Yes, but they ELECTED that bad city government, which hired the incompetents in the water department. Not only that, they did it for years as it became more and more obvious that the government was bad and incompetent.
Right, because slaves give such good medical care.
I am pretty sure that every country allows medical professionals to charge more than the cost of the products they provide.
Yes, and that clock starts ticking when the patient gets out of the ambulance (or otherwise enters the Emergency Room). As a result, there are stories about hospitals in the UK where the ambulances are backed up waiting for hours for the hospital to allow them to unload the patient into the Emergency Room.
If someone consistently makes inaccurate predictions based on their political views, it is an indicator that their political views are flawed. On the other hand, if they consistently make accurate predictions based on their political views, it is an indicator that their political views reflect reality. Therefore the accuracy of the predictions is the MOST relevant thing here.
I will reiterate that the accuracy or inaccuracy is only an indicator. One would need to know what other factors contributed to them making their predictions.
I don't care about their political viewpoints. They made a prediction for 2016. Have they, at some time in the past, made other predictions about what will happen in the future? If so, how did those predictions turn out?
Have they predicted 9 of the last 10 "big things"? Or have they predicted 9 of the last 2 "big things"? What is their track record on making predictions?
Although what you wrote about their political viewpoints suggests that they might be more accurate than most when making predictions.
Well, that is why it bothers me. I have no way to tell if these are people who predicted 9 of the last 10 "big things" or if they are people who predicted 9 of the last 1 "big things".
They are neither typical nor outliers. They indicate that the "received wisdom" is wrong. There are two facts which interact to create the result which the received wisdom interprets as buying elections.
Those who donate to campaigns are more likely to give, and give more, to someone they perceive as likely to win.
People tend to vote based on name recognition. Those who spend more on advertising are more likely to be "name recognized" by voters who are barely paying attention.
The second sounds like buying the election, but it only works when the voters don't care who holds the office.
Before we give any serious consideration to their predictions for 2016 we need to look at how their predictions for 2015, and previous, turned out. If they have a history of making outrageous predictions which come to fruition, than we need to pay attention to this prediction. If, on the other hand, they have a history of making outrageous predictions which don't pan out, we should ignore this one. If their history of predictions is something else, we need to take that into account as well.
One of the things that bothers me is when news articles make a big deal out of predictions made by a group without giving you any idea of how well that groups previous predictions turned out.
The interesting thing about that is that despite the common wisdom being that elections can be bought in the U.S., it does not actually work out that way. For example, this election cycle Jeb Bush out raised all of his opponents combined. Yet, somehow he is turning out to be an also-ran in the actual elections.
Similar things happened in our last election cycle. Eric Cantor, who was one of the most powerful men in Congress, outspent his primary opponent on the order of 10:1, yet lost decisively.
I have always figured that the reason they don't tell you the party affiliation when its a Democrat is because that isn't news, everyone knows that Democrats are petty, corrupt, authoritarian politicians. However, when a Republican does it, it is an exception and therefore news. OK, I don't really believe the latter part of that, but the press clearly does. Otherwise, what possible reason would they have for only mentioning party affiliation when its about a Republican?
The key words from the summary "stick around for the foreseeable future". Yes, these companies will stick around for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the foreseeable future is only 1-2 years.
More importantly, it was a study of adult twins, one of whom SAID they had used marijuana extensively as a teen, and the other one of whom SAID they had never used marijuana. I am sorry, I cannot imagine how you could get enough people where this was true to make study of any real value.
Actually, that is not true. Islam claims that the collection writings which Christians call the Old Testament, and Jews call Scripture, is distorted and corrupted. with the current version being incomplete and containing additions. So, the document which Jews and Christians consider to be divine revelation (the exact definition of that term varies), Muslims consider to be something which contains some divine revelation which is indecipherable without the Koran.
Yes, I am aware that there are other countries involved in the deal...countries which have a history of entering into deals which are contrary to their interests because those deals enrich their decision-makers (key leaders of most of those other six countries were implicated in taking bribes under the "food-for-fuel" deal with Saddam Hussein).
I am also unsure why those other countries failing to verify that the Iranians are keeping their word makes it any less gullible of the U.S. to fail to verify it.
Yes, Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." With this deal, Obama is saying, "I will take the word of a government that regularly proclaims 'Death to America', that they will stop working on a program that might allow them to actually bring death to America." Meanwhile, the Iranians have ALREADY violated part of the deal by continuing to work on improving their ballistic missiles.
