LOL... First how do you propose we end Gerrymandering? Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair.
Agreed. It turns out that parents often name their kids after themselves. They also leave their houses to their kids when they die. So almost all cases of "suspected dead voters" turn out to not be dead voters.
In the last election I had a few cases where I almost marked the wrong person as voting since they didn't have a "Jr", just the same name and address as a relative. You can disambiguate based on the date of birth, but it's easy to miss that when you have a long line.
How do you get to the DMV if you live 30 miles away from the closest one, and have to work two jobs just to put food on the table?
Same way you get to the polling station?
I live in a city with almost 2 million people in the greater metropolitan area. We have about 8 DMV offices in the metropolitan area, and about 800 polling places (probably more, I don't have a good way to count). Polling places are within a mile of most folk's houses; DMV offices are not. Do you really have as many DMV offices as polling places where you live?
* About 600K people die of cancer each year
* Only a few thousand die of certain other diseases.
* Therefore, until we can prove that another disease kills more people than cancer, then we should not try to fix any other disease.
Counter-argument: we are complicated people. We can work on more than one issue at a time.
Second counter-argument: if people chose not to vote, that is their right. I assume that you don't want to take that right away from them. But if they should be able to vote but cannot, then you ARE taking their right away from them, which seems a rather higher priority problem to fix.
The problem is this topic is so politicized - as is evidenced even in the commentary here - that any data comes with baggage.
It is politicized, but so what?
The solution to politicized scientific issues is to look at the consensus of the experts, plus any dissenting experts. In this case, pretty much every expert says one thing, and the dissenters are not climate experts. Seems mighty clear and apolitical to me.
Someone is mean to Trump, so you're going to throw the data out the window? That's... an interesting approach to assessing the situation.
But it explains so much about why conservatives act the way they do! When my step-son was 6 years old he did the same thing, just argued the opposite of anything I said. He grew out of it.
Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
Depends on the time frame.
At first people denied the change entirely. Then, when we repeatedly set "hottest year in recorded history" records, they fell back to "well, okay, but humans aren't causing it. It's changing 50 times faster than ever before because..." and the words after the "because" change but are never based on peer-reviewed research. Now, since that excuse is also pretty thin, we are hearing "well, okay, but it's not a problem that it's getting hotter." I expect the next stage will be "well, okay, we are causing it and it's a huge problem but it's too late/too expensive to fix it so oh well".
It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage. How many years ago did you change from the "it's not happening" stage?
I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but any scientist who "recalibrates algorithms so they look right" will be torn apart in peer review, especially in a field like climatology where people are regularly looking for reasons to discredit facts.
There have been several cases where folks have detected statistical anomalies between different sets of data, discovered a systemic error in one set plus an explanation for the error, wrote a paper describing all of this, and then defended the paper against others with competing explanations until consensus emerges. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
No, Hillary told us that the destructive fiasco that is the ACA was just fine as it was, and she would do everything necessary to keep it as it was.
She actually said that the ACA was okay but we could make it better.
When the ACA passed, conservatives said it would kill jobs, raise the deficit, cover fewer people, have death panels, and collapse on its own. Liberals said it would not affect jobs, not raise the deficit, cover many more people, not get between a doctor and patent, and work well.
Notice that the conservatives were wrong on every point. I mean, it's easy to be correct sometimes and wrong sometimes, but to be WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME is pretty impressive.
Even now, despite many efforts to kill the ACA, it keeps on limping along, and conservatives cannot come up with a single idea to improve it except for "let's take health care away from our base! WIN!!" Trump is the weakest, most impotent president we've had in the last 100 years, but he did do one thing that Obama never could: he made the ACA popular!
Back to TFA: I don't know which of these attempts to use technology to improve health will work. Maybe all, maybe none, but I suspect that the "analyze big data" approach will be most successful in the long run. Maybe not to improve individual results so much, but it can help determine causal factors and the effectiveness of treatments far better than current meta-studies can.
Your article uses the screen-mirror capabilities of Android and Chrome because Amazon refuses to support chromecast in their app. I'm assuming you've never tried screen-mirroring a video with chromecast (or VNC or any other mirroring tech). Screen-mirroring a video used to give you laughably unusable results; google has improved it so you now get almost-watchable results, which is probably as good as we'll ever get (due to the technical problems of mirroring every pixel wirelessly in real time). So yeah, Amazon's choice.
