they are saying election is stolen, because in azerbaijani parts of iran, ahmedinajad got 55%+ vote. never in iran's history ANYone other than an ethnic azerbaijani got that kind of vote there.
let me put it in american context - ahmedinajad getting 55% vote in azerbaijani parts of iran means barack obama getting 55%+ vote in any part of redneck midwest with little black population.
Actually, a better comparison would be a Republican getting 40% of the vote in African American neighborhoods.
The reason that people are convinced there was voter fraud is because Ahmedinajad got the same percentage of the vote in every section of Iran. If those running the show in Iran had been smart, they would have had the election results vary throughout the country like happens in a real election.
Because it is either shorter, or less confusing to write: "One of the actors (unidentified male member of the cats) had sex with one of the actresses (unidentified female member of the cast)", then: "One of the male actors (unidentified male member of the cast) had sex with one of the female actors (unidentified female member of the cast)", or "One of the actors (unidentified member of the cast) had sex with another one of the actors (unidentified member of the cast)". As you can see that last sentence tends to be interpreted significantly differently than the first.
Second a princess was not inferior to a prince because the title was different, but because that society considered females inferior to males. Additionally, I know of no mythological pantheon where gods were inherently more powerful than goddesses.
I am pretty sure that if you could provide any evidence that the government did pressure them to do it, the courts would rule the evidence inadmissible. Exactly what pressure could the government bring to bear?
If I am a tech repair guy, I can just reply, "Sure, I'll keep my eye out."...."No, I haven't found anything so far."
Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?
That's a great idea, let's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws. And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).
There are two points relative to the "chain of evidence" argument. One, that doesn't appear to have been made by the defense in this case. Second, (and possibly the reason it wasn't made by the defense) is the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt". Just because the tech could have put it there, doesn't make it reasonable to think that he did. The defense would have to present a reasonable explanation as to why the tech had placed that file there.
Just because there are lots of ways that a dead body could end up in my basement doesn't mean that, if you find one there, it is not reasonable to assume that I put it there.
And there's a large part of the problem. No-one wants the US to be world policeman. What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.
No, they don't want the "US to be a team player". They want the US to intervene when it is in their interest (see former Yugoslavia) and not intervene when they perceive it as not being in their interest (see Iraq and Saddam Husein's payments to the French to eliminate the embargo).
If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible. Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent. The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time.
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities. If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.
Publishers have made a mint and have tried their best to hamper the second hard market. This is a positive change.
A positive change? How? By doing away with the second hand market entirely?
How about instead of going digital the state of California tells the publishers, "We don't see any reason for a new edition of that basic math book. 1+1 has equaled 2 since before the founding of the country, and we don't anticipate it changing any time soon, so there is no reason for a new edition to teach elementary school math."
. I am sure they have thought of this issue. I am also sure that it will slowly get phased in..
You do realize that this is the government we are talking about? Right? What makes you so sure they have thought things through on this? It is certainly not a conclusion based on past experience.
The local teacher's union can't be larger than the local population. If the state and federal government weren't involved, the rest of the union wouldn't matter.
that's a little unclever. You can't "fix" a county full of Southern Baptists wanting to teach Creation in science class or convince them that yes reading IS important no matter how "good they got by" without it, no matter how determined you are, short of killing them all and starting over. On a certain level there absolutely does need to be overarching mandate to what gets taught and how, otherwise certain parts of the country, small towns in particular will go straight back to the dark ages.
If you can't fix the problem with the schools at the local level, you can't fix them, end of story. Of course you make this comment about small towns going "straight back to the dark ages", when in fact it is the schools in big cities that are the one's that are the worst.
You don't "fix" a county full of whatever, you fix the school. Don't try and get the schools to indoctrinate the kids to believe evolution. Let the kids believe whatever they want, just make sure they understand what the theory of evolution is and how it applies to the science of biology.
If you know how to frame your arguments and are persistent, you can get things to change.
If there is something wrong with your local school, get off your butt and fix it. That may involve a lot of work on your part and many years, but getting the state and federal governments involved makes it harder to fix what ever is wrong with a local school, not easier.
The problem in this country is that we want to point out some problem and then find some "authority" to fix it for us, while we go on about our daily lives and ignore the problem.
Welcome to "no child left behind". The policy that ensures that the smartest students are held back to the level of the dumbest.
That's what happens when you get an organization the size of the U.S. federal government involved in something that should be handled at the local level.
I am not convinced that market forces would not have addressed pollution issues in a way that was as good or better than the one we chose. When we as a society decided that pollution was an issue that was important, we chose a political solution.
There are lots of arguments claiming that if it wasn't for government intervention companies would have gone on polluting, but there was no government intervention until a significant number of people started to care. The market will not act to address something until a significant number of people value that something.
The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the market
Utter nonsense. Markets provably do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities. (Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).
He didn't say that the market was perfect, he said it was the best analysis. Markets may not find the best solution, but I know of no case where an implemented solution chosen by the market was not superior to that chosen by any other method.
