So what? Monarchs have always been selected based on "genetic fitness." The criteria used was "closeness of relationship to the last king" or "being the badass who managed to bump off the last king and seize power."
Those are undoubtedly the two criteria that would end up being instituted, regardless of what modern DNA-based hand waving was wrapped around them.
You know, there are still a lot of ships running around. Sails have gone out of fashion, but you could just skip that step and power the ship's propellors with energy you harvest from the moving water using turbines.
Every shipping company on the planet would beat a path to your door for free fuel. And we could all have even cheaper junk from China!
"That would be like running an airline, and when the FAA advisories come out because of previous mechanical issues or human issues that caused crashes, you do nothing."
Japan's response to Fukushima is like dissolving all the airlines and not having passenger air travel anymore because a plane crashed due to pilot error or shoddy maintenance. When companies screw up like that the solution is to tighten up regulations and/or put the criminals in charge in jail. Not to shut down all the nuclear power plants that didn't screw up.
The queen (rather, her representative the governor general) uses one of those "on paper not real" powers to sack the PM every time an election is called in Canada. But if she did so without being asked, the new parliament would just write her out of the constitution.
You're probably referring to the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Two parties had basically equal power and were constantly deadlocked. The governor general replaced the PM and the new one immediately called a general election. The GG's move didn't subvert democracy (all it did was trigger an election). Even so, he quit early, and the new parliament passed constitutional amendments designed to avoid the situation in the future. Also, the queen's office was of the opinion that the queen actually didn't have any power in the matter. The authority lay in the GG, who is actually chosen by... the prime minister.
As pictured (with the boat running), it's only possible if the air particles bounce off the sail. It's probably possible to get aerodynamic drive from a fan... I'd have to draw out the vector diagram. Either way, it's extremely inefficient. Extremely inefficient is not how you want your power generation apparatus described.
I live in a constitutional monarchy (Canada). The queen has lots of on-paper power, but in reality, essentially none at all. She's a figurehead. A modern constitutional monarchy is very much a democracy, not a monarch with constitutionally limited powers as the term suggests (unless by "limited" you mean "limited to having your representative wave a sceptre around ceremoniously occasionally").
These guys are advocating an absolute monarchy, aristocratic oligarchy or theocracy(!).
perhaps because the world was not awash in factories, cheap goods, antibiotics, and technology?
Absolutist political systems are still nasty places to live. Dictatorships, absolute monarchies, theocracies. Or perhaps you'd like to live in Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and one of the wealthiest countries in the world, awash in the trappings of modern industrialism, technology, consumer goods and antibiotics?
are others "free" to move to USA?
Whatever the answer to that, it's irrelevant. The neomonarchist are apparently claiming that people moving between small monarchies would provide pressure for those monarchies to implement good policies. Instead of voting for leaders you'd vote with your feet. That requires that said monarchies (a) stay small and (b) don't restrict movement. No political system has ever done those two things perfectly, although modern democracies, even the US, are better at them than most.
Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?
"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"
Yea, so I'm bad at arithmetic; have been ever since I was a baby, and a golf club was used to make a fissure in the back of my skull. Thanks for making such a big deal about it.
If you're bad at arithmetic then check VERY carefully, using a calculator if you need to, before you make a dickish comment that depends on it. If you actually have a disability, that's too bad. It doesn't excuse being an ass.
I picked that example of that cashier on purpose. You made the same order of magnitude mistake (probably a little worse, depending on the cost of gum in your area). Except instead of generously giving the customer $100 you smack talked someone (who was correct and CAN do math) with a completely made up "fact." You ARE that bad at math. At least you were in this thread.
What assumptions did I make about your life? That you made a wildly incorrect and dickish comment on Slashdot? Part of the record. That you can't do math? Stipulated by your own statement (also on record). Anything else?
I'm not saying he should do anything. I'm saying he could. If he wanted a Tesla he could sell his mansion and move into a smaller place. He can afford one, but he doesn't want it that badly.
Yes, I know high income people often overspend themselves. That's their choice. They can afford a Tesla, but they prioritize other things.
It's a very important skill to be able to check your calculations, approximately. It's a fairly useful skill to be able to DO trivial calculations without mechanical or electronic aid as well.
Cashiers used to be able to accurately count change without a calculator. I can, and I've never been a cashier. They should CERTAINLY be able to mentally check whether what the machine is telling them is reasonable. If a cashier hits the wrong key and the till tells him to give you back $100 on your gum purchase, he needs to be able to catch that error by doing at least an approximate calculation in his head.
Your 15% figure was obviously ridiculous. Anyone capable of elementary reasoning and grade school mathematics would realize that immediately. You appear to be one of "the number came out of the computer and the computer is always right" type. With the computer you say ridiculous things whenever you make a simple error. Without it you say ridiculous things all the time.
Not really. Since all the Tesla fires have been in collisions, we need fires per collision information. It's quite likely that expensive sports cars get in different numbers of collisions than soccer mom cars.
If someone makes $394k a year (never mind 20 million), he can almost certainly afford a Tesla. He might not choose to buy one because he prioritizes other things (such as a house with a $900,000 mortgage) but that's his decision.
It's POSSIBLE he has a great number of compulsory financial obligations (like alimony and student loans) that make him unable to afford one, but unlikely.
"Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change."
Slashdot Mirror
So what? Monarchs have always been selected based on "genetic fitness." The criteria used was "closeness of relationship to the last king" or "being the badass who managed to bump off the last king and seize power."
Those are undoubtedly the two criteria that would end up being instituted, regardless of what modern DNA-based hand waving was wrapped around them.
Um, Google outsources handset design to HTC and Samsung, don't they?
Can't think of a time. In government OR large private enterprise.