The same way I explain the NY Times printing stories, and getting the Pulitzer Prize for them, proclaiming that the Ukrainian Famine was not happening...because it fit with the agenda they were promoting.
It also depends on the alcohol/water ratio in the mouth. For example, if you have had nothing to drink earlier in the day, but you take a shot just before taking a Breathalyzer you will blow a high BAC results. However, that being said, I am not sure how this condition would change the alcohol level in the mouth.
You make a very good point. My current job vs my last job is a perfect comparison that makes your point (or a good complementary one).
I was unemployed when I got my last job, so I took a wage below what I believed (and still believe) to be my value to the company because I did not have the resume to prove I could do what I said I could do. I worked my ass off to prove I was as good as I claimed expecting that I would get a commensurate raise. I discovered that the owners of that company had a philosophy of paying the least they could get away with (which came back to bite them later when they lost customers as a result and could no longer afford even my discounted rate).
I was once again unemployed when I got my current job. Once again I took below my value to the company to get the job. Once again I busted my ass to prove my ability. This company saw my value and gave me that raise. Not only that, they saw that I could be more valuable to the company in the future and based that raise on where they expected me to be in six months, not where I was at the time of the raise. I will continue to bust my ass for this company, while the last six months at my last company (after I realized that they were not going to pay me for the effort) I spent doing what they paid me for and no more.
Well, besides the point that the Constitution only gives Congress LIMITED law writing authority (leaving most such authority to state legislatures), the fact is that among the laws passed by Congress giving authority to the FAA is one which strictly limits their authority to regulate drones. A law which the regulation the FAA is trying to put out there violates.
Interestingly enough a short investigation reveals information which suggests the reasons:
the family consists of two brothers traveling with 9 children ages 8-19 (not a reason in and of itself, but significant when combined with the rest)
the brothers were previously detained in Tel Aviv and ejected from Israel (again not a reason which stands on its own, but continue)
emails were sent from computers owned by one or both of the brothers sympathizing with Al Qaeda (this starts to be a reason, but only starts)
Facebook posts outlining radicalization and Jihadist opinions
the brothers are neighbors to Anjem Choudary, a prominent UK proponent of Jihad
Those things in and of themselves, as outlined, might be insufficient to allow them entry, but they are suggestive of there being a lot more to this story than the article reports.
You do realize that there was no way to answer that question without looking like a fool? The headline "30% pf republicans support bombing fictional city." Left for further down in the article is the fact that 36% of Democrats OPPOSE bombing that fictional city. Why would I support or oppose bombing a fictional city?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but they ELECTED that bad city government, which hired the incompetents in the water department. Not only that, they did it for years as it became more and more obvious that the government was bad and incompetent.
Right, because slaves give such good medical care. I am pretty sure that every country allows medical professionals to charge more than the cost of the products they provide.
Yes, and that clock starts ticking when the patient gets out of the ambulance (or otherwise enters the Emergency Room). As a result, there are stories about hospitals in the UK where the ambulances are backed up waiting for hours for the hospital to allow them to unload the patient into the Emergency Room.
The people in Flint were poisoned by lead because they failed to require their elected politicians to govern responsibly.
If someone consistently makes inaccurate predictions based on their political views, it is an indicator that their political views are flawed. On the other hand, if they consistently make accurate predictions based on their political views, it is an indicator that their political views reflect reality. Therefore the accuracy of the predictions is the MOST relevant thing here.
I will reiterate that the accuracy or inaccuracy is only an indicator. One would need to know what other factors contributed to them making their predictions.
I don't care about their political viewpoints. They made a prediction for 2016. Have they, at some time in the past, made other predictions about what will happen in the future? If so, how did those predictions turn out?
Have they predicted 9 of the last 10 "big things"? Or have they predicted 9 of the last 2 "big things"? What is their track record on making predictions?
Although what you wrote about their political viewpoints suggests that they might be more accurate than most when making predictions.
Well, that is why it bothers me. I have no way to tell if these are people who predicted 9 of the last 10 "big things" or if they are people who predicted 9 of the last 1 "big things".
The second sounds like buying the election, but it only works when the voters don't care who holds the office.
Before we give any serious consideration to their predictions for 2016 we need to look at how their predictions for 2015, and previous, turned out. If they have a history of making outrageous predictions which come to fruition, than we need to pay attention to this prediction. If, on the other hand, they have a history of making outrageous predictions which don't pan out, we should ignore this one. If their history of predictions is something else, we need to take that into account as well.
