Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Our dilemma
How many of the readers of this post have ever complained about new laws passing that are unconstitutional? Like really be honest. And usually you think "how could our perfect goverment become so corrupt?" Here's the answer to the last question. It is a slow process little bits at a time kind of like that boiled frog analogy where we think "oh it's only a little bit of my freedom, or it doesn't have anything to do with me." Or maybe people did realize they were losing their freedom but thought "oh I'm too small to make a difference, or it will adjust itself on its own." Well, did it adjust itself ? It did adjust itself here and there but unfortunately that's even a slower process than losing the rights to begin with. Are we going to have the mentality that it will adjust itself on its own or catch our freedom and keep our goverment and the inalienable rights and freedoms it was based upon before it's to late?
Monday, April 28, 2014
Things that you thought were true but are totally false.
Mount Everest is one whopping big mountain, but is it the tallest in the world? In fact it is not. A mountain is highest in regard to how far it soars above sea level. But technically it is tallest from base to summit. And Mauna Kea kills it at being the tallest.
Here's the deets: Above sea level, Mauna Kea (in Hawaii) is only 13,799 feet (4,206 meters). But when you count the crazy enormous portion of it that's underwater, it's 33,465 feet tall (10,200 meters). Everest, that snobby little upstart, is only 29,029 feet (8,848 meters) above sea level, with none of it below sea level [source: Mitchinson and Lloyd].
But the shame doesn't end there. Mount Kilimanjaro hasn't taken the stand yet. Kilimanjaro is 19,340 feet (5,895 meters) top to bottom. So it's not as tall as Everest – but Everest is surrounded by the rest of its friends, the Himalayas, all of which are collectively growing by a quarter of an inch per year and pushing Everest's summit higher. Kilimanjaro, on the other hand, is solitary, rising out from the relative flatness of Tanzania all on its dramatically striking own [source: Mitchinson and Lloyd]
another one is that Different Parts of Your Tongue Detect Different Tastes.
Lots of people think different parts of the tongue are fine-tuned to detect different tastes. The tip of the tongue is where you get your cupcake on, the sides are where the salty taste really hits home, bitter's in the back, and in between is the sour zone. This "fact" was the prevailing notion for a very long time. It has persisted in spite of millions of kids in health class insisting that the wooden spoon just tastes like wooden spoon, no matter how they lick it.
More recently, however, we've found out that the whole zones theory was pretty much bologna. (That would be the umami talking. More about that in a sec.) It turns out people can sense different tastes all over their tongues. There are a few outliers, but for most people, them's the facts.
Then there's the fifth basic taste that doesn't get a lot of PR, and that'sumami. Auguste Escoffier, the pimpest chef in 19th century France, concocted this fifth wheel in the palate party. Foodies swooned over it – it's been described as savory and meaty – but scientists stuck to the sweet/salty/bitter/sour taste tetrahedron.
Even though umami was a familiar taste in Japan, the "fifth taste" idea didn't get much traction there, either. That is until Kikunae Ikeda, a whiz-bang Japanese chemist, decided to get to the bottom of what umami was all about. He figured out the taste came from glutamic acid, and he called it the Japanese version of yummy.
No one at the time believed him, though, and it wasn't until the end of the 20th century that scientists decided to look into it. They realized Ikeda was right all along.
Your fingers don’t wrinkle in water because the skin is absorbing water and swelling.
It’s actually caused by the autonomic nervous system, and is thought to have evolved because it gives ancestral primates a better grip in slippery, wet environments.
Monday, April 21, 2014
General Motors
Recently general motors (gm) had to recall 2.6 million cars for faulty ignition switches. This is a chart of the cars they recalled and what was wrong with them. But overall the ignition switch could cause the engine to stop and/or the airbag to be disabled.
These problem at least 12 deaths and 31 crashes. There are a few things that they could have done to avoid this crisis and that they can do to never do again.
First, they could test the vehicle haw people will drive it. By that i'm referring to the quote by GM that says "the cars are safe to drive as long as a key and ring only are the only items on a key chain." But almost no one does that. Most people have at least a dozen keys on their key ring. They should test the car with a weight and also without for this particular problem.
Second, they need to address issues when they arise. And not in secret. In this problem they tried and failed fixing it by changing the part and not the part number. So they wouldn't be accountable for the problem. If they would have announced the problem right up front they wouldn't have had to pay so much and they would have had an easier time fixing the problem because it was already public.
