Power go out on the autotune? Power is more likely to go out on the mains than on the outboard, and no large show is happening without those.

You know that the stage flash and gimmicks of Iron Maiden are partly what Spinal Tap is mocking, right? They are not known for the quality their music, but for their bombast in both the music and the stage show. Many acts will play with a single dim light and sit down in some chairs and just play their songs. Iron Maiden brings out lasers, fog, sets, costumes, pyrotechnics; they are an Insane Clown Posse antecedent. Iron Maiden's only number one was called "Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter" which became famous almost solely for its shock value.

It's been over 2 hours now. Still no reversion of my edits. And these were done with an IP address, which has the highest chance of being scrutinized and reverted. Over 500 users have the page on their watchlists (source, and the page is viewed between 2000 and 5000 times a day source, making it ranked 3496th in traffic, out of over 4 million articles, therefore making it in the top 1% of most viewed articles.

So I did your test. Here are my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Descartes&diff=578441915&oldid=578411787 It's been over 15 minutes now from the last edit, and no reversion from a bot or a user. Although I don't doubt that a user reading this will now come on to revert just to make a point. Perhaps you could show your results so that we can see what you actually changed?

I am in Canada and I can tell you that Health Canada does indeed decide not to cover expensive treatments. My father is a physician and director at a hospital in Ontario. Here's an example he has spoken to me about: Someone in critical condition needs to be transferred to the regional hospital for surgery, transferring by air ambulance (helicopter) is far more likely to save their life than going by road. If the person is old, a drunkard, etc. they are not likely to receive such treatment. If they are young, employed, have young children, they are likely to receive the air lift. Decisions like this are made every day. Medical professionals in Canada have a duty to keep costs down, as there are not infinite resources. Anyway, you can see why costs can be less but outcomes better given such actions: If the distribution of medical treatment more closely follows the distribution of wealth, then costs can be higher, as the wealthy would be willing/able to pay more, and there is no connection between one's having money and the aptness of one's treatment to be a marginal benefit to the average outcome/cost ratio. Indeed, wealthy Canadians often go to the US for medical treatment where their money can buy them something.

Parent comment is not flame-bait at all, and is entirely on-topic.

Go ahead and watch online: Two channels in English. Sad that there is a demand for news bent to the side of a human right abuser like Russia. But the Obama administration (like the Bush administration) before has been so corrupt that outside views are needed.

So when Obama boycotts a meeting with the Russians due to concerns over "human rights", you may now know that this is a lie.

Completely ridiculous. You've taken "angular resolution" to mean "angular pixel spacing". You would need more than one pixel for every 4 arcminutes in order to have an angular resolution of 4 arcminutes.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html has a review of material which shows that the pixel spacing required would be around 0.3 to 0.4 arcminutes, a far cry from 4.

"I would of fired each one of them."

If they taught you grammar like that, I would have too.

One might argue a lot of things, but that does not mean that one is right. A sound argument which is tautological is still a sound argument. And one could argue that that is as assumption as well, but that also does not mean that one right. It is not an assumption: It's a logical truth. It cannot possibly be not-true.

I don't miss such a distinction. I can reach an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong" while having the condition "if". Having that "if" does not mean my strongest conclusion is "if X, then torture is wrong". Proceeding from conditional to absolute does not require taking up the assumption "X = true". Indeed, this last point is partly what Kant showed in the first Critque by establishing the possibility of transcendental philosophy.

1. Deduction A implies that X is true.
2. Deduction A is sound.
3. If X, then torture is wrong.
Therefore, 4. Torture is wrong.

There is no assumption X is true. QED: There is an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong", while having a condition "if", and no assumption that X is true.

The argument is sound within an assumed framework and also within any framework. It's entirely sound. You cannot show me any logician of any level of pedantry who would deny that if X then X.

Even if you can't reach conclusions about external conditions "X" without the condition "if", that does not in any way imply that you can never logically argue to an absolute conclusion like "torture is wrong", because there is nothing preventing you from arguing logically while using the condition "if".

I'm not assuming there is an X.
I'm not assuming X doesn't change.
I'm not sure what the question means. I'm not calling anything X and I don't claim that anything is called X, can be called X, or anything else about the topic of calling things X.

You think it suffices for what?

Not every logical argument begins with assumptions, so how could I forget something which I know to be false? Take an argument:
1. If X then X.
2. If X then X.
Therefore, 3. If X then X.

This argument is sound and no assumption is made.

" If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. " Please, demonstrate this: Which assumptions, if I deny them, does his argument become meaningless? And in what way exactly is his argument meaningless if I deny these assumptions?

Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago. It's just that very few people have the patience to read the first and second critiques, the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, so most people are ignorant of this advancement in ethics.

In particular look at the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork. A morally-correct maxim necessarily assumes a respect for other people's autonomy. Torturing someone for fun completely undermines any such respect.

The English word "temperature" was used in 1531 by Sir Thomas Elyot, long before Robert Boyle wrote The Sceptical Chymist. So how could that be its original meaning?