And what is objective moral truth in a theistic context?
The will of God(s) as communicated through the prophets. [...] I think religious opinion is pretty unified on that point.
If you use the broader definition of "theistic": Wrong. That's only true of religions that have prophets. With many others (esp. tribal ones), it is "this is what our ancestors have done". With some others religions (esp. the famous eastern ones), discussing what's morally "right" could be no different from how non-theists discuss what's morally "right" -- this is the best case scenario, and not what usually happens. In any case, there are no prophets who are assumed to have communicated the will/word of god.
If you use the narrower definition of "theistic", i.e. "God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe": Wrong. Theistic opinion may still be unified on that point. Religious opinion is not.
The advantage of AC for distributing power over a distance is due to the ease of changing voltages using a transformer. Available power is the product of current × voltage at the load. For a given amount of power, a low voltage requires a higher current and a higher voltage requires a lower current. Since metal conducting wires have an almost fixed electrical resistance, some power will be wasted as heat in the wires. This power loss is given by Joule's laws and is proportional to the square of the current. Thus, if the overall transmitted power is the same, and given the constraints of practical conductor sizes, high-current, low-voltage transmissions will suffer a much greater power loss than low-current, high-voltage ones. This holds whether DC or AC is used.
Converting DC power from one voltage to another requires a large spinning rotary converter or motor-generator set, which was difficult, expensive, inefficient, and required maintenance, whereas with AC the voltage can be changed with simple and efficient transformers that have no moving parts and require very little maintenance. This was the key to the success of the AC system. Modern transmission grids regularly use AC voltages up to 765,000 volts. Power electronic devices such as the mercury arc valve and thyristor made high-voltage direct current transmission practical by improving the reliability and efficiency of conversion between alternating and direct current.
Alternating-current transmission lines have losses that do not occur with direct current. Due to the skin effect, a conductor will have a higher resistance to alternating current than to direct current; the effect is measurable and of practical significance for large conductors carrying thousands of amperes. The increased resistance due to the skin effect can be offset by changing the shape of conductors from a solid core to a braid of many small wires. However, total losses in systems using high-voltage transmission and transformers to reduce the voltage are very much lower than DC transmission at working voltage.
No, what gets voted to power is likely to be something most people can live with.
I have never ever ever seen voting work this way! (If I have understood you correctly.) From what I have seen, what gets voted to power is what most people think will benefit them the most.
Equality for all has never been my ideal, and it does not even make sense to me. If you are better than me at work, it only makes sense that you get a higher pay, and/or get to make bigger decisions, etc. (and vice versa). Equality in the eyes of the legal system is something I do care about, and believe can be achieved.
Other than that, thanks for the proof!
What gets voted to power is a good indication of what is right? Stop this world...
"It's freedom for the few rich owners, and serfdom for everyone else"? No. Eventually, either everybody has liberty or nobody has liberty. (I have made my choice.) Anything else is unstable, and will eventually move towards no-liberty. I have a truly marvellous proof of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Bad business move? Coming back to the main issue: am I not at liberty to make what you think are bad business moves?
Though you may think that I picked a bad example (I don't) my main point remains: I recognize the liberty of everyone... not just of people who can get fired.
"Also if this precedent is allowed to stand..." My god! What about the liberty of TF1? Do you think only low-level employees should have liberty? If I ran a hospital, I would certainly get rid of all my anti-abortion employees - as this belief would affect their performance in the job I expect them to do.