Also, Google turned off YouTube because Amazon used unofficial APIs to block ads, so this is much like you blaming the cable company for turning off people with illegal cable hookups. I don't like the ads either, but I can't blame Google for blocking them. Again, Amazon's choice. The new workaround (opening YouTube in a browser) will give Fire users a crappy UI for a TV; I'd be pissed at Amazon if I used Fire. But it's within the terms of service.
Note that TFA simply asked if people thought they were better off than two generations ago, rather than doing some type of measurement. It's like asking random people if the US deficit is larger now compared to 5 years ago; it's a good way to see what people believe but it doesn't measure or determine the truth.
Really? Are you not in the US? Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
It was clearly a lie. The statement implies that 100% of people could keep their health care plans, and in fact it was only 98%+ of people. Comparing the scope of Obama's "lie" with the daily rants from the Twit-in-chief is an exercise best left to those with lower blood pressure than I.
Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device is a dickweed move, and probably hurts Google in the long term too. How many affected consumers will be willing to purchase anything from a Google owned company after this short sighted, childish move ?
So, you are unhappy that Google will not allow Amazon devices to use Youtube, but you have no complaints that for the last several years, Amazon has not allowed Prime Video to be viewed on Chromecasts and has not sold any Chromecasts or Nests? That's rather one-sided of you.
"Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device" is EXACTLY what Amazon has been doing for multiple years, but you only have a problem when Google does it?
If there must be investigations, they should be conducted by impartial parties, not political gamesters.
I too would like an impartial investigator, but we're stuck with a conservative republican. Though I suspect that you were fine with political gamesters for the 25+ years of Clinton investigations.
Actually, comparing the Clinton and Trump investigations is informative. They investigated the Clintons for 25 years and found that one of them lied about a blow job and the other one is incompetent at email security. LOCK HER UP! They investigated Trump for less than a year and have already found that many people in Trumps campaign and administration lied under oath about talking to Russians, and have already filed charges. Yup, multiple people lying under oath about the same thing seems legit.
Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11. Liberals are fine going after Islamic terrorists, but not all Muslims. Conservatives seem to want to go after all Muslims, or at least treat all Muslims poorly. Or, to put it another way: "White gun owners were behind the attack in Las Vegas. Conservatives defend white gun owners at all costs."
The Russian government meddled in the 2016 elections with trolling that didn't kill anyone but which may have changed a presidential election. Liberals are horrified, conservatives defend Russians at all costs.
Bigotry is a better word than racism. Bigotry is hating all Muslims for the acts of a few, or all Russians for the acts of their government, or all white gun owners for the acts of a few. Bigotry is not really a conservative or liberal trait, though recently conservatives have chosen bigots as their leaders for some reason. There are certainly liberal bigots, but liberals try to not elect them.
I still don't know what you mean, and you clearly don't have any non-imaginary evidence, so I'm guessing the "adjust medication" option is your best choice.
Unless you mean the opinion pieces which say: Hey, maybe telling a female employee "let me touch/grab/harass you or be fired" is a kinda shitty and illegal thing. If that's your definition of preaching, then congratulations, you are voting for the correct people. But you are also proving my original point.
Nope. Turns out that President "I never heard of David Duke" Trump isn't left-wing. Neither is Roy "Commandment 11: Thou shalt try to date girls less than half thine age" Moore, who will probably be elected based on recent polls. Who on the left has recently been elected shortly after such revelations?
They also put them in to cushy jobs at national newspapers, radio, and TV networks where they sanctimoniously preach at us about how sinful and depraved we are in between getting blow jobs from interns under their desks
I have no idea what you are talking about. The only folks I hear preaching about how sinful everyone is are right-wing religious types (like Roy Moore).
Seriously, what are you talking about? Who on the left is "sanctimoniously preach(ing) at us about how sinful and depraved we are"? Note, if nobody else knows either, then you are probably listening to the voices in your head again and need to adjust your medication.
Or to put it another way, 99.999% of people may have this problem. It's adding an unnecessary risk that's the issue. One you simply don't have, even with the cheapest gasoline or hybrid vehicle.
Of course, with a gasoline vehicle, you might have the fuel pump or alternator or radiator go. None of which are a problem in electric vehicles.
I owned a Toyota Corolla for 17 years before it died (mostly of body rust). It probably broke down about 10 times, which is about 0.16% unreliable on a daily basis, or 99.84% reliable. That is rather worse than the 99.999% number given above.
This argument reminds me of the time a Tesla ran over a large piece of metal, warned the driver that it was going to shut down (giving them time to pull to the side of the road), and a few minutes later caught on fire. Gasoline cars catch on fire A LOT (usually with less warning); they're full of gasoline, get extremely hot, and generate sparks. But some people got the idea that electric cars were major fire hazards. People always focus on unlikely problems while not considering the common problems.