"One of the downsides of Linux is the fragmented nature of it," he said. "That's why so many designers are excited about Google's Android, because it's managed by a single entity," he added."
Now, these are folks doing very serious work with Linux. Many Slashdoters have said the same things only to be branded as trolls. I can see a future for Android if Google continues to do a good job.
Windows is managed by a single entity. Macintosh OSX is managed by a single entity. If being managed by a single entity is such a great thing, why do we need another OS?
You brought this straw man up before. If I do your experiment I find stuff that doesn't run on a Macintosh either. So, this is not an insurmountable problem like you try and make it sound. Mac users know that they need to buy hardware that works with their computers (and there was a time when there weren't any Apple stores and Macs did ok then too).
The only thing I would really disagree with is the idea that Wilson was before the idea of government giving favors to people. Wilson is definitely in the same ideological tradition as FDR. I would say that Wilson was a proto-fascist--that is, part of the group whose philosophy of government fascism later grew out of (I think a case could be made that if conditions had allowed it Wilson might have gone the direction of fascism--Mussolini's version).
You overlook one important thing in your exposition. The U.S. government was desegregated when Woodrow Wilson took office, he re-segregated it. There is a significant possibility that if it had not been for Woodrow Wilson, the 60's civil rights movement would have been unnecessary (or would have taken place in the 20's).
If Woodrow Wilson had not re-segregated the Army (and the rest of the military), whites and blacks would have served side by side in WWI. This would have exposed a lot of men to people of the other race in circumstances where what a person does far outweighs who they are.
Actually, that's not a bad idea with a few tweaks. I would suggest that they have to refund their salary for the entire year for any law they voted for that is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. This would have two beneficial effects. One, it would cut down on the number of laws that legislators vote for that they know don't pass constitutional muster. Two, it would give the legislators incentive to reign in judges who overstep their authority.
The tax in my area is higher than the average over the entire country. I don't know what the average cost of gas is over the entire country. Where I am currently the gas tax is slightly over 20% of the price of gas and at the beginning of April it was 25%. So, if I had done what you suggested I would have shown that not only was the original essentially correct, but as of April 1, he was exactly correct.
I chose to give the poster I responded to the benefit of the doubt by using the lower average for the entire country, rather than the tax rate for my locality.
Slashdot Mirror
they are saying election is stolen, because in azerbaijani parts of iran, ahmedinajad got 55%+ vote. never in iran's history ANYone other than an ethnic azerbaijani got that kind of vote there.
let me put it in american context - ahmedinajad getting 55% vote in azerbaijani parts of iran means barack obama getting 55%+ vote in any part of redneck midwest with little black population.
Actually, a better comparison would be a Republican getting 40% of the vote in African American neighborhoods.
The reason that people are convinced there was voter fraud is because Ahmedinajad got the same percentage of the vote in every section of Iran. If those running the show in Iran had been smart, they would have had the election results vary throughout the country like happens in a real election.
WHy do you need to indicate a female noun?
Because it is either shorter, or less confusing to write: "One of the actors (unidentified male member of the cats) had sex with one of the actresses (unidentified female member of the cast)", then: "One of the male actors (unidentified male member of the cast) had sex with one of the female actors (unidentified female member of the cast)", or "One of the actors (unidentified member of the cast) had sex with another one of the actors (unidentified member of the cast)". As you can see that last sentence tends to be interpreted significantly differently than the first.
Second a princess was not inferior to a prince because the title was different, but because that society considered females inferior to males. Additionally, I know of no mythological pantheon where gods were inherently more powerful than goddesses.
You guys are fucking creepy.
No, but they wish they were.
Sorry, but the USA is not currently one of the members of the Human Rights Council.
I am pretty sure that if you could provide any evidence that the government did pressure them to do it, the courts would rule the evidence inadmissible. Exactly what pressure could the government bring to bear? ...."No, I haven't found anything so far."
If I am a tech repair guy, I can just reply, "Sure, I'll keep my eye out."
Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?
That's a great idea, let's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws. And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).
There are two points relative to the "chain of evidence" argument. One, that doesn't appear to have been made by the defense in this case. Second, (and possibly the reason it wasn't made by the defense) is the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt". Just because the tech could have put it there, doesn't make it reasonable to think that he did. The defense would have to present a reasonable explanation as to why the tech had placed that file there.
Just because there are lots of ways that a dead body could end up in my basement doesn't mean that, if you find one there, it is not reasonable to assume that I put it there.
And there's a large part of the problem. No-one wants the US to be world policeman. What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.
No, they don't want the "US to be a team player". They want the US to intervene when it is in their interest (see former Yugoslavia) and not intervene when they perceive it as not being in their interest (see Iraq and Saddam Husein's payments to the French to eliminate the embargo).
If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible. Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent. The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time.
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities. If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.
Publishers have made a mint and have tried their best to hamper the second hard market. This is a positive change.
A positive change? How? By doing away with the second hand market entirely?
