There are non-functional "close" buttons? I assumed your GP was saying that the buttons do work, just that they don't need to be used because the door will close anyway. At least that's the case in any building I've been in.
Most(almost all) Elevators in the US have to comply with the ADA codes. One of those is that the doors have to be open for a certain amount of time, period. During this time, the "close" button is required to have no effect. After that time, the "close" button can close the doors, but this is usually about the time the doors would start closing anyways. In essence, the "close" button does nothing most of the time you are hitting it.
1. I'm so sorry, I didn't get that. Could you say it again more slowly?
2. Sorry again, the word after <foobar>, could you spell it for me?
3. Okay, before I reply, let me make sure I understand: you are saying/asking "<unambiguous interpretation>"?
The fear is an illusion. Our perception of the world is largely shaped by the media. The media magnifies dangers that are otherwise relatively improbable. The logical conclusion from this fact is this:
To find a culture that has no fear, look for cultures that are technologically backwards. Cultures that have very limited access to media and thus a more realistic perception of fear should be your chosen targets. In these settings, you will find entire societies where doors are left unlocked, children are allowed to roam the entire town unsupervised, and places where the concept of "abduction" is relatively unknown.
most probably and unfortunately, no. consequences can be felt in many places around the world.
Yes, I mean those frikkin' wars they wage here & there. From what I see, correct me if I'm wrong, many people in US still believe those wars are justified, soldiers are defending their homeland (in foreign countries half across the globe that didn't attack US anyhow imaginable), killing just few bad guys (and not creating many more by behaving like that-heck, if they would be killing my family and friends back home because of nothing, it would be hard to resist temptation to strike back somehow). And I could go on and on, you know the drill.
All this possible because of 9/11, relatively minor incident in terms of life loss/damage, but made look like Armageddon day by media. Not only, but mainly US residents scaremonged beyond belief my mass media (and I presume not many stood against it). Well, looking back, you were played damn well. Terrorist won by radicalizing you, all army-related companies won, and anybody who is on their payroll.
It's so much easier to control somebody who has fear, since they are already in irrational place to begin with. I am 34, and I don't think I'll live long enough to see US to become again "land of the free". From west european perspective, it's a sad joke for a long time.
> From what I see, correct me if I'm wrong, many people in US still believe those wars are justified, soldiers are defending their homeland (in foreign countries half across the globe that didn't attack US anyhow imaginable), killing just few bad guys (and not creating many more by behaving like that-heck, if they would be killing my family and friends back home because of nothing, it would be hard to resist temptation to strike back somehow). And I could go on and on, you know the drill.
Many people definitely still hold these views. It's actually kind of tragic, the impact it's had on the younger generation. I was 19 when 9/11 happened, but my ex was only 12. It, and her parents' reactions, have completely warped her understanding of the dangers in this world and the value/merit of the wars that followed. It doesn't help that she's a military brat (so am I, but my father, despite being in the military, was actually a pacifist; this has had a major influence on my view of things) who saw her neighbors going off to fight the wars. It had to be justified, otherwise she couldn't come to terms with the men and women that didn't come home, or didn't come home whole. If she'd been older, perhaps, she could've viewed it more critically and less emotionally.
I point to her as an example, but her stances and views on war and foreign policy, even for someone who's liberal , aren't that out of the ordinary. We've got a whole generation now that came of age in a period of (largely) media induced fear. As I said, tragic, and terrifying.
 US sense, not that liberal in the global sense.
I'm pretty sure that Quadratic Voting is a way to assign prices to votes, whereas this theorem is about the features of a system in which the results are determined by vote. So the results of quadratic voting will meet this criteria because after the votes are bought they can be thought of as emanating from discrete voters who align their preferences with those of the buyer.
That is to say that the issues solved by Quadratic Voting and those presented in Arrow's theorem are orthogonal.