My understaning of the Casmiri effect is that Zero-Point Energy is constantly creating and destroying particles of all sizes and frequencies. The two plates exclude some frequencies which creates a pressure imbalance which pushs the plates together.
So an electrolyte has charged particles everywhere. The microwaves energize them. The objects exclude some microwave energy creating an imbalance which pushes the plates together...
Since the forces are so much stronger the effect is much more dramatic....I just wonder how accurate the predictions will be.
While the blood doesn't mix, nutrients and other macromolecules are actively transported across the interface. This include IgG antibodies. IgG antibodies are designed to cross every barrier in the body. You find them in saliva, intestinal contents, tears, brain tissue, sweat and of course blood.
IgG antibodies are free floating (rather than attached to an immune cell). They cause the target antigen to clump up and helps other immune cells target the antigen for destruction. The infant has a representative sample of all the IgG the mother produces (every infection generates a few).
These proteins have a half life of a few months. This means that after about 3-4 months the levels start dropping quickly. Breast milk also contains these antibodies but after about 6 months the infants digestive system is efficient enough to destroy the antibodies before they make it into the blood stream.
The reason you vaccinate at 2-6 months is that the mothers antibodies provide protection up until then. After about 6 months the childs immune system is essentially on it's own. If it has seen a disease (or vaccine) prior to then they can safetly develope a native immunity to it while still under the umbrella of the mothers immune protection.
Today it is rare for a baby to die. 300 years ago it was assumed that most would die before the age of 5. The primary difference is vaccines. By vaccinating children you protect the child AND you reduce the disease load on the population in general.
I am very pleased that your gamble didn't hurt your children but if enough children are not vaccinated then the rate of these disease will shoot up dramatically, and these are deadly and debilitating diseases.
If a state decides not to disclose, fine...ignore that state for the purpose of tabulating the popular vote. You still have enough votes to declare a winner.
Wyoming would disenfranchise itself... Same with Texas or California...
Remember, this law doesn't become active until 270+ votes worth of states do the same thing. If it drops below 270 than it goes back to what is happening today.
Hmmm....perhaps that is what the Dems aer doing by doing Infrastructre spending...by passing laws that help the economy in the ordinary course of business
Ah, so Mr. "I talk to my Rep at least once a year, stop whining and make him answer to you" realizes the limits of the influence we have? You'd do it by blackmailing your State (the States draw the district lines) Legislature into doing it by voting their lazy asses out of office if they don't do it.
Not at all, as I said, gerrymandering or not, my personal influence won't change. However it IS a big hassel and I think my state has better use for the time and money. I am not advocating a change in the system but neither do I object to it.
I'm sorry but I don't want to see the electoral college go anywhere. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The States retain their sovereignty.
The states have already abdicated any influence over the electoral college. All it does now is reinforce the two party system...and the two party system means both parties are essentially identical (look at UK or Israeli or any other parlimentary governemnt to see that Dems and Repubs are essentially identical).
The power for the states comes from the Senate and to a lesser extent the House. The president (and VP) is the ONLY national elected office. They should be directly elected.
1) No more gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn in a non-partisan way that ideally respects (within the limitation of having to have them mostly the same in population) existing political and/or geographical lines.
No argument here...how would you do it?
2) Representatives or those running for the position shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from those who reside outside of their district.
Minor disagreement, since representatives have direct control over comittees etc that could give undo influence to one district while no other district has any influence at all. This needs a lot of thought before you do it.
3) End the primary system. I'm not sure yet what I'd replace it with but surely we can do better than a system that's tailor made for the most partisan members picking those who get to stand in the general election? Maybe just let everybody who can meet a certain threshold (the signatures of 10% of the total number of people who voted in the last election?) be on the ballot. Then provide for run-off elections if nobody gets 50%+1 or use instant run off voting.
The primary isn't the problem, the electoral college is the system that reinforces the current parties. Eliminate teh electoral college and you will get local canidates who now get national noterity. Next election people will know about them and their party will have more influence. Plus this will increase the likleyhood of 3rd parties being elected to congress...this is why we need to remove the electoral college.
4) End the centralization of power around the leadership and seniority system in the House. I should be able to fire my Representative without worrying about my community getting dicked over because the new guy has no seniority. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not something that's in the best interest of my community also has the approval of the leadership.
Again, get rid of the electoral college. We will get many parties and a leader would have to negotiate a coalition. That would protect your district from reprisals.
The original design of the government provided Congress with the most power (First amendment and with the power of the purse). Both the courts and the president simply did what congress told them (originally).
