Sorry, I actually spent quite a bit time researching instrumentation and most of thermometers were +/- 1 degree (not some percentage), scales were to +/- 1 or 2 of the smallest unit they were designed to measure to (where I worked that was typically 1/100th of a gram, with grams being the default and the rest being displayed as decimals although they had one or two that weighed to milligrams). Those numbers are manufacturer specs.
Again, you seem to miss the point I made that you can only have a functioning government that respects individual liberty if the majority of the people that are part of the society that government governs share the moral principle that individual liberty is important. As well, I did not say that distributing the tools of violence leads to chaos. I said that a society that does not have a common set of moral principles where the tools of violence are distributed will end up in chaos.
You keep overlooking the point I make that you can only have a government that respects individual freedom if the majority of its citizens share the moral principle that individual liberty is important. If the overwhelming majority do not believe that individual liberty is a central moral principle, the government will not respect individual liberty. If it attempts to, the result will be the strong taking advantage of the weak.
I happen to believe that individual liberty is an important moral principle, most conservatives do as well.
I don't want to function as part of some unit, that's the whole point.
I take it from this that you are one of those libertarians who seeks no government, because any form of government requires that those who live under it form some kind of unit.
A) proving something wrong is worth more money and recognition.
Proving something someone else's claims wrong is worth more money and recognition. Proving your own theories wrong, not so much.
Even without money, there are incentives to finding that your hypothesis is correct. There is really no good way to fix this problem.
Most instrumentation used for measurements have a +/- 10% error in displayed value, even after calibration and certification. So yeah, 30% is pretty good.
What type of instruments are you talking about? I have been involved in validation of instrumentation for submission of data to regulatory agencies and I cannot think of a single one where variation was based on percentage that 10% was an acceptable variation.
You seem to miss the fact that I, also, believe that "liberals" can't impose their particular flavor of morals on others either. The fact of the matter is that any group of people that does not have a common set of moral principles is unable to function as a unit. You do not seem to understand that moral principles are something that an individual must subscribe to, therefore it is not possible to impose (by any means) moral principles on individuals. Even indoctrination has limited effectiveness as it starts to break down as soon as the individual in question is outside of the controlled environment necessary (such as schools or the military) to conduct indoctrination.
Additionally, you fail to recognize that liberty is one of those moral principles that must be part of the moral consensus if there will be any. The thing that you must understand is that everyone has a set of moral principles that they would like to see as the basis of government policy and law. In your case, the central moral principle is liberty (although I am sure there are a few others--such as honoring contracts). If a society does not have a shared set of moral principles that the overwhelming majority of its members agree will guide government policies and laws, government will either move in the direction of totalitarianism or anarchy and chaos as various people attempt to impose their will on others (totalitarianism occurs when a small group is able to gain a de facto monopoly on the tools of violence, anarchy and chaos when those tools are distributed among the populace).
One of the reasons for the federalist system that the Founders of the U.S. favored was that they envisioned that it would allow people with different moral principles to gather in separate areas with people of similar moral principles.
When our society agreed on the definition of marriage, there were societal benefits from the government recognizing marriages. Now that our society no longer agrees on the definition of marriage, the government is overstepping its appropriate authority by being in the marriage business. The problem of course is that as our society disagrees on more and more things (such as marriage, although that issue in itself is not decisive), it becomes increasingly difficult for there to be a functioning government. The problem is that in order for a society to have a functioning government, it must have a shared set of moral principles. There have been people who instinctively understand this. Unfortunately, history has proven that the government cannot impose that set of moral principles.
The problem we have in this country is that there have been people who have attempted to use any tool at their disposal (including government action) in order to destroy the traditional moral consensus in order to replace it with one more to their liking. This has led some conservatives to attempt to use government action to reinforce the traditional moral consensus. Both of these approaches are disastrous for the country. The only way to maintain a functioning government and change the moral principles of a society is by persuasion. Once the new moral principles are accepted by the overwhelming majority of society, the laws will change to reflect that position.
Well, I suppose you could try and do that. The problem is that there are very few voices, if any, that identify themselves as "liberal" who are not promoting policies that restrict liberty, let alone actually promoting liberty.
