It's not ownership of the facts that they're claiming, it's the organization of the facts that they present in the text.

It's not fair to say they have "absolutely nothing to do with funding decisions." A negative review can quite certainly kill a mission. A good review is something like a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, to get the funding necessary.

Disneyland (CA) doesn't as far as I've noticed. Sea World in San Diego has them, and by default they want you to use them to connect yourself with your ticket. However, you can simply ask not to participate and this just means you have to show your ticket again for a repeat entry.

At least, that's how it was a couple years ago when I was there. Not sure about Disneyworld.

My inner relativist tells me that he's not moving at all, he's merely pulling the earth toward him.

My wife picked up an old World Book for about a buck at a library sale a few months ago. That was a great find for a house with young kids, just to encourage reading. Sure, it's outdated, but 90% of the material doesn't actually change, and there's historical value in the anachronisms. It also looks really nice on a bookshelf.

Yeah, I've seen this in some (and heard of it in many others). It's a very odd design choice, as it's flatly incorrect, but I think it reflects home brewing's "folk engineering" roots. Equations for various calculations get passed around by people who have the know-how to apply them but either lack the background or inclination to find and correct basic errors like this. (I do seem to recall hearing of at least one software package that switched this to a volume-per-hour input, but I don't recall which.)

The one exception I've seen cited for this, and it passes the basic sniff test, is for honey that's crystallized. Much of the anti-fermentation/anti-spoilage power of honey results from its extremely high concentration of sugar. When it crystallizes, those crystals are regions where sugar has crystallized and pushed the water out of the solution. As a result, it's possible to leave a pocket with much lower sugar concentration where yeast/bacteria can get a foothold. In these cases, pasteurizing or perhaps boiling might be a worthwhile exercise.

Practically speaking, even without sulfites, commercially-available brewing yeast strains are so potent and pitched at such high rates that it's unlikely any wild yeasts suspended in the honey would stand a chance in competition.

There's an ongoing debate about whether heating / boiling honey for mead is a good idea or a waste of perfectly good honey. The prevailing wisdom, at least among the outspoken, is that boiling is not necessary and can remove some desirable flavors. However, there's also evidence that, like many techniques, it's neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad, merely another choice that affects the results (this was based on a quasi-scientific double-blind taste test with a mead brewed from a strongly-flavored honey). It certainly seems to be the case that a full boil is not necessary, and even a pastuerization step is probably paranoid.

As for sulfites, these aren't particularly new to meadmaking afaik. They're discussed in Ken Schramm's "The Compleat Meadmaker" and I know I'd seen them suggested online prior to reading that book.

It's of order 0.5-1 gallon per hour for a typical setup.

If you are brewing carefully and precisely, it is significant enough that you need to account for it because it will affect your hops utilization. It can easily amount to 15%-20% of your total volume, so it's an appreciable quantity.

This is all true, but boil-off rates will vary from brewer to brewer, even if they're next-door neighbors with similar equipment. A brewer who uses a slightly wider brew pot and a really aggressive boil will lose more water per hour to boil off than someone with a narrow pot and a gentle boil. I find it hard to imagine any software predicting this reliably, it's something you just need to measure for yourself.

Crystalis also.

This is an eminently rational sentiment, but I grow immediately skeptical when the only evidence the powers that be are able to provide to support their rules is, "Trust us," and "Boo!" In all the discussions of the rules I've seen, I've never seen anything more specific or convincing than that.

Given the obvious evidence of at best incompetence or (more likely) outright corruption with regards to the body scanners, I'm not inclined to give the TSA (etc) the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Furthermore, I think you missed a question. You need to add:
  (4) Is the cost of enforcing the 100mL rule less than the cost of an attack multiplied by the probability of a successful attack without the rule.
I think this is distinct enough from (1) and (3) that it should be considered separately. It's quite possible that the attack is attractive, that the 100mL rule would be effective and is the least restrictive such deterrent, but that the expense simply isn't worth it. Given the rarity of terrorist attacks, expensive deterrents are unlikely even to approach being a sensible cost-benefit decision.

Are you serious? Do you really believe that contributions don't influence policy because of their legal intent?

The rules probably do provide a bit of protection---outright policy-buying is difficult, but I don't think it's possible to truly believe that a successful politician doesn't consider his significant donors when he makes decisions. You can't legislate against this effectively unless you disallow donations. Otherwise there's always the implicit threat that next year's donation won't be made.

Because the audio player has a relatively low-quality lossy-compressed version of the file. The engineer has high-resolution, high-sample rate data to start with.

Furthermore, the point is that decisions about how to best adapt the audio to sound "good" through the audio player need to be made. These are not automatic, in some cases a decision about what features of the audio are important in the given context needs to be made.

Not to say I'm convinced that this program actually leads to significantly better audio quality, just that it's not out of the question that it would. Getting audio to sound good is a tricky business.