Congress is 50% voted directly by the people who were too supposedly much of an idiot to make a good decision...that suggests they had a very high opionion to the people.
I personally speak with my representative at least once a year.
I don't know about your representative but mine gets re-elected every other year....that IS consant review.
The average may be 650,000 (I will assume your number is right) but only 50% are registered to vote and 50% of thoes vote during presidential elections and only about 25% in off year elections....The practicale size is only 163K for presidential elections and 81K for off year elections. Both of thoes numbers are fairly easily influenced if you actually put the effort to it.
Representative government is HARD. You personally have to put effort into it or you personally will be ignored. I make my representative answer to me. No amount of gerrymandering will ever change that. Stop whining and take some responsibility for your representative...like he represents YOU.
I live in a district that is very republican...yet my representative is a Democrat, Jim Marshal.
That is the current popular beleif but you really should read theFederalist Papers.
It IS true that SOME founding fahters felt that only land owners had enough connection with the country to make good decisions, there was a significant minority that wanted universal (male) sufferage from the begining. The compromise is that the states got to decide who voted.
While some Founding Fathers felt the people were idiots, most were concerned about the ability of farmers to get information rather than the ability to tihink about it.
Remember even at our founding we had some of the best education in the world AND they new it.
We had the highest literacy rates. We had very little religious fundamentalism compared to Europe. We had easily the highest political participation in the world.
Even at the begining the US citizens were acknowledged as being the most "sane" of any western country....too bad we haven't stayed that way.
The average HOUSEHOLD income in the US is about 48K.
The average HOUSEHOLD income in the world is about 2K per year. (But this one doesn't really count in the US)
The Electoral College is already a popular vote it just isn't an exact popular vote...this law changes that.
What protects the minority is NOT the president it is the House. Thoes are tiny districts which are constantly under review by it's constituents.
I maintain that the Stimulus bill is bad because it DOESN"T spend enough and gives too much as tax cuts. Infrastructure spending esentially always has an incredible ROI while tax cuts very rarly do. I am not suggesting that we nationalize everything but I am saying that the last 15 years have seen dramatic tax cuts. Balance is needed by investing in infrastrucure.
The founding fathers questioned the education level NOT the intelligence of the people.
Education for elections is 100% based on communication. When it takes 6 months for a message to get from one side of the country to another you can't expect people to really know what is going on.
That only works if the population of Wyoming is greater than the difference between the conidates.
Plus remember that Wyoming and the other tiny states will get more influence not less under this idea. What it really does is eliminate the swing states.
The states that may be against it is Florida, Ohio, PA etc. This is because these states get extra attention since the votes are close. Under this idea the votes in Wyoming would be worth just as much as the votes in Florida.
But California, Texas, NY, Iowa etc would all go with it.
Once you get 270 electoral votes it really doesn't matter what Wyoming does since the other states will give the winner enough votes based on the national results.
The votes go to the winner of the NATIONAL popular election.
Once 270 votes worth of state agree then a vote in Florida of Ohio will be worth just as much as a vote in Texas or California.
By doing this, the winner of the national popular vote will always win. By distributing the electoral votes along the popular vote of the individual states you still have the potential of a 2000 result. PLUS you still have thoes purple swing states.
The Electoral College was created because communication was so poor. There was no practical way for farmers out in the middle of no where to know all the details of the candidates. So since we are a Representative democracy, they created representatives.
Now people have access to all the information they just decide to ignore it...
If you don't think the extra 3% is worth $100 a month then
BUY THE GENERIC
Having an approved drug is not a license to print money! You still have to sell the thing. When you actually look at the history of pharma companies, this sort of name brand extension only works for about 5 years unless you have a trully novel improvment.
They probably spent about 300-500 million to get that new drug...I know it didn't work because prilosec and its generics are all OTC now. The company failed at maintaining market dominance and lost probably around half a BILLION because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
78.34517937859604837% of statistics are made up on the spot...
Seriously, is anyone surprised?
This kinda makes sense.
My understaning of the Casmiri effect is that Zero-Point Energy is constantly creating and destroying particles of all sizes and frequencies. The two plates exclude some frequencies which creates a pressure imbalance which pushs the plates together.
So an electrolyte has charged particles everywhere. The microwaves energize them. The objects exclude some microwave energy creating an imbalance which pushes the plates together...
Since the forces are so much stronger the effect is much more dramatic....I just wonder how accurate the predictions will be.
There are several thousand articles on Pubmed.