Third, they need to be honest. This covers everything else i think but really this is what it's all about. They kept the problem secret and they tried to fix it secretly to be unaccountable for their mistake as i mentioned earlier. they new this was wrong and they did it anyway. "GM said that Our principle throughout this process has been to the put the customer first" and that's all fine and well but what about before this problem was discovered by the public, were we first than or money. They new this could and probably would kill people but they didn't do anything about it.
I've concluded that if they just always put the customer first, above anything and everything, than they will have a successful business that will not have huge problems like these. And possibly they will even have more trust by their costumers because of their people.
First, they could test the vehicle haw people will drive it. By that i'm referring to the quote by GM that says "the cars are safe to drive as long as a key and ring only are the only items on a key chain." But almost no one does that. Most people have at least a dozen keys on their key ring. They should test the car with a weight and also without for this particular problem.
Second, they need to address issues when they arise. And not in secret. In this problem they tried and failed fixing it by changing the part and not the part number. So they wouldn't be accountable for the problem. If they would have announced the problem right up front they wouldn't have had to pay so much and they would have had an easier time fixing the problem because it was already public.
Third, they need to be honest. This covers everything else i think but really this is what it's all about. They kept the problem secret and they tried to fix it secretly to be unaccountable for their mistake as i mentioned earlier. they new this was wrong and they did it anyway. "GM said that Our principle throughout this process has been to the put the customer first" and that's all fine and well but what about before this problem was discovered by the public, were we first than or money. They new this could and probably would kill people but they didn't do anything about it.
I've concluded that if they just always put the customer first, above anything and everything, than they will have a successful business that will not have huge problems like these. And possibly they will even have more trust by their costumers because of their people.
Friday, April 18, 2014
National Popular Vote
There is a movement underway to create a National Popular Vote by a system of interstate compacts. Currently 10 states have signed on to this compact, pledging the votes of all their delegates to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. This compact would take effect when enough states to total 270 electoral vote (electoral majority) sign on to the compact, thus insuring that the winner of the popular vote would have enough electoral votes to win the election.
Advocates of this reform say, for example, "what this would do is, all those billions raised for campaigns, instead of being funneled into a handful of states, they would have to be spread out across the whole country..." While their concern for disproportional spending is admirable, it is also completely disingenuous. This will not negate the "momentum" effect of states with early votes in the primaries. But it will funnel enormous amounts of money to the 146 counties where over half the U.S. population resides.
If we compare the map of the counties where half the U.S population resides with the map of the results of the last presidential election, it is easily noticeable that these same counties are overwhelmingly Democrat.
This is a transparently political Democratic party grab for power. It is just as transparently political as the Republican's attempts to decrease minority voting under the banner of "preventing voter fraud."
Advocates of this reform say, for example, "what this would do is, all those billions raised for campaigns, instead of being funneled into a handful of states, they would have to be spread out across the whole country..." While their concern for disproportional spending is admirable, it is also completely disingenuous. This will not negate the "momentum" effect of states with early votes in the primaries. But it will funnel enormous amounts of money to the 146 counties where over half the U.S. population resides.
If we compare the map of the counties where half the U.S population resides with the map of the results of the last presidential election, it is easily noticeable that these same counties are overwhelmingly Democrat.
This is a transparently political Democratic party grab for power. It is just as transparently political as the Republican's attempts to decrease minority voting under the banner of "preventing voter fraud."
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Cold Steel vs. Benchmade
Some have asked. Many want to know. I have set on a quest to answer the question. Cold Steel vs Benchmade, who will win? Having searched for, and found valuable information on both kinds of knives, I will tell the story of the epic battle!
Different factors:
1) blade steel.
2) blade sharpness.
3) handle material.
4) handle strength.
5) lock strength.
6) size.
7) overall quality.
8) variety.
9) price.
Cold Steel's knives consists of mostly aus8a knives, with a few harder, tougher, steel. And a couple of high carbon steel.
Though the aus8a steel has been expertly heat-treated, it is still rather soft. The Benchmade knife army is full of really hard, strong steels, that few can rival. The various types of steel are all top notch.
After a hard and bloody battle, the Benchmade comes out on top. The aus8a Cold Steel knives have been beaten with the Benchmade's harder, tougher steel. But the Cold Steel knives held up very well, and for a good long while, they were beaten. The winner is BENCHMADE!
The battle if the sharpest blade. The two are equal, but, it will take Cold Steel a shorter time to dull the edge, thus, BENCHMADE wins!
