483 karma · joined August 28, 2013
Having grown up playing hockey in a pretty rough league that's not true. You just hook your hand under the back of the helmet and pull, it'll pop right off.
I thought I hated Math till I got to university. I had to take a bunch of remedial courses on high school level math but ultimately ended up with a math minor in addition to my CS major because I enjoyed the subject so much.
The K-12 school system is fundamentally broken but I don't know what the solution is.
Corporations will get involved, jack the prices up, throw in ads and try to invent cable again.
Repeat.
It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown).
The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1].
An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue
>Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.
So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules.
That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations.
Even just from the numbers presented imagine the lower percentile person who was making say 10k in constant dollars in the 80s. They're making 20k (100% increase) in same dollars in 2014.
Imagining the person in top was making 1,000,000 dollars in constant dollars they dropped 29% so they're now "only" making 750kish.
I know which group I'd rather be in.
Specifically I claimed that one of the big reasons that possession became more prized is because of Hockey Canada changing their developmental programs after missing gold at the Winter Olympics three times in a row. Specifically they started to do serious analysis on teams that were winning, both in the NHL and international level teams.
I was lucky enough to have parents well off enough that I got to play organized travel team hockey through my entire childhood (age 5 - 18). I'm 27 and I caught the beginning of the shift in thinking near the middle of my developmental "career". You could tell the difference immediately (and it wasn't incredibly kind to a physcally large forward like myself). Even more so, if you went and watched some of the high level younger teams though, the ones that got coaches from away and got taught the latest theory you could see the way the game was re-shaping itself even if at the top current level the stats were just showing that "good teams are performing well".
So that's why I think that dismissing theory and statistics as just saying that the other team is "better" in a roundabout way is missing the point. Quantifying which team is better and why allows changes to the developmental programs that produce players. If you look at the kids that came out of the developmental shift you can see the results of the statistical analysis, the 90s and early 00s was not kind to North American international hockey but as the kids that were taught with the new statistically informed program started moving up to the professional level you can see the level of play increasing and now it's Canada and the US that are the dominant teams on the world stage and all of that happened because the people running the programs started to look at the statistics of what actually worked and implementing them into the training and development of the next generation of athletes.
For a lot of reasons (up to and including global geo-politics) North American teams for a long, long time over-emphasized dump and chase The basic tactic is that you carry or pass the puck up until it will no longer cause an icing call then throw it into the other teams defensive corner and send your forwards in to generate a turn over.
Until reasonable statistical analysis this was thought of as the "right" way to play the game. Actually it was long AFTER the statistics showed it because politics was playing a role in what the statisticians wanted to find. They wanted to prove that the NA way of playing was "right" so they went and found stats to prove it. It wasn't until a combination of the NHL rising ascendant, the fall of the Soviet Union and I would argue the fact that Canada missed Gold in the '92, '94, and '98 Winter Olympics that forced Hockey Canada to look at their developmental programs and do some honest analysis.
Today though, much like in this article short quick passes and maintaining possession through zone entry is preferred and the statistics back that up. I'd imagine that if what you say Liverpool has been doing it true it's for similar reasons, maintaining possession allows you to generate more shots, shots are important if you want to score, ergo keeping possession is important for scoring.
Put another way if do something in a non-orthodox way (free ascent w/o oxygen) that might be MORE impressive than a traditional ascent with O2 assistance but that doesn't mean the traditional ascent isn't impressive on it's own.
Hasn't this just moved all the issues with writing code over to writing the specifications?
I think this will be the real win of this technology eventually. Most if not all first world farmers understand that over the lifetime of their farm doing proper crop rotation increases yields but there is still a very reasonable instinctual reluctance to give up the short term profit of a high yield crop in order to plant a rotation crop of less profitable plants to keep the soil up correctly. Evening out that profit per field would probably be a great boon to operations that are too small to rotate entire fields.
It would also probably be an excellent way to get non farmers involved in the food production chain, especially in semi-rural areas. I grew up just in front of a community pasture which served as a grazing ground for three or four different farmer's herds and a couple of people who kept a couple of milk cows for local cheese making and stuff like that. Extending that concept to plants would be great, a giant community garden where people could plant crops that they are interested in and receive the yields at the end of the growing period. Larger farming outfits could plant around the regular people and ultimately keep costs down because of subsidy. Round out five or six gardens with some cash crops like wheat, soy or corn while locals use some of the field to grow their own grocery vegetables.
Exactly, call me when they're killing 1.2 million people a year[1].
The number of people killed by automobiles is completely fucking insane and the only reason we're cool with it is it mostly doesn't happen to someone a large number of people care about and if it does we can hum, haw and then lay blame on someone (who is probably dead).
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
A military is like a parachute. It seems pretty useless until you need it.