While the blood doesn't mix, nutrients and other macromolecules are actively transported across the interface. This include IgG antibodies. IgG antibodies are designed to cross every barrier in the body. You find them in saliva, intestinal contents, tears, brain tissue, sweat and of course blood.
IgG antibodies are free floating (rather than attached to an immune cell). They cause the target antigen to clump up and helps other immune cells target the antigen for destruction. The infant has a representative sample of all the IgG the mother produces (every infection generates a few).
These proteins have a half life of a few months. This means that after about 3-4 months the levels start dropping quickly. Breast milk also contains these antibodies but after about 6 months the infants digestive system is efficient enough to destroy the antibodies before they make it into the blood stream.
The reason you vaccinate at 2-6 months is that the mothers antibodies provide protection up until then. After about 6 months the childs immune system is essentially on it's own. If it has seen a disease (or vaccine) prior to then they can safetly develope a native immunity to it while still under the umbrella of the mothers immune protection.
Today it is rare for a baby to die. 300 years ago it was assumed that most would die before the age of 5. The primary difference is vaccines. By vaccinating children you protect the child AND you reduce the disease load on the population in general.
I am very pleased that your gamble didn't hurt your children but if enough children are not vaccinated then the rate of these disease will shoot up dramatically, and these are deadly and debilitating diseases.
No, the lack of thoes vacines is a leading indicator for...
Children killed or brain damaged by their idiot parents.
You have 270 votes in agreement.
If a state decides not to disclose, fine...ignore that state for the purpose of tabulating the popular vote. You still have enough votes to declare a winner.
Wyoming would disenfranchise itself...
Same with Texas or California...
Remember, this law doesn't become active until 270+ votes worth of states do the same thing. If it drops below 270 than it goes back to what is happening today.
Hmmm....perhaps that is what the Dems aer doing by doing Infrastructre spending...by passing laws that help the economy in the ordinary course of business
I have used palm OS for almost ten years.
Rest in Peace my friend, you will be missed.
Ah, so Mr. "I talk to my Rep at least once a year, stop whining and make him answer to you" realizes the limits of the influence we have? You'd do it by blackmailing your State (the States draw the district lines) Legislature into doing it by voting their lazy asses out of office if they don't do it.
Not at all, as I said, gerrymandering or not, my personal influence won't change. However it IS a big hassel and I think my state has better use for the time and money. I am not advocating a change in the system but neither do I object to it.
I'm sorry but I don't want to see the electoral college go anywhere. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The States retain their sovereignty.
The states have already abdicated any influence over the electoral college. All it does now is reinforce the two party system...and the two party system means both parties are essentially identical (look at UK or Israeli or any other parlimentary governemnt to see that Dems and Repubs are essentially identical).
The power for the states comes from the Senate and to a lesser extent the House. The president (and VP) is the ONLY national elected office. They should be directly elected.
1) No more gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn in a non-partisan way that ideally respects (within the limitation of having to have them mostly the same in population) existing political and/or geographical lines.
No argument here...how would you do it?
2) Representatives or those running for the position shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from those who reside outside of their district.
Minor disagreement, since representatives have direct control over comittees etc that could give undo influence to one district while no other district has any influence at all. This needs a lot of thought before you do it.
3) End the primary system. I'm not sure yet what I'd replace it with but surely we can do better than a system that's tailor made for the most partisan members picking those who get to stand in the general election? Maybe just let everybody who can meet a certain threshold (the signatures of 10% of the total number of people who voted in the last election?) be on the ballot. Then provide for run-off elections if nobody gets 50%+1 or use instant run off voting.
The primary isn't the problem, the electoral college is the system that reinforces the current parties. Eliminate teh electoral college and you will get local canidates who now get national noterity. Next election people will know about them and their party will have more influence. Plus this will increase the likleyhood of 3rd parties being elected to congress...this is why we need to remove the electoral college.
4) End the centralization of power around the leadership and seniority system in the House. I should be able to fire my Representative without worrying about my community getting dicked over because the new guy has no seniority. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not something that's in the best interest of my community also has the approval of the leadership.
Again, get rid of the electoral college. We will get many parties and a leader would have to negotiate a coalition. That would protect your district from reprisals.
Very true but there is a flaw in the argument...
The original design of the government provided Congress with the most power (First amendment and with the power of the purse). Both the courts and the president simply did what congress told them (originally).
Congress is 50% voted directly by the people who were too supposedly much of an idiot to make a good decision...that suggests they had a very high opionion to the people.
Hmmm...you might try harder.
I personally speak with my representative at least once a year.
