Well, while never having been an advocate for either side, I liked Gnome better for a long time. However, after that, the Gnome people made every effort to break everything I liked about Gnome...
Very nice example. Especially given that in your case, there actually is a transitive order, and yet instant run-off voting doesn't respect it.
Maybe a "reverse instant run-off" would be a better method: In each step eliminate the candidate who got the most votes on the last place.
In your example, L would get eliminated first (with 51% putting him last), and then R (who, after eliminating L, has 65% on the last place), leaving the optimal candidate C as the remaining choice.
You probably are using a nuclear reactor (no, it's not in your back yard, but you're nonetheless using it by receiving the electric energy it produces). Do you know how to repair a nuclear reactor? Should you have to?
Actually the meter started its life as 1/10,000,000 of the length of meridian going through Paris, from the pole to the equator (You thought it was an accident that the circumference of the earth is extremely close to 40,000 km?) Of course that wasn't exactly a practical thing to measure (although it was measured once exactly for that reason), therefore they used that bar for the length.
Also the kilogram started out as the mass of one liter of water.
Which you can only do if you can count electrons. Since at the time the Ampere was defined, there was no hope to do that even approximately, it would have been a much worse definition than the one that was chosen.
Indeed, this very article is about now being able to do exactly this: Count electrons which pass a chip.
Well, Imperial units are binary (1/2", 1/4", 1/8" tools, for example).
Those all use the very same unit, the inch. The fact that you like to use binary fractions as number before that is completely unrelated to the unit as such. You could as well use 1/2 m, 1/4m, 1/8 m in the metric system (note that for the liter, those are indeed quote common).
Three hundred sixty degrees in a circle can evenly be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18... - tried that with radians lately?
Now this is completely unrelated to metric vs. imperial units.
Speed of Light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant expressed in units of m/s.
Speed of light in vacuum is a fundamental constant, but whether you express it in units of m/s, in units of furlongs per fortnight, or in units of the speed of light doesn't matter for its value. And exactly because it is a constant, it makes a perfect unit for speed. Because that's what a unit is: A constant quantity to which other quantities of the same kind are compared. So if you say something is going at half the speed of light, you are using the unit "speed of light", and quantify a certain speed by multiplying that unit with a number (in this case 1/2).
In this case, space (m), and time (s) are the fundamental units.
No, space and time are not units. Meter (m) and second (s) are units of length and time. In the SI system they are fundamental units because they are defined to be. It is easy to define another system of units where other units take the role of the fundamental units. Even units belonging to other physical quantities (such as speed).
You certainly want to qualify the "by anyone" part... I doubt e.g. that the next person you meet at the bus station is very likely to be able to build a caesium clock (and thus recreate our time unit).
Comparing it to another mass using a balance makes any variation in the force of gravity irrelevant.
No. The two masses are not at the same spot, and therefore if the force differs between the left and the right side of the scale, this affects your measurement. (As an extreme case, imagine a microscopic black hole located under one of the two sides.)
Of course you can check this by just exchanging the two masses to be compared and then repeating the measurement. If the scale again is in balance, the masses are equal. Otherwise, the forces on both sides are different, and so are the masses.
Cloning is not genetic engineering. By definition, the cloned pig is genetically identical (up to the normal mutations that happen during normal grow-up) to the original. If the original one was not genetically modified, then the clone isn't either.
The effect of eating meat from a genetically engineered pig should depend on what exactly was modified. It may be more healthy (if it was engineered to be), more unhealthy (if it was engineered instead to have an advantage in farming, and the change has an unplanned side effect), just as healthy, or even outright deadly (if e.g. the genetic modification was for the pig to produce some medicine instead of for food, and you happen to be in a condition that this medicine kills you).
Well, one danger in cloning is that it may hamper the diversity, and therefore may make the pigs more vulnerable to illnesses. This is not so much an issue if it's only animals for research, but if a large number of the animals for food are cloned, it's a real danger.
After all, there's a reason why animals evolved to use sexual reproduction almost exclusively, although asexual reproduction is much more efficient. Sexual reproduction guarantees that the offspring has sufficiently diverse genetics that the illnesses can't too easily adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's a program called "Malicious Software Removal Tool". What do you think it does?
What if the botnet has the purpose to DDoS Tor?
Well, while never having been an advocate for either side, I liked Gnome better for a long time. However, after that, the Gnome people made every effort to break everything I liked about Gnome ...
What about metal? ;-)
Not to rely on common sense is just common sense.
