In the past, I've noticed organic food tended to be higher quality. I don't think this is in anywhere inherent in the organic process, but was more a result of the idea that the only places growing organic food were places specializing in higher quality food. But now that it has become a more popular label, there are plenty making food that is organic, but otherwise as cheap as possible, and then there is no quality difference. I've definitely seen studies on there being no difference in the nutrition involved, and additives will affect some products way more than others, with there being non-organic additive free versions sometimes too. So for many foods, if prepared properly or even normally, there would be no difference in the consumption.
In the end, it seems the main argument for organic is environmental, not for the consumer directly. You are potentially paying more to make less impact on the environment (... with plenty of caveats and corner cases where depending on the type of impact most worried about, organic might not be better...)
I saw this on another site a day ago, and it was best summed up by someone else in the other site's comments as "99% art, 1% science or technology." The images are essentially abstract art that seem to convey very little content that actually corresponds to how things work. Even the statement that the crests correspond to a 1 and the trough correspond to a 0 is horrendously wrong, as otherwise every message would be 101010101010... If you deviated far enough away from the wave shape, such that not every trough has a corresponding crest, that non-wave shaped structure would be filtered out by equipment selecting the narrow band of frequencies corresponding to a channel.
A more accurate image of what it would look like would to image each wireless router was a light bulb, most things would look like they were made of glass or frosted glass since a lot would be transparent to those frequencies, except conductors like metals that would be opaque and reflective. You could get into some diffraction and interference effects if looking close enough, but that probably wouldn't be noticed in larger, outdoor scenes like they are trying to show.
In the US, except on certain kinds of federal property, in territories and interstate commerce, knife laws are made by the state and cities, and vary a lot. Some states set the limit at 5-6 inches, others have no limit on size, or only limit you if you are carrying it concealed, and in several cases a concealed weapons permit (the same needed to carry a gun) lets you carry a larger or concealed knife. Some of the original knife laws were original argued for precisely because people could carry guns, that the knife was not needed for self-defense and was used only for knife fights. Although latter some states also tried to use laws to discriminate against minorities or poor people by allowing guns and not knives.
They make fun of surfboards for being used for something other than catching waves, except surfboards, especially longboards, make great paddleboards. They get used for travel between the Hawaiian islands and Duke Kahanamoku saved eight fisherman from a capsized boat by paddling back and forth from the shore. That said, I don't know what to make of a motorized one.
The first rule isn't so much an internet rule. I've probably abused more things than I should have to get them to play music (Tesla coils, motors, magnets, lasers), to the point that if some device is found to be making a weird tone, people will glare at me in meets as if it were now at risk of being used for a new "testing procedure" by me.
But I'm not sure if I agree with the assholes being a the site admin's fault, depending on the nature of the site. For more sites where discussions are targeted, narrow, or kind of have some external guidance (e.g. responses to random news), it can be kind of easier to just kick out anyone that doesn't behave. For more open ended sites, where it is based more on a developed social community that can end up talking about a lot of off-topic things, it gets muddier. You can have people that are perfectly reasonable about 95% of topics, while having something they get more jerkish, or worse over. Then you have issues of deciding to either restrict topics due to random issues of members or get rid of members that probably are making a net positive contribution. My previous foray into site administration fell under the latter category, and the amount of cat herding needed and potential for drama made me decide to never do that again and I would probably in the future only manage a site where with a narrow topic with the option for stricter, semi-arbitrary rules to keep people away from problem topics.
Some areas have places that will buy and recycle the old panes of glass, and for a cost, could get you double paned windows using the old style glass. At the very least if anyone does ever replace them, look around and you could potentially make a little money back selling the old panes. I lived for a time in a house built in the 20s that had maybe half the panes still original in it that were wavy. Although I think by that point, wavy glass was from rollers and not blown (and even for that blown ones was some industrialized large blown cylinders, not like the hand blown stuff of before). There were ways of making flat glass back then, just it was rather expensive.
And I don't like how the io9 link above refers to glass as neither a solid nor liquid. It has the mechanical properties of a solid, and could only be called not a solid if you insist on a solid having crystalline structure. But that is kind of a dated view that could exclude a lot of things considered solid otherwise.
No, that is an artifact of how old plate glass was created by blowing and spinning, resulting in a glass that had a gradient in thickness. Typically the thick part was placed at the bottom, although you can find a few cases where it is thicker at the top, and older glass isn't any thicker. Viscosity estimates for glass give it a viscosity of about 10 billion times that of pitch, which is already 100 billion times that of water, while experiments to look for flow at room temperature have not found any flow. Even if it did, with that viscosity, it would take millions or billions of years to move any macroscopic distance at typical pressures found in a window, and I've seen estimates that give times longer than the age of the universe. For another comparison, such a viscosity is withing a factor of hundred of rock, which we can see evidence of flow in the mantle, under much higher temperatures and pressures.