No, libertarians seek no government. And I am not confusing them because I moved from liberal to conservative by way of libertarianism. I was indoctrinated from grade school through college that "liberals" (really progressives) were about protecting freedoms (as laid out in the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, and more) against attempts by conservatives to diminish them. After I left school, I kept noticing that "liberals" were supporting policies that infringed on freedoms (speech codes at universities, restrictive gun laws, limiting religious activity, suppressing dissent), so I moved even further "left" and became a self-identified libertarian. Then I noticed something, almost all of the more or less mainstream voices that were actually standing up for individual freedom were conservative. The "liberals" were all busy proclaiming that flag-burning was protected speech while promoting laws that limited what you could actually say regarding political issues.
So, let's see, because many politicians who claim to be conservative end up doing what the progressive politicians said they would do in the same situation, I should support the progressive politicians who, despite saying that they want to take away my freedoms, will act against their self-interest and actually defend my freedoms? I don't follow your logic at all. The way I see it, there is at least a chance that the politician who says that he believes in limited government will act to limit government. I can't see any chance that a politician that runs on the platform of the government being all things to all people will do so.
Then how come have corporations become more powerful as government has implemented more progressive policies?
Look at the history of progressives. They have always sought to expand the reach of government authority and take it out of the hands of elected officials and give it to unaccountable "experts".
No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.
What is it about liberal ideology that makes us want to align with a group of large corporations to screw over large numbers of individuals just to line the pockets of said corporations? I thought liberals were bad people for doing precisely the opposite. Make up your minds!
Then you obviously have not been listening. Of course the problem is that once upon a time the term liberal applied to people who were in favor of liberty, whereas now the term liberal is applied to people who favor "progressive" policies. Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
Shooting someone who hits you is not self defence.
That may be, but shooting someone who is on top of you beating your head against the ground is.
As a U.S. citizen, I always wonder why people in other countries think that only the criminals should be armed.
No, it is not. What we do know is that Zimmerman followed* Martin for some unspecified distance while calling 911. The 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to follow Martin, to which he replied, "OK". Zimmerman says that he began to return to his vehicle at that point, others interpret some of his further conversation with the 911 dispatcher to indicate that Zimmerman continued to follow and perhaps even chase Martin, but that is an opinion, not something that is known. Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle does not provide Martin with an excuse to assault him. I do not know whether or not Zimmerman should be charge. My suspicion is that, even if Zimmerman should be charged, the evidence is such that no reasonable jury would be able to convict him if they follow the reasonable doubt principle.
*"chase" implies that Zimmerman was moving in a manner that was designed to overtake Martin, or was otherwise explicitly threatening to Martin.
The evidence suggests that Zimmerman did know the overwhelming majority of the people who lived in that gated community...that is part of the reason that the homeowner's association appointed him captain of the neighborhood watch.
The analyst who claims that it was not Zimmerman has at other points stressed the importance of having samples of the known person saying similar things to that being compared or having a very large sample of the known person speaking. Neither of which did he have available to make this comparison. He does however have a new piece of software on voice analysis that he is trying to market. Finally, based on the location given in that account, it is possible that Zimmerman's account that he was returning to his truck when Martin approached him from behind is plausible (although not conclusive), depending on where the truck was parked There are two locations that are close enough to support Zimmerman's story)
Except that his innocence was not determined the police investigation is still ongoing. Do you have any idea how long it typically takes for a case to go to trial? Good grief, it took police 4 days to decide to arrest OJ and that was a pretty clear cut case (even if the police and the DA managed to make a mess of it).
Except that the local cops did investigate. They were at the scene for over seven hours and interviewed multiple witnesses. Additionally, they had not closed the case, they are still investigating and have been since the event happened.
The reason so much is unclear is because the media has chosen to distort the facts in their reporting.
Except that we do not know that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin. What we know is that Zimmerman started to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher said that they did not need him to do that, Zimmerman said "OK". After that we do not know what happened, except that Zimmerman says that he stopped following Martin at that point, started to return to his vehicle and that Martin approached him from behind and confronted him. Zimmerman said that Martin then punched him knocking him down. The next thing we know is that several other witnesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Then Zimmerman shot Martin. There is insufficient evidence available at this point to justify a charge of murder against Zimmerman (although depending on how fact based some of the conjecture about this case actually is a manslaughter charge may be supported).