No reason to be surprised. The left has plenty of idiots and bigots of all stripes. The main difference between the left and right is that the left tends to not elect those people or pay attention to their whining screeds.
But the troll probably doesn't care about left or right; they're just trying to make excuses for their limited endowments.
63% of those firearm deaths were suicides. Let's face it, there's lots of ways for someone to commit suicide if they're so inclined.
There are many ways, though most of them are prone to failure. Suicide attempts seem to be fairly similar between the US and other first world countries; successful suicide attempts are rather higher in the US.
For the same year, the stats for death by other causes are: 1 in 6,513 persons died by poisoning 1 in 9,354 persons died by motor vehicle fatality 1 in 10,122 persons died by a fall 1 in 6,804 persons died by drug-induced cause
Your odds of death by firearm in the USA are slim to none (0.0039%) when you exclude suicide as a cause. Your odds are a lot higher of death by poisoning, car accident, a fall, or drugs.
Most effective poisons are illegal and restricted. The remaining ones (like the crap beneath your sink) are more likely to make you vomit and give you time to get to the hospital.
We have a huge driver licensing and testing program, and a huge vehicle registration and inspection program, to keep these numbers as low as they are. Plus tons of laws about safety equipment for street-legal vehicles.
We require fall protection pretty much everywhere, plus lots of property inspection.
And drugs are also illegal and the subject of huge enforcement (which we do terribly, but whatever).
So it sounds to me like you'd like the same level of licensing and proactive enforcement for firearms as we have for poisons, cars, property safety, and drugs. Which I agree with. Sadly, right now we have none of that and the numbers reflect this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL... First how do you propose we end Gerrymandering? Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair.
Errr... do you really think that? Seriously?
Agreed. It turns out that parents often name their kids after themselves. They also leave their houses to their kids when they die. So almost all cases of "suspected dead voters" turn out to not be dead voters.
In the last election I had a few cases where I almost marked the wrong person as voting since they didn't have a "Jr", just the same name and address as a relative. You can disambiguate based on the date of birth, but it's easy to miss that when you have a long line.
Losing boxes of papers means we can game the system. So, if we never have the boxes of paper in the first place, the system is... harder to game?
You may want to reconsider the logic behind your argument.
How do you get to the DMV if you live 30 miles away from the closest one, and have to work two jobs just to put food on the table?
Same way you get to the polling station?
I live in a city with almost 2 million people in the greater metropolitan area. We have about 8 DMV offices in the metropolitan area, and about 800 polling places (probably more, I don't have a good way to count). Polling places are within a mile of most folk's houses; DMV offices are not. Do you really have as many DMV offices as polling places where you live?
If I can paraphrase your argument:
* About 600K people die of cancer each year
* Only a few thousand die of certain other diseases.
* Therefore, until we can prove that another disease kills more people than cancer, then we should not try to fix any other disease.
Counter-argument: we are complicated people. We can work on more than one issue at a time.
Second counter-argument: if people chose not to vote, that is their right. I assume that you don't want to take that right away from them. But if they should be able to vote but cannot, then you ARE taking their right away from them, which seems a rather higher priority problem to fix.
The problem is this topic is so politicized - as is evidenced even in the commentary here - that any data comes with baggage.
It is politicized, but so what?
The solution to politicized scientific issues is to look at the consensus of the experts, plus any dissenting experts. In this case, pretty much every expert says one thing, and the dissenters are not climate experts. Seems mighty clear and apolitical to me.
Occasional cold temperatures are not that unusual. Temperatures this cold for this long, covering as large an area as they are, are extremely unusual.
Someone is mean to Trump, so you're going to throw the data out the window? That's ... an interesting approach to assessing the situation.
But it explains so much about why conservatives act the way they do! When my step-son was 6 years old he did the same thing, just argued the opposite of anything I said. He grew out of it.
Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
Depends on the time frame.
At first people denied the change entirely. Then, when we repeatedly set "hottest year in recorded history" records, they fell back to "well, okay, but humans aren't causing it. It's changing 50 times faster than ever before because..." and the words after the "because" change but are never based on peer-reviewed research. Now, since that excuse is also pretty thin, we are hearing "well, okay, but it's not a problem that it's getting hotter." I expect the next stage will be "well, okay, we are causing it and it's a huge problem but it's too late/too expensive to fix it so oh well".