One of the things that bothers me is when news articles make a big deal out of predictions made by a group without giving you any idea of how well that groups previous predictions turned out.
The interesting thing about that is that despite the common wisdom being that elections can be bought in the U.S., it does not actually work out that way. For example, this election cycle Jeb Bush out raised all of his opponents combined. Yet, somehow he is turning out to be an also-ran in the actual elections.
Similar things happened in our last election cycle. Eric Cantor, who was one of the most powerful men in Congress, outspent his primary opponent on the order of 10:1, yet lost decisively.
I have always figured that the reason they don't tell you the party affiliation when its a Democrat is because that isn't news, everyone knows that Democrats are petty, corrupt, authoritarian politicians. However, when a Republican does it, it is an exception and therefore news. OK, I don't really believe the latter part of that, but the press clearly does. Otherwise, what possible reason would they have for only mentioning party affiliation when its about a Republican?
The key words from the summary "stick around for the foreseeable future". Yes, these companies will stick around for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the foreseeable future is only 1-2 years.
I do not believe that they found that many twins where it is true that one used pot and the other did not.
More importantly, it was a study of adult twins, one of whom SAID they had used marijuana extensively as a teen, and the other one of whom SAID they had never used marijuana. I am sorry, I cannot imagine how you could get enough people where this was true to make study of any real value.
Actually, that is not true. Islam claims that the collection writings which Christians call the Old Testament, and Jews call Scripture, is distorted and corrupted. with the current version being incomplete and containing additions. So, the document which Jews and Christians consider to be divine revelation (the exact definition of that term varies), Muslims consider to be something which contains some divine revelation which is indecipherable without the Koran.
Yes, I am aware that there are other countries involved in the deal...countries which have a history of entering into deals which are contrary to their interests because those deals enrich their decision-makers (key leaders of most of those other six countries were implicated in taking bribes under the "food-for-fuel" deal with Saddam Hussein).
I am also unsure why those other countries failing to verify that the Iranians are keeping their word makes it any less gullible of the U.S. to fail to verify it.
Yes, Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." With this deal, Obama is saying, "I will take the word of a government that regularly proclaims 'Death to America', that they will stop working on a program that might allow them to actually bring death to America." Meanwhile, the Iranians have ALREADY violated part of the deal by continuing to work on improving their ballistic missiles.
The same way I explain the NY Times printing stories, and getting the Pulitzer Prize for them, proclaiming that the Ukrainian Famine was not happening...because it fit with the agenda they were promoting.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for the crusades is like Japanese seeking revenge against the U.S. for their defeat in WWII.
It also depends on the alcohol/water ratio in the mouth. For example, if you have had nothing to drink earlier in the day, but you take a shot just before taking a Breathalyzer you will blow a high BAC results. However, that being said, I am not sure how this condition would change the alcohol level in the mouth.
You make a very good point. My current job vs my last job is a perfect comparison that makes your point (or a good complementary one). I was unemployed when I got my last job, so I took a wage below what I believed (and still believe) to be my value to the company because I did not have the resume to prove I could do what I said I could do. I worked my ass off to prove I was as good as I claimed expecting that I would get a commensurate raise. I discovered that the owners of that company had a philosophy of paying the least they could get away with (which came back to bite them later when they lost customers as a result and could no longer afford even my discounted rate).
I was once again unemployed when I got my current job. Once again I took below my value to the company to get the job. Once again I busted my ass to prove my ability. This company saw my value and gave me that raise. Not only that, they saw that I could be more valuable to the company in the future and based that raise on where they expected me to be in six months, not where I was at the time of the raise. I will continue to bust my ass for this company, while the last six months at my last company (after I realized that they were not going to pay me for the effort) I spent doing what they paid me for and no more.
Well, besides the point that the Constitution only gives Congress LIMITED law writing authority (leaving most such authority to state legislatures), the fact is that among the laws passed by Congress giving authority to the FAA is one which strictly limits their authority to regulate drones. A law which the regulation the FAA is trying to put out there violates.
It would not be the first time that happened.
the brothers were previously detained in Tel Aviv and ejected from Israel (again not a reason which stands on its own, but continue)
Those things in and of themselves, as outlined, might be insufficient to allow them entry, but they are suggestive of there being a lot more to this story than the article reports.
You do realize that there was no way to answer that question without looking like a fool? The headline "30% pf republicans support bombing fictional city." Left for further down in the article is the fact that 36% of Democrats OPPOSE bombing that fictional city. Why would I support or oppose bombing a fictional city?