Although the Annals of Improbably Research is for humor, this article is in response to an article from Medical Hypotheses, which was/is a serious journal (but not peer-reviewed, until at least 2010). It was created to be a place to publish "coherent" ideas without peer review to foster debate and to give a lower barrier place to publish novel ideas that may still need refining. But you can look at some topics that ended up being published, and see the editors didn't really do that great job of keeping it coherent. Another favorite is a 2007 paper saying mongoloid is still an appropriate term for people with Down's syndrome because Asians and people with Downs syndrome share many traits and habits (supposedly going as far as "including a reported interest in crafts, sitting with crossed legs and eating foods containing monosodium glutamate (MSG)", although I don't have a site license to see the full article, only the abstract which doesn't go into that detail). The journal was finally reorganized in 2010 after complaints about AIDS denialism papers almost got the journal pulled from the MEDLINE database.
The photo info comes from the Library of Congress (and of course, people who work/worked for libraries are never wrong). Although they didn't get the photo until 1955. It might fit your former theory though, as the picture is of him at a Congressional committee complaining about patent difficulties.
After Philo seemed to recover from some of the business woes around the 30s and WW2, and worked on many inventions in the 50s after his company was bought out, he was also one of the early pioneers in fusion work and developed the Farnsworth fusor. Through the late 60s, trying to push forward on this project ran him into all sorts of financial problems and kind of drove him back into depression as he dumped everything he could into it. Although I am not sure of the exact timing of things, as I don't think it was the first (ZETA was producing neutrons in 1957, earlier designs and stellerators were around before that in the 50s, and Farnsworth's earliest patents was in 1966, although he already was in trouble from his employer for spending money on it earlier). The design is still used today as a neutron source, although unfortunately doesn't seem likely as a source of fusion power. But refinements of the design are at least simple enough to be built by high school students today.
Also, there is a reason the professor on Futurama is named Prof. Farnsworth...
Definitely French-Canadian, especially clear with the pig one. I have a fair bit of family in or from Canada, and they don't agree on what is Canadian slang or not. There seems to be a rather big difference between eastern and western Canada on some words, even if not counting French-Canadians. I've seen arguments break out over words, where some insist one is American and another is Canadian, and then another insists the exact opposite. Seems to go both ways, as several times when in Canada I've had people ask me why Americans don't say pop instead of soda, or even ask if we use "coke" to mean pop in general.
Typical glasses at room temperatures are solids on pretty much any human time scale: it is mechanically the same as any other solid, just the atomic structure is not crystalline. On long enough time scales and various situations, plenty of other solids will show effects of flow or other deviations from an ideal, elastic solid. Efforts to find evidence of flow in glass have turned up negative, and estimates of the viscosity of glass give it something quite high. For comparison, pitch drop experiments will show that pitch flows if you wait long enough, producing drops from a funnel about once every ten years, and pitch is about 200 billion times more viscous than water. Estimates of the viscosity of glass give it values about a billion times higher than that. That doesn't necessarily mean it would flow, but would take at least billions of years if it did (and some estimates I've seen have give times much longer than that).
In the end, it seems the main argument for organic is environmental, not for the consumer directly. You are potentially paying more to make less impact on the environment (... with plenty of caveats and corner cases where depending on the type of impact most worried about, organic might not be better...)
A more accurate image of what it would look like would to image each wireless router was a light bulb, most things would look like they were made of glass or frosted glass since a lot would be transparent to those frequencies, except conductors like metals that would be opaque and reflective. You could get into some diffraction and interference effects if looking close enough, but that probably wouldn't be noticed in larger, outdoor scenes like they are trying to show.
But I'm not sure if I agree with the assholes being a the site admin's fault, depending on the nature of the site. For more sites where discussions are targeted, narrow, or kind of have some external guidance (e.g. responses to random news), it can be kind of easier to just kick out anyone that doesn't behave. For more open ended sites, where it is based more on a developed social community that can end up talking about a lot of off-topic things, it gets muddier. You can have people that are perfectly reasonable about 95% of topics, while having something they get more jerkish, or worse over. Then you have issues of deciding to either restrict topics due to random issues of members or get rid of members that probably are making a net positive contribution. My previous foray into site administration fell under the latter category, and the amount of cat herding needed and potential for drama made me decide to never do that again and I would probably in the future only manage a site where with a narrow topic with the option for stricter, semi-arbitrary rules to keep people away from problem topics.
And I don't like how the io9 link above refers to glass as neither a solid nor liquid. It has the mechanical properties of a solid, and could only be called not a solid if you insist on a solid having crystalline structure. But that is kind of a dated view that could exclude a lot of things considered solid otherwise.
Also, there is a reason the professor on Futurama is named Prof. Farnsworth...