It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage. How many years ago did you change from the "it's not happening" stage?
I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but any scientist who "recalibrates algorithms so they look right" will be torn apart in peer review, especially in a field like climatology where people are regularly looking for reasons to discredit facts.
There have been several cases where folks have detected statistical anomalies between different sets of data, discovered a systemic error in one set plus an explanation for the error, wrote a paper describing all of this, and then defended the paper against others with competing explanations until consensus emerges. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
No, Hillary told us that the destructive fiasco that is the ACA was just fine as it was, and she would do everything necessary to keep it as it was.
She actually said that the ACA was okay but we could make it better.
When the ACA passed, conservatives said it would kill jobs, raise the deficit, cover fewer people, have death panels, and collapse on its own. Liberals said it would not affect jobs, not raise the deficit, cover many more people, not get between a doctor and patent, and work well.
Notice that the conservatives were wrong on every point. I mean, it's easy to be correct sometimes and wrong sometimes, but to be WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME is pretty impressive.
Even now, despite many efforts to kill the ACA, it keeps on limping along, and conservatives cannot come up with a single idea to improve it except for "let's take health care away from our base! WIN!!" Trump is the weakest, most impotent president we've had in the last 100 years, but he did do one thing that Obama never could: he made the ACA popular!
Back to TFA: I don't know which of these attempts to use technology to improve health will work. Maybe all, maybe none, but I suspect that the "analyze big data" approach will be most successful in the long run. Maybe not to improve individual results so much, but it can help determine causal factors and the effectiveness of treatments far better than current meta-studies can.
Your article uses the screen-mirror capabilities of Android and Chrome because Amazon refuses to support chromecast in their app. I'm assuming you've never tried screen-mirroring a video with chromecast (or VNC or any other mirroring tech). Screen-mirroring a video used to give you laughably unusable results; google has improved it so you now get almost-watchable results, which is probably as good as we'll ever get (due to the technical problems of mirroring every pixel wirelessly in real time). So yeah, Amazon's choice.
Also, Google turned off YouTube because Amazon used unofficial APIs to block ads, so this is much like you blaming the cable company for turning off people with illegal cable hookups. I don't like the ads either, but I can't blame Google for blocking them. Again, Amazon's choice. The new workaround (opening YouTube in a browser) will give Fire users a crappy UI for a TV; I'd be pissed at Amazon if I used Fire. But it's within the terms of service.
The Chromecast works for all of those but Amazon, but that's Amazon's choice.
The fire works for all of them but YouTube, but that's Amazon's choice.
Note that TFA simply asked if people thought they were better off than two generations ago, rather than doing some type of measurement. It's like asking random people if the US deficit is larger now compared to 5 years ago; it's a good way to see what people believe but it doesn't measure or determine the truth.
Indeed. And this leads to an important point: How much do we believe women?
Eight women accused him of misconduct. He said he did not do it. The only people who would know for sure would be Moore and the 8 accusers.
So we find that for many folks in Alabama, one man is more believable than eight women. So women are, at most, about 12% as believable as men!
This sadly explains a lot about us as a culture.
Really? Are you not in the US? Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
It was clearly a lie. The statement implies that 100% of people could keep their health care plans, and in fact it was only 98%+ of people. Comparing the scope of Obama's "lie" with the daily rants from the Twit-in-chief is an exercise best left to those with lower blood pressure than I.
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
https://www.gop.com/the-lie-us...
Though since Amazon has Amazon Kindle and (years late) Prime Video on Android, that theory seems unlikely.
Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device is a dickweed move, and probably hurts Google in the long term too. How many affected consumers will be willing to purchase anything from a Google owned company after this short sighted, childish move ?
So, you are unhappy that Google will not allow Amazon devices to use Youtube, but you have no complaints that for the last several years, Amazon has not allowed Prime Video to be viewed on Chromecasts and has not sold any Chromecasts or Nests? That's rather one-sided of you.
"Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device" is EXACTLY what Amazon has been doing for multiple years, but you only have a problem when Google does it?
If there must be investigations, they should be conducted by impartial parties, not political gamesters.
I too would like an impartial investigator, but we're stuck with a conservative republican. Though I suspect that you were fine with political gamesters for the 25+ years of Clinton investigations.
Actually, comparing the Clinton and Trump investigations is informative. They investigated the Clintons for 25 years and found that one of them lied about a blow job and the other one is incompetent at email security. LOCK HER UP! They investigated Trump for less than a year and have already found that many people in Trumps campaign and administration lied under oath about talking to Russians, and have already filed charges. Yup, multiple people lying under oath about the same thing seems legit.
Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11. Liberals are fine going after Islamic terrorists, but not all Muslims. Conservatives seem to want to go after all Muslims, or at least treat all Muslims poorly. Or, to put it another way: "White gun owners were behind the attack in Las Vegas. Conservatives defend white gun owners at all costs."
The Russian government meddled in the 2016 elections with trolling that didn't kill anyone but which may have changed a presidential election. Liberals are horrified, conservatives defend Russians at all costs.
Bigotry is a better word than racism. Bigotry is hating all Muslims for the acts of a few, or all Russians for the acts of their government, or all white gun owners for the acts of a few. Bigotry is not really a conservative or liberal trait, though recently conservatives have chosen bigots as their leaders for some reason. There are certainly liberal bigots, but liberals try to not elect them.
I still don't know what you mean, and you clearly don't have any non-imaginary evidence, so I'm guessing the "adjust medication" option is your best choice.
Unless you mean the opinion pieces which say: Hey, maybe telling a female employee "let me touch/grab/harass you or be fired" is a kinda shitty and illegal thing. If that's your definition of preaching, then congratulations, you are voting for the correct people. But you are also proving my original point.
No, they elect them.
Nope. Turns out that President "I never heard of David Duke" Trump isn't left-wing. Neither is Roy "Commandment 11: Thou shalt try to date girls less than half thine age" Moore, who will probably be elected based on recent polls. Who on the left has recently been elected shortly after such revelations?
They also put them in to cushy jobs at national newspapers, radio, and TV networks where they sanctimoniously preach at us about how sinful and depraved we are in between getting blow jobs from interns under their desks
I have no idea what you are talking about. The only folks I hear preaching about how sinful everyone is are right-wing religious types (like Roy Moore).
Seriously, what are you talking about? Who on the left is "sanctimoniously preach(ing) at us about how sinful and depraved we are"? Note, if nobody else knows either, then you are probably listening to the voices in your head again and need to adjust your medication.
Or to put it another way, 99.999% of people may have this problem. It's adding an unnecessary risk that's the issue. One you simply don't have, even with the cheapest gasoline or hybrid vehicle.
Of course, with a gasoline vehicle, you might have the fuel pump or alternator or radiator go. None of which are a problem in electric vehicles.
I owned a Toyota Corolla for 17 years before it died (mostly of body rust). It probably broke down about 10 times, which is about 0.16% unreliable on a daily basis, or 99.84% reliable. That is rather worse than the 99.999% number given above.
This argument reminds me of the time a Tesla ran over a large piece of metal, warned the driver that it was going to shut down (giving them time to pull to the side of the road), and a few minutes later caught on fire. Gasoline cars catch on fire A LOT (usually with less warning); they're full of gasoline, get extremely hot, and generate sparks. But some people got the idea that electric cars were major fire hazards. People always focus on unlikely problems while not considering the common problems.
No reason to be surprised. The left has plenty of idiots and bigots of all stripes. The main difference between the left and right is that the left tends to not elect those people or pay attention to their whining screeds.
But the troll probably doesn't care about left or right; they're just trying to make excuses for their limited endowments.
63% of those firearm deaths were suicides. Let's face it, there's lots of ways for someone to commit suicide if they're so inclined.
There are many ways, though most of them are prone to failure. Suicide attempts seem to be fairly similar between the US and other first world countries; successful suicide attempts are rather higher in the US.
For the same year, the stats for death by other causes are:
1 in 6,513 persons died by poisoning
1 in 9,354 persons died by motor vehicle fatality
1 in 10,122 persons died by a fall
1 in 6,804 persons died by drug-induced cause
Your odds of death by firearm in the USA are slim to none (0.0039%) when you exclude suicide as a cause. Your odds are a lot higher of death by poisoning, car accident, a fall, or drugs.
Most effective poisons are illegal and restricted. The remaining ones (like the crap beneath your sink) are more likely to make you vomit and give you time to get to the hospital.
We have a huge driver licensing and testing program, and a huge vehicle registration and inspection program, to keep these numbers as low as they are. Plus tons of laws about safety equipment for street-legal vehicles.
We require fall protection pretty much everywhere, plus lots of property inspection.
And drugs are also illegal and the subject of huge enforcement (which we do terribly, but whatever).
So it sounds to me like you'd like the same level of licensing and proactive enforcement for firearms as we have for poisons, cars, property safety, and drugs. Which I agree with. Sadly, right now we have none of that and the numbers reflect this problem.