I don't know about your representative but mine gets re-elected every other year....that IS consant review.
The average may be 650,000 (I will assume your number is right) but only 50% are registered to vote and 50% of thoes vote during presidential elections and only about 25% in off year elections....The practicale size is only 163K for presidential elections and 81K for off year elections. Both of thoes numbers are fairly easily influenced if you actually put the effort to it.
Representative government is HARD. You personally have to put effort into it or you personally will be ignored. I make my representative answer to me. No amount of gerrymandering will ever change that. Stop whining and take some responsibility for your representative...like he represents YOU.
I live in a district that is very republican...yet my representative is a Democrat, Jim Marshal.
That is the current popular beleif but you really should read theFederalist Papers.
It IS true that SOME founding fahters felt that only land owners had enough connection with the country to make good decisions, there was a significant minority that wanted universal (male) sufferage from the begining. The compromise is that the states got to decide who voted.
While some Founding Fathers felt the people were idiots, most were concerned about the ability of farmers to get information rather than the ability to tihink about it.
Remember even at our founding we had some of the best education in the world AND they new it.
We had the highest literacy rates.
We had very little religious fundamentalism compared to Europe.
We had easily the highest political participation in the world.
Even at the begining the US citizens were acknowledged as being the most "sane" of any western country....too bad we haven't stayed that way.
What it means is that Urban areas will get attention rather than Rural areas....how is that different than now?
There are plenty of large cities in the middle of the country...
If one candidate hangs out only in California then the other gets a disproportionate influence everywhere else in the country.
Umm...70K IS rich.
The average HOUSEHOLD income in the US is about 48K.
The average HOUSEHOLD income in the world is about 2K per year. (But this one doesn't really count in the US)
The Electoral College is already a popular vote it just isn't an exact popular vote...this law changes that.
What protects the minority is NOT the president it is the House. Thoes are tiny districts which are constantly under review by it's constituents.
I maintain that the Stimulus bill is bad because it DOESN"T spend enough and gives too much as tax cuts. Infrastructure spending esentially always has an incredible ROI while tax cuts very rarly do. I am not suggesting that we nationalize everything but I am saying that the last 15 years have seen dramatic tax cuts. Balance is needed by investing in infrastrucure.
That is the current system. Look at the Swing states. They get many times the attention of other states.
The new system means that California takes YOUR vote into account when it delegates its electoral college votes.
Right now California only looks at it's citizens for the electoral college.
Under the new system California looks at California Citizens AND Wyoming citizens AND Texas citizens.
The new system means that one person is no more important than anyone else.
Read the federalist papers.
The founding fathers questioned the education level NOT the intelligence of the people.
Education for elections is 100% based on communication. When it takes 6 months for a message to get from one side of the country to another you can't expect people to really know what is going on.
That only works if the population of Wyoming is greater than the difference between the conidates.
Plus remember that Wyoming and the other tiny states will get more influence not less under this idea. What it really does is eliminate the swing states.
The states that may be against it is Florida, Ohio, PA etc. This is because these states get extra attention since the votes are close. Under this idea the votes in Wyoming would be worth just as much as the votes in Florida.
But California, Texas, NY, Iowa etc would all go with it.
Once you get 270 electoral votes it really doesn't matter what Wyoming does since the other states will give the winner enough votes based on the national results.
Read the article....
The votes go to the winner of the NATIONAL popular election.
Once 270 votes worth of state agree then a vote in Florida of Ohio will be worth just as much as a vote in Texas or California.
By doing this, the winner of the national popular vote will always win. By distributing the electoral votes along the popular vote of the individual states you still have the potential of a 2000 result. PLUS you still have thoes purple swing states.
Actually I think this is a fantastic idea.
The Electoral College was created because communication was so poor. There was no practical way for farmers out in the middle of no where to know all the details of the candidates. So since we are a Representative democracy, they created representatives.
Now people have access to all the information they just decide to ignore it...
Finally us white aristocratic land owners won't be the only ones electing the president!
COOL!
Who do I make the check out to? BTW it is post dated Feb6, 2019.
Heck call me when a product is availible....at ANY price
Ummmm.....
If you don't think the extra 3% is worth $100 a month then
BUY THE GENERIC
Having an approved drug is not a license to print money! You still have to sell the thing. When you actually look at the history of pharma companies, this sort of name brand extension only works for about 5 years unless you have a trully novel improvment.
They probably spent about 300-500 million to get that new drug...I know it didn't work because prilosec and its generics are all OTC now. The company failed at maintaining market dominance and lost probably around half a BILLION because of it.