Except that we do not have any evidence that Zimmerman did not heed the 911 dispatcher telling him that he did not need to chase Martin. The one key fact that I have not seen reported is this, how far from Zimmerman's vehicle was Martin's body when the police arrived?
Except that the police did (and are) investigate the issue.
* Zimmerman follows said person.
* Zimmerman and Martin get into an altercation.
Except that there is evidence suggesting that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin and was returning to his car when Martin approached him. The problem is that you have accepted the media's assertion that the police were not investigating more about this case. You know, the same media that worked really hard to distort the facts about this case and make it seem like an open and shut case of a white bigot shooting an innocent, unarmed black boy.
Except that there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman's statement is that Martin approached him from behind while Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. This is consistent with the evidence, although I have seen no reports as to how far Martin's body was from Zimmerman's vehicle which would be a fairly significant piece of evidence regarding Zimmerman's account of what happened.
From what I've seen reported, Zimmerman asked Martin a question, and Martin punched him, then jumped on Zimmerman and started to beat him.
From what I've seen reported. Martin asked Zimmerman a question, then punched him and jumped him. This report is not conclusive since it is primarily based on Zimmerman's statement. However, no one has presented any evidence that that statement is false. There is some evidence that raises questions about Zimmerman's statement, but nothing conclusive and there is evidence which supports his statement.
It's amazing that despite the fact that the media has intentionally and willfully distorted the facts surrounding this case there are still people who stand by their ill-informed decision to immediately convict the suspect.
Most of us want an investigation into the issue. It would seem (I may be wrong) that before the media outrage, Zimmerman was going to walk without as much as a police investigation.
Yes, the media made it seem that way...you know the same media that edited the 911 call to make it seem like Zimmerman was more of a racist than any evidence actually supports.
Zimmerman did not "follow Trayvon into the dark alley". There was no dark alley in this case. He, also, did not follow Martin around is his car. He got out of his car to follow him. What we do not know is whether Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to do that, as he claims, or whether he continued to follow Martin for some unspecified length of time as some have alleged (based on their interpretation of the later parts of Zimmerman's 911 call).
The fact of the matter is that the physical evidence that has been made public supports Zimmerman's story, but is inconclusive. All of the evidence that "contradicts" his story is primarily conjecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I actually spent quite a bit time researching instrumentation and most of thermometers were +/- 1 degree (not some percentage), scales were to +/- 1 or 2 of the smallest unit they were designed to measure to (where I worked that was typically 1/100th of a gram, with grams being the default and the rest being displayed as decimals although they had one or two that weighed to milligrams). Those numbers are manufacturer specs.
You keep overlooking the point I make that you can only have a government that respects individual freedom if the majority of its citizens share the moral principle that individual liberty is important. If the overwhelming majority do not believe that individual liberty is a central moral principle, the government will not respect individual liberty. If it attempts to, the result will be the strong taking advantage of the weak.
I happen to believe that individual liberty is an important moral principle, most conservatives do as well.
I don't want to function as part of some unit, that's the whole point.
I take it from this that you are one of those libertarians who seeks no government, because any form of government requires that those who live under it form some kind of unit.
A) proving something wrong is worth more money and recognition.
Proving something someone else's claims wrong is worth more money and recognition. Proving your own theories wrong, not so much.
Even without money, there are incentives to finding that your hypothesis is correct. There is really no good way to fix this problem.
No, it is a Progressive organization and does not even attempt to hide that fact. Look at the history of progressive ideology.
Most instrumentation used for measurements have a +/- 10% error in displayed value, even after calibration and certification. So yeah, 30% is pretty good.
What type of instruments are you talking about? I have been involved in validation of instrumentation for submission of data to regulatory agencies and I cannot think of a single one where variation was based on percentage that 10% was an acceptable variation.
You seem to miss the fact that I, also, believe that "liberals" can't impose their particular flavor of morals on others either. The fact of the matter is that any group of people that does not have a common set of moral principles is unable to function as a unit. You do not seem to understand that moral principles are something that an individual must subscribe to, therefore it is not possible to impose (by any means) moral principles on individuals. Even indoctrination has limited effectiveness as it starts to break down as soon as the individual in question is outside of the controlled environment necessary (such as schools or the military) to conduct indoctrination.
