and Texas (where he polled much better than he performed). Under McCain-Feingold, it is possible that the production costs for SNL those two weeks that they featured Clinton and Obama should be counted as campaign costs by the respective candidates.
So, you believe that the Theory of Relativity is invalid, eh? Interesting.
I take it you have some theory that explains everything that Relativity explains, but still allows for an Absolute Time? If so, I'd be fascinated to see it.
You expect people who can't reliably distinguish between "there", "their", and "they're" (or "rain", "rein", and "reign") to make precise distinctions in the use of the word "theory"?
You're new here, right?