Yes, eating certain radioisotopes is dangerous. Some isotopes concentrate in areas of the body and emit radiation that is much more harmful when it is in the body (alpha radiation).

However, The chart is given in Sv. Sv takes into account that some radiation is more harmful than others. So, the biological effects from 1 mSv should be the same whether it came from an alpha emmiter or a beta emmiter.

Again, some radionuclides concentrate in parts of the body (others are eliminated quickly - see effective halflife which combines radiological halflife and biological halflife). So, how can we know how many mSv we might get from ingesting one isotope or another? You want to look at commited dose. This is a calculation of how much dose (mSv) you recieve from ingesting some radioisotope. You then use that figure, in mSv, to compare against the chart on xkcd. What you might be interested in is ALI (annual limit on intake). This will give you an amount of a radionuclide (measured in activity or mass) that, if ingested, will give you the highest allowable dose (measured in mSv).

So, you can compare the damage done by various radioisotopes done to you in various ways if you are comparing them in the right units, mSv. But you couldn't compare them just by giving the amount of substance (without considering what kind of radiation and what in the body was irradiated). But, those calculations can be done, and the answer is given in mSv or mrem. This is why the xkcd chart uses mSv for the units, so that a meaningful comparison can be made.

Get a Wii U, then you can play on the main TV and allow others to watch TV without interrupting your session.

It seems like it is almost inevitable that someone "won't be paying their fair share" when we have a complicated tax code. We have numerous incentives and exceptions. We have reasons for them.

Personally, I'd like to see a simplified tax code. One with no exemptions or exceptions. But even then, some would still think others aren't paying their fair share.

If any country ever does manage to make a decent and simple tax code, they might find they have a worse problem: large numbers of suddenly unemployed lawyers looking for "work".

iTunes in my Nintendo and Nintendo in my iPod. That would be a killer combo.

But all consoles aren't for 'hardcore' gamers. Consoles defy logic in this sense. Yet, despite the naysayers, they persist, because they do have their benefits. Pick up a Wii U. Play ZombiU, COD, Mario and NintendoLand and tell me these aren't fun games that the respective audience wouldn't enjoy.

No one knows what it is. Everyone I have shown, likes it. Good graphics. Online play (really this time). The game pad is a welcomed addition to every game I have played on it. Mario. COD. Nintendoland. ZombiU. They are all great games done well on the Wii U.

Everyone I have showed the Wii U too loves it and was unaware of what it was. My 'hardcore' gaming friends love ZombiU. They love the suspense. They love the gamepad as an inventory management - minimap - sniper scope. It is a fun game. My casual friends like being about to play it without a TV. Everyone likes the 5 player - 1 v 4 mini games. It is a good system. Call of duty looks good. Mario is good. Their online play is finally good (although it is inexcusable that you cannot sign in on a friends console).

I think you make the mistake of picking out traits from some and ascribing them to the whole. I am certain this tactic can make any party seem illogical, ignorant and evil.

Except you would have to dedicate as much time to it as it would lock someone out. For instance, 5 bad attempts take you 0s + 1s + 2s + 4 + 8s = 15s and locks them out for the next 16s. So, if you wanted to lock someone out for a day, you have to spend a day (less one second) locking them out. Even if you automated this attack, surely IT could handle that.

Here is open letter to IRV supporters.

What points do you disagree with in this open letter to IRV and why?

http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrvSumm.html. Also, check the "more detailed look" link at the bottom. This lays out the case that IRV leads to a two party system.

Certainly, first past the post is objectively worse than many systems. I would also like to see any of the better systems in place. It seems like IRV has made the most progress in being implemented. I am still persuaded by the range voting people that their system is better. But I am open to re-evaluate my position.

Thank you for the links. I am eager to read up on how your system works.

I have been reading on various voting systems and also on things like PR. I would be very curious to hear what you think about http://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html which purports that IRV yields the same duopoly we have in the US. I would also like your take on this http://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html which talks about it in a different context. And this http://rangevoting.org/WhyThirdRange.html which uses the 2007 election to say IRV doesn't help third parties as much as it should.

Is there a reason you prefer it over Range Voting? What I have read leads me to conlude Range Voting is better. See http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html. But, I am definitely interested in opposing views.