Additionally, you fail to recognize that liberty is one of those moral principles that must be part of the moral consensus if there will be any. The thing that you must understand is that everyone has a set of moral principles that they would like to see as the basis of government policy and law. In your case, the central moral principle is liberty (although I am sure there are a few others--such as honoring contracts). If a society does not have a shared set of moral principles that the overwhelming majority of its members agree will guide government policies and laws, government will either move in the direction of totalitarianism or anarchy and chaos as various people attempt to impose their will on others (totalitarianism occurs when a small group is able to gain a de facto monopoly on the tools of violence, anarchy and chaos when those tools are distributed among the populace).
One of the reasons for the federalist system that the Founders of the U.S. favored was that they envisioned that it would allow people with different moral principles to gather in separate areas with people of similar moral principles.
When our society agreed on the definition of marriage, there were societal benefits from the government recognizing marriages. Now that our society no longer agrees on the definition of marriage, the government is overstepping its appropriate authority by being in the marriage business. The problem of course is that as our society disagrees on more and more things (such as marriage, although that issue in itself is not decisive), it becomes increasingly difficult for there to be a functioning government. The problem is that in order for a society to have a functioning government, it must have a shared set of moral principles. There have been people who instinctively understand this. Unfortunately, history has proven that the government cannot impose that set of moral principles.
The problem we have in this country is that there have been people who have attempted to use any tool at their disposal (including government action) in order to destroy the traditional moral consensus in order to replace it with one more to their liking. This has led some conservatives to attempt to use government action to reinforce the traditional moral consensus. Both of these approaches are disastrous for the country. The only way to maintain a functioning government and change the moral principles of a society is by persuasion. Once the new moral principles are accepted by the overwhelming majority of society, the laws will change to reflect that position.
Well, I suppose you could try and do that. The problem is that there are very few voices, if any, that identify themselves as "liberal" who are not promoting policies that restrict liberty, let alone actually promoting liberty.
No, libertarians seek no government. And I am not confusing them because I moved from liberal to conservative by way of libertarianism. I was indoctrinated from grade school through college that "liberals" (really progressives) were about protecting freedoms (as laid out in the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, and more) against attempts by conservatives to diminish them. After I left school, I kept noticing that "liberals" were supporting policies that infringed on freedoms (speech codes at universities, restrictive gun laws, limiting religious activity, suppressing dissent), so I moved even further "left" and became a self-identified libertarian. Then I noticed something, almost all of the more or less mainstream voices that were actually standing up for individual freedom were conservative. The "liberals" were all busy proclaiming that flag-burning was protected speech while promoting laws that limited what you could actually say regarding political issues.
So, let's see, because many politicians who claim to be conservative end up doing what the progressive politicians said they would do in the same situation, I should support the progressive politicians who, despite saying that they want to take away my freedoms, will act against their self-interest and actually defend my freedoms? I don't follow your logic at all. The way I see it, there is at least a chance that the politician who says that he believes in limited government will act to limit government. I can't see any chance that a politician that runs on the platform of the government being all things to all people will do so.
Then how come have corporations become more powerful as government has implemented more progressive policies?
Look at the history of progressives. They have always sought to expand the reach of government authority and take it out of the hands of elected officials and give it to unaccountable "experts".
No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.
What is it about liberal ideology that makes us want to align with a group of large corporations to screw over large numbers of individuals just to line the pockets of said corporations? I thought liberals were bad people for doing precisely the opposite. Make up your minds!
Then you obviously have not been listening. Of course the problem is that once upon a time the term liberal applied to people who were in favor of liberty, whereas now the term liberal is applied to people who favor "progressive" policies. Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
Shooting someone who hits you is not self defence.
That may be, but shooting someone who is on top of you beating your head against the ground is.
As a U.S. citizen, I always wonder why people in other countries think that only the criminals should be armed.
No, it is not. What we do know is that Zimmerman followed* Martin for some unspecified distance while calling 911. The 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to follow Martin, to which he replied, "OK". Zimmerman says that he began to return to his vehicle at that point, others interpret some of his further conversation with the 911 dispatcher to indicate that Zimmerman continued to follow and perhaps even chase Martin, but that is an opinion, not something that is known. Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle does not provide Martin with an excuse to assault him. I do not know whether or not Zimmerman should be charge. My suspicion is that, even if Zimmerman should be charged, the evidence is such that no reasonable jury would be able to convict him if they follow the reasonable doubt principle.
