The problem with wishing that your enemy nominates the worst possible candidate is that they might win. And if you think that Americans are too smart to put someone like Newt in office, remember that George W Bush got re-elected.
It's really not about how much Obama is despised. The Republican core will always vote Republican, and the Democratic core will always vote democratic. The thing that matters is turnout (your core needs to be inspired) and swing voters. And unfortunately swing voters are mostly people making an emotional decision at the last minute, and are not capable or thinking about more than one week in the future or analyzing more than one week in the past - if they could they wouldn't be swing voters.
It's special (not general) relativity that gives you the light speed limit.
Traveling 1000 light years in 25 years of apparent time is a Lorentz factor of 40, requiring moving at about 0.9997 c. That requires a huge amount of energy, huge enough to put it at the same level of fantasy as FTL travel . And that doesn't even account for the time spent accelerating.
If you don't want to give away our location you could use some sort of automated relay station, maybe 0.1 light years away (with a big nuclear reactor to power it). For comparison Voyager 1 is about.0019 light years out and is in the heliosheath. It's a realistic proposal.
But why are we trying to hide our location? If FTL is impossible we don't exactly have to worry about an invading army. And if a civilization has developed FTL travel I think it's safe to assume they already know we're here - we have been leaking radio waves like crazy for over 50 years, and even if we weren't building giant space based telescopes that can see our oxygen and water rich little planet should not be a problem for that kind of civilization.
Well, that's very different than what you said in your original post. Sounds like you hate stupid DMs or stupid game systems. Well, who wouldn't? (obviously some people or they wouldn't exist). But in your original post you said you hate analogies made with the 2-axis alignment meme.
The problem seems to be you are equating lawful and good, which is exactly the opposite of what the system implies. They are on separate axes for a reason. For example you say "it would cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi". Why would calling someone chaotic cast them in an unfavorable light? Do you have some judgement on chaotic? That is your judgement, I don't think it comes from the 2-axis system. And I don't think it really implies the problem that you imply on the conflict between different legal systems, again that is just your interpretation. Obviously the D+D universe is a narrow one, but it naturally expands to be a great system for thinking about the world and people, especially when cultures and laws differ so much it gives a good framework for differentiating between people who care about the rules and people who care about good. I'm not really thinking of D+D when I think of the 2-axis system, and I don't think most people are - it's much bigger than its origin.
And your example about slavery is spot on, I'm not sure how you came to such a poor conclusion using it. Slavery existed for centuries precisely because most people are lawful neutral and a few powerful people are very skillful at being lawful evil. If you can't separate "lawful" from "good" in your mind you loose this major lesson from history. It applies to things like the "war on drugs" too, which is lawful evil.
(that being said I just read that D+D has gone back to a 1-axis system, with 5 positions, eliminating chaotic good and lawful evil, to which I say WTF. But I don't really care about D+D, the system stands on its own)
The fundamental problem of a 2 party system is it divides everyone into exactly 2 camps, but there is far more than 1 dimension to political views. I think any country with a 2 party system is going to get weird combinations - it might be different combinations, but still weird. And the plurality-takes-all election system in the US means you will always have 2 parties - there have been brief periods of time where we had 3 but it's not stable, so one of them will die off. This is why we need to change the system.
I think you could include a very small explosive charge to destroy the electronics, which is probably the most important thing to keep out of enemy hands. You wouldn't risk blowing up civilians, and could probably contain most of the shrapnel in the shell of the vehicle (and hopefully detonate long before it reached ground). Who knows, maybe that already happened. The Iranians wouldn't want to admit it, and neither would the US.
That was for a particular case. Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long. I don't see any time limit for this, and it affects a much broader group (all of us).
It's probably based on the average of some survey - the error bards are probably big enough to justify some rounding, but don't expect congress to understand statistics. Either that or it is using some base value that has been adjusted by the consumer price index.
Macro-evolution is just the cumulative effect of micro-evolution, there is no difference. The people who use those words hold onto a belief that micro-evolution can only result in small changes and can never result in the big changes, i.e. they say that it is impossible for a monkey and a human to have evolved from a common ancestor. The entire point of inventing the distinction is so that they can dismiss all evidence that comes from the hypothesize/test/observe process as not being relevant to the big picture of evolution, i.e. it prevents them from having to look at any experimental evidence so they can hold onto anti-scientific beliefs.