That's just optimisation of the short term while ignoring the long term. Basically the same the typical publicly traded company does.
Very nice example. Especially given that in your case, there actually is a transitive order, and yet instant run-off voting doesn't respect it.
Maybe a "reverse instant run-off" would be a better method: In each step eliminate the candidate who got the most votes on the last place.
In your example, L would get eliminated first (with 51% putting him last), and then R (who, after eliminating L, has 65% on the last place), leaving the optimal candidate C as the remaining choice.
You probably are using a nuclear reactor (no, it's not in your back yard, but you're nonetheless using it by receiving the electric energy it produces). Do you know how to repair a nuclear reactor? Should you have to?
The funniest URL I've seen in a long time. ;-)
Because it is the second subdivision of the hour into 60 parts (the first one being the minute).
Note that the same terms are also used with angles (arc minutes/arc seconds), except that here it is the degree which is divided.
The energy scale you are scattering at?
See also: running coupling constant
Well, some people just don't have the capacity to get the jokes.
Just define your own electrochemical system of units. ;-)
Actually the meter started its life as 1/10,000,000 of the length of meridian going through Paris, from the pole to the equator (You thought it was an accident that the circumference of the earth is extremely close to 40,000 km?) Of course that wasn't exactly a practical thing to measure (although it was measured once exactly for that reason), therefore they used that bar for the length.
Also the kilogram started out as the mass of one liter of water.
Since at the same time the Coulomb would be removed as a derived unit (by promoting it to a fundamental unit), this would not be an argument.
Which you can only do if you can count electrons. Since at the time the Ampere was defined, there was no hope to do that even approximately, it would have been a much worse definition than the one that was chosen.
Indeed, this very article is about now being able to do exactly this: Count electrons which pass a chip.
Those all use the very same unit, the inch. The fact that you like to use binary fractions as number before that is completely unrelated to the unit as such. You could as well use 1/2 m, 1/4m, 1/8 m in the metric system (note that for the liter, those are indeed quote common).
Now this is completely unrelated to metric vs. imperial units.
Speed of light in vacuum is a fundamental constant, but whether you express it in units of m/s, in units of furlongs per fortnight, or in units of the speed of light doesn't matter for its value. And exactly because it is a constant, it makes a perfect unit for speed. Because that's what a unit is: A constant quantity to which other quantities of the same kind are compared. So if you say something is going at half the speed of light, you are using the unit "speed of light", and quantify a certain speed by multiplying that unit with a number (in this case 1/2).
No, space and time are not units. Meter (m) and second (s) are units of length and time. In the SI system they are fundamental units because they are defined to be. It is easy to define another system of units where other units take the role of the fundamental units. Even units belonging to other physical quantities (such as speed).
You certainly want to qualify the "by anyone" part ... I doubt e.g. that the next person you meet at the bus station is very likely to be able to build a caesium clock (and thus recreate our time unit).
No. The two masses are not at the same spot, and therefore if the force differs between the left and the right side of the scale, this affects your measurement. (As an extreme case, imagine a microscopic black hole located under one of the two sides.)
Of course you can check this by just exchanging the two masses to be compared and then repeating the measurement. If the scale again is in balance, the masses are equal. Otherwise, the forces on both sides are different, and so are the masses.
Yes, and the process of placing two masses on a balance is known as weighting.
So those pigs are going to solve out algebra problems? ;-)
[Note to the humour-impaired: No need to educate me what was meant with "eliminating variables", I know it.]
Cloning is not genetic engineering. By definition, the cloned pig is genetically identical (up to the normal mutations that happen during normal grow-up) to the original. If the original one was not genetically modified, then the clone isn't either.
The effect of eating meat from a genetically engineered pig should depend on what exactly was modified. It may be more healthy (if it was engineered to be), more unhealthy (if it was engineered instead to have an advantage in farming, and the change has an unplanned side effect), just as healthy, or even outright deadly (if e.g. the genetic modification was for the pig to produce some medicine instead of for food, and you happen to be in a condition that this medicine kills you).
Well, one danger in cloning is that it may hamper the diversity, and therefore may make the pigs more vulnerable to illnesses. This is not so much an issue if it's only animals for research, but if a large number of the animals for food are cloned, it's a real danger.
After all, there's a reason why animals evolved to use sexual reproduction almost exclusively, although asexual reproduction is much more efficient. Sexual reproduction guarantees that the offspring has sufficiently diverse genetics that the illnesses can't too easily adapt.
About immigrants: More people also means more demand to products, that is, a larger product market, and thus, a larger job market.