The handle strength, and material varies from strong, reinforced plastic, to aluminum and steels, on the Benchmade knifes. The cold steel has usually strong plastics for there handles, that are very tough. The Cold Steel knives gave very comfortable, and fit the hand well. The winner is COLD STEEL!
When it comes to the lock on the knives, Benchmade usually has the
AXIS lock, which is a strong lock. But it is beaten by the Cold Steel
Triad Lock, which is the strongest talk on the market. The winner is, COLD STEEL!
The size for most of the Benchmade knives is usually smaller, and don't very that much it there sizes. But Cold Steel's knives have a large selection of sizes. They can range from 12" to 2". Thus, COLD STEEL wins!
The overall quality between the knives is not very different. The Benchmade knives come out on top, due to the materials they use to construct their knives. BENCHMADE wins!
The Benchmade had a very large selection and varieties of knives. But they don't differ from each other very much. They're usually limited to pocket folders. The Cold Steel knives also have a very large selection of folding knives, as well as fixed blades, push daggers, throwing knives/throwing stars, spears, clubs, and swords. COLD STEEL wins!
And last, but not least, the price. Benchmade knives usually cost anywhere from $150-$400. But the Cold Steel knives have a much lower price, for near matching quality. They usually range from $25-$200. COLD STEEL wins!
Now, in my personal opinion, I believe Cold Steel you better place to put your money. The biggest reason for this is the price and quality ratio. You get a lot more for whet you pay at Cold Steel.
COLD STEEL wins!
Different factors:
1) blade steel.
2) blade sharpness.
3) handle material.
4) handle strength.
5) lock strength.
6) size.
7) overall quality.
8) variety.
9) price.
Cold Steel's knives consists of mostly aus8a knives, with a few harder, tougher, steel. And a couple of high carbon steel.
Though the aus8a steel has been expertly heat-treated, it is still rather soft. The Benchmade knife army is full of really hard, strong steels, that few can rival. The various types of steel are all top notch.
After a hard and bloody battle, the Benchmade comes out on top. The aus8a Cold Steel knives have been beaten with the Benchmade's harder, tougher steel. But the Cold Steel knives held up very well, and for a good long while, they were beaten. The winner is BENCHMADE!
The battle if the sharpest blade. The two are equal, but, it will take Cold Steel a shorter time to dull the edge, thus, BENCHMADE wins!
The handle strength, and material varies from strong, reinforced plastic, to aluminum and steels, on the Benchmade knifes. The cold steel has usually strong plastics for there handles, that are very tough. The Cold Steel knives gave very comfortable, and fit the hand well. The winner is COLD STEEL!
When it comes to the lock on the knives, Benchmade usually has the
AXIS lock, which is a strong lock. But it is beaten by the Cold Steel
Triad Lock, which is the strongest talk on the market. The winner is, COLD STEEL!
The size for most of the Benchmade knives is usually smaller, and don't very that much it there sizes. But Cold Steel's knives have a large selection of sizes. They can range from 12" to 2". Thus, COLD STEEL wins!
The overall quality between the knives is not very different. The Benchmade knives come out on top, due to the materials they use to construct their knives. BENCHMADE wins!
The Benchmade had a very large selection and varieties of knives. But they don't differ from each other very much. They're usually limited to pocket folders. The Cold Steel knives also have a very large selection of folding knives, as well as fixed blades, push daggers, throwing knives/throwing stars, spears, clubs, and swords. COLD STEEL wins!
And last, but not least, the price. Benchmade knives usually cost anywhere from $150-$400. But the Cold Steel knives have a much lower price, for near matching quality. They usually range from $25-$200. COLD STEEL wins!
Now, in my personal opinion, I believe Cold Steel you better place to put your money. The biggest reason for this is the price and quality ratio. You get a lot more for whet you pay at Cold Steel.
COLD STEEL wins!
football players unionize
On March 26, Peter Ohr, Regional Director of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Region 13 held that Northwestern University’s football players are in fact school employees and have the right to form a labor union. and they did.
but this is wrong their not employees. the employees at a college are teachers, coaches, and instructors. they teach everyone else who are the students how to do whatever they are teaching. soon they will be asking for money. it won't be the first thing that will happen but they will eventually once most teams have a union. then they will get it even though it is currently against N.A.C.C. policy. but that might even hurt them because of taxes.
they do seem to have some reasons that are good though. apparently the N.C.A.A. is good at forgetting players once they are injured. but if players are being treated unfairly then they don’t need to have a union. they can appeal to or sue the N.C.A.A. for protection. but they don't need to be employees. even though the N.C.A.A. should sufficiently care for them if they get hurt in a game, that's not a reason to become employees. just convince the government that the N.C.A.A. have a legal right to do so.