Or they will talk about "micro-evolution" versus "macro-evolution" - it's a completely false distinction, but it allows them to hold onto their believe in the face of overwhelming experimental evidence (but they still have to ignore the overwhelming fossil evidence).
Wile E Coyote always believed in gravity, it's just that sometimes he believed he was standing on rock when he wasn't. He was OK until he saw evidence otherwise. The Road Runner was the same, he was just clever enough (or fast enough) to not look down until he got to the other side of the canyon.
Now the real question is why the road runner could run through a painted tunnel but the coyote couldn't.
You recall wrong - the pilgrims were highly religious, it's just their brand of religion was not legal in England so they went to where they could have it their own way.
This is a classic Prisoner's dilemma problem. The solution to any prisoner's dilemma is to change the pay-offs to make cooperation pay better, which is what Australia is trying to do here.
There are different factors to consider here - resistance to antibiotics and antivirals is indeed a big problem, especially since the genes can transfer horizontally between species. But a virus that mutates so as to not be recognizable to the current vaccine is not so much of a problem - we just make a new version of the vaccine. We do it all the time with the flu virus. Maybe a slowly mutating species turn into a quickly mutating species due to the evolutionary pressures of vaccines, but it seems unlikely, it would take a rather big genetic change, and there is no evidence of it happening yet (as far as I know) - unlike resistance to antibiotics which is well demonstrated.
It sounded far more like a real apology than most corporate apologies. It admits they were wrong, which most corporations never do, and actually says "sorry", which they often avoid too. I give them cred for this.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with wishing that your enemy nominates the worst possible candidate is that they might win. And if you think that Americans are too smart to put someone like Newt in office, remember that George W Bush got re-elected.
It's really not about how much Obama is despised. The Republican core will always vote Republican, and the Democratic core will always vote democratic. The thing that matters is turnout (your core needs to be inspired) and swing voters. And unfortunately swing voters are mostly people making an emotional decision at the last minute, and are not capable or thinking about more than one week in the future or analyzing more than one week in the past - if they could they wouldn't be swing voters.
It's special (not general) relativity that gives you the light speed limit.
Traveling 1000 light years in 25 years of apparent time is a Lorentz factor of 40, requiring moving at about 0.9997 c. That requires a huge amount of energy, huge enough to put it at the same level of fantasy as FTL travel . And that doesn't even account for the time spent accelerating.
If you don't want to give away our location you could use some sort of automated relay station, maybe 0.1 light years away (with a big nuclear reactor to power it). For comparison Voyager 1 is about .0019 light years out and is in the heliosheath. It's a realistic proposal.
But why are we trying to hide our location? If FTL is impossible we don't exactly have to worry about an invading army. And if a civilization has developed FTL travel I think it's safe to assume they already know we're here - we have been leaking radio waves like crazy for over 50 years, and even if we weren't building giant space based telescopes that can see our oxygen and water rich little planet should not be a problem for that kind of civilization.
That, plus the fact that is incredibly freaking small. So small it's not even a planet.
Well, that's very different than what you said in your original post. Sounds like you hate stupid DMs or stupid game systems. Well, who wouldn't? (obviously some people or they wouldn't exist). But in your original post you said you hate analogies made with the 2-axis alignment meme.
Why is that delusional? He paid T-Mobile for service. He got service. Why does he care who owns the towers?
The problem seems to be you are equating lawful and good, which is exactly the opposite of what the system implies. They are on separate axes for a reason. For example you say "it would cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi". Why would calling someone chaotic cast them in an unfavorable light? Do you have some judgement on chaotic? That is your judgement, I don't think it comes from the 2-axis system. And I don't think it really implies the problem that you imply on the conflict between different legal systems, again that is just your interpretation. Obviously the D+D universe is a narrow one, but it naturally expands to be a great system for thinking about the world and people, especially when cultures and laws differ so much it gives a good framework for differentiating between people who care about the rules and people who care about good. I'm not really thinking of D+D when I think of the 2-axis system, and I don't think most people are - it's much bigger than its origin.