*"chase" implies that Zimmerman was moving in a manner that was designed to overtake Martin, or was otherwise explicitly threatening to Martin.
The evidence suggests that Zimmerman did know the overwhelming majority of the people who lived in that gated community...that is part of the reason that the homeowner's association appointed him captain of the neighborhood watch.
The analyst who claims that it was not Zimmerman has at other points stressed the importance of having samples of the known person saying similar things to that being compared or having a very large sample of the known person speaking. Neither of which did he have available to make this comparison. He does however have a new piece of software on voice analysis that he is trying to market. Finally, based on the location given in that account, it is possible that Zimmerman's account that he was returning to his truck when Martin approached him from behind is plausible (although not conclusive), depending on where the truck was parked There are two locations that are close enough to support Zimmerman's story)
Except that his innocence was not determined the police investigation is still ongoing. Do you have any idea how long it typically takes for a case to go to trial? Good grief, it took police 4 days to decide to arrest OJ and that was a pretty clear cut case (even if the police and the DA managed to make a mess of it).
Except that the local cops did investigate. They were at the scene for over seven hours and interviewed multiple witnesses. Additionally, they had not closed the case, they are still investigating and have been since the event happened.
The reason so much is unclear is because the media has chosen to distort the facts in their reporting.
Except that we do not know that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin. What we know is that Zimmerman started to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher said that they did not need him to do that, Zimmerman said "OK". After that we do not know what happened, except that Zimmerman says that he stopped following Martin at that point, started to return to his vehicle and that Martin approached him from behind and confronted him. Zimmerman said that Martin then punched him knocking him down. The next thing we know is that several other witnesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Then Zimmerman shot Martin. There is insufficient evidence available at this point to justify a charge of murder against Zimmerman (although depending on how fact based some of the conjecture about this case actually is a manslaughter charge may be supported).
Except that we do not have any evidence that Zimmerman did not heed the 911 dispatcher telling him that he did not need to chase Martin. The one key fact that I have not seen reported is this, how far from Zimmerman's vehicle was Martin's body when the police arrived?
* Police does not investigate issue.
Except that the police did (and are) investigate the issue.
* Zimmerman follows said person.
* Zimmerman and Martin get into an altercation.
Except that there is evidence suggesting that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin and was returning to his car when Martin approached him. The problem is that you have accepted the media's assertion that the police were not investigating more about this case. You know, the same media that worked really hard to distort the facts about this case and make it seem like an open and shut case of a white bigot shooting an innocent, unarmed black boy.
Except that there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman's statement is that Martin approached him from behind while Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. This is consistent with the evidence, although I have seen no reports as to how far Martin's body was from Zimmerman's vehicle which would be a fairly significant piece of evidence regarding Zimmerman's account of what happened.
From what I've seen reported, Zimmerman asked Martin a question, and Martin punched him, then jumped on Zimmerman and started to beat him.
From what I've seen reported. Martin asked Zimmerman a question, then punched him and jumped him. This report is not conclusive since it is primarily based on Zimmerman's statement. However, no one has presented any evidence that that statement is false. There is some evidence that raises questions about Zimmerman's statement, but nothing conclusive and there is evidence which supports his statement.
It's amazing that despite the fact that the media has intentionally and willfully distorted the facts surrounding this case there are still people who stand by their ill-informed decision to immediately convict the suspect.
Most of us want an investigation into the issue. It would seem (I may be wrong) that before the media outrage, Zimmerman was going to walk without as much as a police investigation.
Yes, the media made it seem that way...you know the same media that edited the 911 call to make it seem like Zimmerman was more of a racist than any evidence actually supports.
Zimmerman did not "follow Trayvon into the dark alley". There was no dark alley in this case. He, also, did not follow Martin around is his car. He got out of his car to follow him. What we do not know is whether Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to do that, as he claims, or whether he continued to follow Martin for some unspecified length of time as some have alleged (based on their interpretation of the later parts of Zimmerman's 911 call).
The fact of the matter is that the physical evidence that has been made public supports Zimmerman's story, but is inconclusive. All of the evidence that "contradicts" his story is primarily conjecture.