i think that
so this whole thing shouldn't happen. and if it continues they will eventually ask for pay and then schools may not have enough money for other areas or sports. so i think they should have fixed their problems they say they had within the system, and not create this new system.
but this is wrong their not employees. the employees at a college are teachers, coaches, and instructors. they teach everyone else who are the students how to do whatever they are teaching. soon they will be asking for money. it won't be the first thing that will happen but they will eventually once most teams have a union. then they will get it even though it is currently against N.A.C.C. policy. but that might even hurt them because of taxes.
they do seem to have some reasons that are good though. apparently the N.C.A.A. is good at forgetting players once they are injured. but if players are being treated unfairly then they don’t need to have a union. they can appeal to or sue the N.C.A.A. for protection. but they don't need to be employees. even though the N.C.A.A. should sufficiently care for them if they get hurt in a game, that's not a reason to become employees. just convince the government that the N.C.A.A. have a legal right to do so.
i think that
college athletes aren't employees. it's more like a apprenticeship than anything else. they learn how to do the job (play the sport) and develop their ability in it, so that they can go on to do it successfully as a professional. professional teams want to see that they player has had experience and has been good on the field. and that is easiest if there's a big team that the players go on as preparation before they become a pro. so
many professional sports have minor leagues to train players but in the case of N.F.L. and the N.B.A. the N.C.A.A. is the minor league. so this whole thing shouldn't happen. and if it continues they will eventually ask for pay and then schools may not have enough money for other areas or sports. so i think they should have fixed their problems they say they had within the system, and not create this new system.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Placing Political Conditions on Humanitarian Aid to Foreign Countries. Just or unjust?
Is making countries accept terms before receiving aid after a natural, or economic disaster just, or unjust?
On the one hand, we have the position that it is unjust. The primary argument here would be Human Life, and Human Dignity.
Humanitarian Aid as defined by the Global Humanitarian Assistance is: "Aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies." I would like to draw special attention to the terms: Designed to save lives, and also maintain and protect human dignity.
While the people in power are stuck bickering over who gets what when it's all over, and how the money is supposedly used, millions are dying. Which is certainly not designed to save lives, but to benefit for their country and their benefit as much as possible rather than trying to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity.
What if the country is not able to accept the terms? These people won't be able to get the aid that it needs. Thus, the affirmative is arguing that political conditions on humanitarian aid are unjust, and therefore should not be tolerated.
Some argue that it is just. The points that they make are:
Our primary responsibility is to our own people. Those in charge of the country, our main concern, is that of keeping their own people safe. They have the right to know where, and when that money, food, or clothing is going to. If no conditions are made, how can we be sure that our money is going to the right place? In North Korea we sent them aid, and they used it to build Nuclear weapons and have been threatening their trade partners, the US, South Korea, China, Russia, and the UN. Without political conditions, or strong ones at that, countries could deprive the aid to those that need it and use it against those countries that sent it. In order to protect their people, and maintain the dignity of the people being helped, and making sure the aid is given to those that need it, the Negative concludes that it is just.
On the one hand, we have the position that it is unjust. The primary argument here would be Human Life, and Human Dignity.
Humanitarian Aid as defined by the Global Humanitarian Assistance is: "Aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies." I would like to draw special attention to the terms: Designed to save lives, and also maintain and protect human dignity.
While the people in power are stuck bickering over who gets what when it's all over, and how the money is supposedly used, millions are dying. Which is certainly not designed to save lives, but to benefit for their country and their benefit as much as possible rather than trying to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity.
What if the country is not able to accept the terms? These people won't be able to get the aid that it needs. Thus, the affirmative is arguing that political conditions on humanitarian aid are unjust, and therefore should not be tolerated.
Some argue that it is just. The points that they make are:
Our primary responsibility is to our own people. Those in charge of the country, our main concern, is that of keeping their own people safe. They have the right to know where, and when that money, food, or clothing is going to. If no conditions are made, how can we be sure that our money is going to the right place? In North Korea we sent them aid, and they used it to build Nuclear weapons and have been threatening their trade partners, the US, South Korea, China, Russia, and the UN. Without political conditions, or strong ones at that, countries could deprive the aid to those that need it and use it against those countries that sent it. In order to protect their people, and maintain the dignity of the people being helped, and making sure the aid is given to those that need it, the Negative concludes that it is just.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)