How about instead of going digital the state of California tells the publishers, "We don't see any reason for a new edition of that basic math book. 1+1 has equaled 2 since before the founding of the country, and we don't anticipate it changing any time soon, so there is no reason for a new edition to teach elementary school math."
. I am sure they have thought of this issue. I am also sure that it will slowly get phased in. .
You do realize that this is the government we are talking about? Right? What makes you so sure they have thought things through on this?
It is certainly not a conclusion based on past experience.
The local teacher's union can't be larger than the local population. If the state and federal government weren't involved, the rest of the union wouldn't matter.
that's a little unclever. You can't "fix" a county full of Southern Baptists wanting to teach Creation in science class or convince them that yes reading IS important no matter how "good they got by" without it, no matter how determined you are, short of killing them all and starting over. On a certain level there absolutely does need to be overarching mandate to what gets taught and how, otherwise certain parts of the country, small towns in particular will go straight back to the dark ages.
If you can't fix the problem with the schools at the local level, you can't fix them, end of story. Of course you make this comment about small towns going "straight back to the dark ages", when in fact it is the schools in big cities that are the one's that are the worst.
You don't "fix" a county full of whatever, you fix the school. Don't try and get the schools to indoctrinate the kids to believe evolution. Let the kids believe whatever they want, just make sure they understand what the theory of evolution is and how it applies to the science of biology.
If you know how to frame your arguments and are persistent, you can get things to change.
Right, you read the dailykos. They make a Rush Limbaugh monologue look like a thoughtful, carefully reasoned argument.
If there is something wrong with your local school, get off your butt and fix it. That may involve a lot of work on your part and many years, but getting the state and federal governments involved makes it harder to fix what ever is wrong with a local school, not easier.
The problem in this country is that we want to point out some problem and then find some "authority" to fix it for us, while we go on about our daily lives and ignore the problem.
Welcome to "no child left behind". The policy that ensures that the smartest students are held back to the level of the dumbest.
That's what happens when you get an organization the size of the U.S. federal government involved in something that should be handled at the local level.
I am not convinced that market forces would not have addressed pollution issues in a way that was as good or better than the one we chose. When we as a society decided that pollution was an issue that was important, we chose a political solution.
There are lots of arguments claiming that if it wasn't for government intervention companies would have gone on polluting, but there was no government intervention until a significant number of people started to care. The market will not act to address something until a significant number of people value that something.
Utter nonsense. Markets provably do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities. (Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).
He didn't say that the market was perfect, he said it was the best analysis. Markets may not find the best solution, but I know of no case where an implemented solution chosen by the market was not superior to that chosen by any other method.
"One of the downsides of Linux is the fragmented nature of it," he said. "That's why so many designers are excited about Google's Android, because it's managed by a single entity," he added."
Now, these are folks doing very serious work with Linux. Many Slashdoters have said the same things only to be branded as trolls. I can see a future for Android if Google continues to do a good job.
Windows is managed by a single entity. Macintosh OSX is managed by a single entity. If being managed by a single entity is such a great thing, why do we need another OS?
You brought this straw man up before. If I do your experiment I find stuff that doesn't run on a Macintosh either. So, this is not an insurmountable problem like you try and make it sound. Mac users know that they need to buy hardware that works with their computers (and there was a time when there weren't any Apple stores and Macs did ok then too).
The only thing I would really disagree with is the idea that Wilson was before the idea of government giving favors to people. Wilson is definitely in the same ideological tradition as FDR. I would say that Wilson was a proto-fascist--that is, part of the group whose philosophy of government fascism later grew out of (I think a case could be made that if conditions had allowed it Wilson might have gone the direction of fascism--Mussolini's version).
You overlook one important thing in your exposition. The U.S. government was desegregated when Woodrow Wilson took office, he re-segregated it. There is a significant possibility that if it had not been for Woodrow Wilson, the 60's civil rights movement would have been unnecessary (or would have taken place in the 20's).
If Woodrow Wilson had not re-segregated the Army (and the rest of the military), whites and blacks would have served side by side in WWI. This would have exposed a lot of men to people of the other race in circumstances where what a person does far outweighs who they are.
Actually, that's not a bad idea with a few tweaks. I would suggest that they have to refund their salary for the entire year for any law they voted for that is struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. This would have two beneficial effects. One, it would cut down on the number of laws that legislators vote for that they know don't pass constitutional muster. Two, it would give the legislators incentive to reign in judges who overstep their authority.
What UK car companies are there? Aren't they all divisions of some company based elsewhere?
The tax in my area is higher than the average over the entire country. I don't know what the average cost of gas is over the entire country. Where I am currently the gas tax is slightly over 20% of the price of gas and at the beginning of April it was 25%. So, if I had done what you suggested I would have shown that not only was the original essentially correct, but as of April 1, he was exactly correct.
I chose to give the poster I responded to the benefit of the doubt by using the lower average for the entire country, rather than the tax rate for my locality.