And your example about slavery is spot on, I'm not sure how you came to such a poor conclusion using it. Slavery existed for centuries precisely because most people are lawful neutral and a few powerful people are very skillful at being lawful evil. If you can't separate "lawful" from "good" in your mind you loose this major lesson from history. It applies to things like the "war on drugs" too, which is lawful evil.
(that being said I just read that D+D has gone back to a 1-axis system, with 5 positions, eliminating chaotic good and lawful evil, to which I say WTF. But I don't really care about D+D, the system stands on its own)
All my heroes are chaotic good.
How does gluing the key in the ignition equate to "taking the temptation out of the car"?
I think if the insurance company discovered you had glued the key into the ignition they might not cover your losses.
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping ... those were the days.
The fundamental problem of a 2 party system is it divides everyone into exactly 2 camps, but there is far more than 1 dimension to political views. I think any country with a 2 party system is going to get weird combinations - it might be different combinations, but still weird. And the plurality-takes-all election system in the US means you will always have 2 parties - there have been brief periods of time where we had 3 but it's not stable, so one of them will die off. This is why we need to change the system.
Thermite is rather hard to ignite. Explosives are much easier.
I think you could include a very small explosive charge to destroy the electronics, which is probably the most important thing to keep out of enemy hands. You wouldn't risk blowing up civilians, and could probably contain most of the shrapnel in the shell of the vehicle (and hopefully detonate long before it reached ground). Who knows, maybe that already happened. The Iranians wouldn't want to admit it, and neither would the US.
That was for a particular case. Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long. I don't see any time limit for this, and it affects a much broader group (all of us).
Why farm toads? To eat?
To lick.
It's probably based on the average of some survey - the error bards are probably big enough to justify some rounding, but don't expect congress to understand statistics. Either that or it is using some base value that has been adjusted by the consumer price index.
Macro-evolution is just the cumulative effect of micro-evolution, there is no difference. The people who use those words hold onto a belief that micro-evolution can only result in small changes and can never result in the big changes, i.e. they say that it is impossible for a monkey and a human to have evolved from a common ancestor. The entire point of inventing the distinction is so that they can dismiss all evidence that comes from the hypothesize/test/observe process as not being relevant to the big picture of evolution, i.e. it prevents them from having to look at any experimental evidence so they can hold onto anti-scientific beliefs.
Or they will talk about "micro-evolution" versus "macro-evolution" - it's a completely false distinction, but it allows them to hold onto their believe in the face of overwhelming experimental evidence (but they still have to ignore the overwhelming fossil evidence).
yes, there are rocks that can float
Not to mention wood, ducks, and witches
Wile E Coyote always believed in gravity, it's just that sometimes he believed he was standing on rock when he wasn't. He was OK until he saw evidence otherwise. The Road Runner was the same, he was just clever enough (or fast enough) to not look down until he got to the other side of the canyon.
Now the real question is why the road runner could run through a painted tunnel but the coyote couldn't.
You recall wrong - the pilgrims were highly religious, it's just their brand of religion was not legal in England so they went to where they could have it their own way.
This is a classic Prisoner's dilemma problem. The solution to any prisoner's dilemma is to change the pay-offs to make cooperation pay better, which is what Australia is trying to do here.
Polio was well on its way out ... now it is on it's way back in due to conspiracy theories - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#Eradication
There are different factors to consider here - resistance to antibiotics and antivirals is indeed a big problem, especially since the genes can transfer horizontally between species. But a virus that mutates so as to not be recognizable to the current vaccine is not so much of a problem - we just make a new version of the vaccine. We do it all the time with the flu virus. Maybe a slowly mutating species turn into a quickly mutating species due to the evolutionary pressures of vaccines, but it seems unlikely, it would take a rather big genetic change, and there is no evidence of it happening yet (as far as I know) - unlike resistance to antibiotics which is well demonstrated.
It sounded far more like a real apology than most corporate apologies. It admits they were wrong, which most corporations never do, and actually says "sorry", which they often avoid too. I give them cred for this.