That's why there are boards of directors and shareholders. It doesn't have to be incestuous.
You know, there are still a lot of ships running around. Sails have gone out of fashion, but you could just skip that step and power the ship's propellors with energy you harvest from the moving water using turbines.
Every shipping company on the planet would beat a path to your door for free fuel. And we could all have even cheaper junk from China!
It's kinda impractical when you're not touching the ground though.
The biggest problem with untethered airborne turbines is that they rely on cartoon physics.
They have. Someone linked a project in this discussion. It's more efficient than ground-based wind turbines.
Unlimited risks? Illustrating the point that any topic with "nuclear" in the name inspires a special brand of unreasonable hysteria, aren't you?
You end with an interesting simile:
"That would be like running an airline, and when the FAA advisories come out because of previous mechanical issues or human issues that caused crashes, you do nothing."
Japan's response to Fukushima is like dissolving all the airlines and not having passenger air travel anymore because a plane crashed due to pilot error or shoddy maintenance. When companies screw up like that the solution is to tighten up regulations and/or put the criminals in charge in jail. Not to shut down all the nuclear power plants that didn't screw up.
The queen (rather, her representative the governor general) uses one of those "on paper not real" powers to sack the PM every time an election is called in Canada. But if she did so without being asked, the new parliament would just write her out of the constitution.
You're probably referring to the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Two parties had basically equal power and were constantly deadlocked. The governor general replaced the PM and the new one immediately called a general election. The GG's move didn't subvert democracy (all it did was trigger an election). Even so, he quit early, and the new parliament passed constitutional amendments designed to avoid the situation in the future. Also, the queen's office was of the opinion that the queen actually didn't have any power in the matter. The authority lay in the GG, who is actually chosen by... the prime minister.
As pictured (with the boat running), it's only possible if the air particles bounce off the sail. It's probably possible to get aerodynamic drive from a fan... I'd have to draw out the vector diagram. Either way, it's extremely inefficient. Extremely inefficient is not how you want your power generation apparatus described.
Wind turbines on an aircraft brings up images of Donald Duck blowing air at the sail on his boat. That's not a good sign.
I live in a constitutional monarchy (Canada). The queen has lots of on-paper power, but in reality, essentially none at all. She's a figurehead. A modern constitutional monarchy is very much a democracy, not a monarch with constitutionally limited powers as the term suggests (unless by "limited" you mean "limited to having your representative wave a sceptre around ceremoniously occasionally").
These guys are advocating an absolute monarchy, aristocratic oligarchy or theocracy(!).
Absolutist political systems are still nasty places to live. Dictatorships, absolute monarchies, theocracies. Or perhaps you'd like to live in Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and one of the wealthiest countries in the world, awash in the trappings of modern industrialism, technology, consumer goods and antibiotics?
Whatever the answer to that, it's irrelevant. The neomonarchist are apparently claiming that people moving between small monarchies would provide pressure for those monarchies to implement good policies. Instead of voting for leaders you'd vote with your feet. That requires that said monarchies (a) stay small and (b) don't restrict movement. No political system has ever done those two things perfectly, although modern democracies, even the US, are better at them than most.
Part of that "state" is position, so no it doesn't.
Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?
"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"
If you're bad at arithmetic then check VERY carefully, using a calculator if you need to, before you make a dickish comment that depends on it. If you actually have a disability, that's too bad. It doesn't excuse being an ass.
I picked that example of that cashier on purpose. You made the same order of magnitude mistake (probably a little worse, depending on the cost of gum in your area). Except instead of generously giving the customer $100 you smack talked someone (who was correct and CAN do math) with a completely made up "fact." You ARE that bad at math. At least you were in this thread.
What assumptions did I make about your life? That you made a wildly incorrect and dickish comment on Slashdot? Part of the record. That you can't do math? Stipulated by your own statement (also on record). Anything else?
I'm not saying he should do anything. I'm saying he could. If he wanted a Tesla he could sell his mansion and move into a smaller place. He can afford one, but he doesn't want it that badly.
Yes, I know high income people often overspend themselves. That's their choice. They can afford a Tesla, but they prioritize other things.
It's a very important skill to be able to check your calculations, approximately. It's a fairly useful skill to be able to DO trivial calculations without mechanical or electronic aid as well.
Cashiers used to be able to accurately count change without a calculator. I can, and I've never been a cashier. They should CERTAINLY be able to mentally check whether what the machine is telling them is reasonable. If a cashier hits the wrong key and the till tells him to give you back $100 on your gum purchase, he needs to be able to catch that error by doing at least an approximate calculation in his head.
Your 15% figure was obviously ridiculous. Anyone capable of elementary reasoning and grade school mathematics would realize that immediately. You appear to be one of "the number came out of the computer and the computer is always right" type. With the computer you say ridiculous things whenever you make a simple error. Without it you say ridiculous things all the time.
Not really. Since all the Tesla fires have been in collisions, we need fires per collision information. It's quite likely that expensive sports cars get in different numbers of collisions than soccer mom cars.
If someone makes $394k a year (never mind 20 million), he can almost certainly afford a Tesla. He might not choose to buy one because he prioritizes other things (such as a house with a $900,000 mortgage) but that's his decision.
It's POSSIBLE he has a great number of compulsory financial obligations (like alimony and student loans) that make him unable to afford one, but unlikely.
"This (20) is not a statistically significant number."
That statement is meaningless. Neither one of you knows anything about statistics.
"Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change."
Ah, you're one of those. Noted.
Sure you can. 20 is a perfectly reasonable sample size. To a statistician, 40 is practically infinite.
BUT you have to actually do statistics. 3/20 isn't a statistic no matter what the common corruption of the word is.