You can change the legal status from illegal to legal under certain circumstances. Such as situation where someone finds a loophole so that they get punished for doing something that really shouldn't have been illegal, but due to the wording of the law, it technically was. Laws can be retroactively applied to 'free' people. However, in this case, they'd have to make it legal for the companies to do whatever it was that they did. I for one hope they never make it legal and in that case, they therefore can't retroactively apply it.
Just taking voluntary orders from a government body doesn't make you immune from your actions. The company was never forced to do anything. Though, i suppose its possible the NSA is trying to put a lid on this because they may have used shady tactics to get the companies to comply. If thats the case, the lawsuit should still go forward and we should wait and see what the companies have to say for themselves. If they weren't given a choice, then go ahead with the lawsuit and have it come out. They won't be charged, and then the NSA can be punished.
And it is very illegal to prosecute someone above and beyond the full extent of the current law. New laws can't be retroactively applied to punish, only to free or acquit. We're talking about trying to get revenge at those who attacked our rights. It'd make no sense if we did the same thing they did.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has claimed that lawsuits could 'bankrupt these companies.' God forbid a company goes bankrupt for breaking the law. If a lawsuit does bankrupt the company, its the company's own fault for not having its customer's best interests in mind. Thats the law of the land... you upset your customers, you run the risk of losing them, or worse (ie: having them sue you). They made a bad business move and they should pay the consequences. They shouldn't be allowed to not suffer any consequences just because it might hurt them. That's ridiculous. Why does the government go so far out of its way to try and protect big businesses? even when its protecting these businesses from the citizens that had their rights abused by these companies. 'A goverment for the people' my ass.
i believe it was when he was saying, "let go of me and i'll leave".
plus, even if he was acting for the camera, it still doesn't justify what occurred. just because you think he was "asking for it" doesn't allow them to give it to him. Even if it all was a big stunt, the campus cops acted completely inappropriately. It looks like they probably had problems with him in the past and let their emotions control them. something a cop should *never* allow to happen.
he didn't stop yelling because he wanted to hear the answer and the police weren't going to allow that. i don't see any reason as to why they even started taking him out in the first place. who ordered it? or did the police officers take it upon themselves to just take the guy out. everything was civil til they started pulling him away from lord knows what (you can hear him yelling the same question, "what did i do?")
1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. No taser involved. he stated that he was setting up background information. thats *not* a rhetorical statement.
3. When security took him by the arm and gently began to escort him from the venue, he began pitching an absolute hissy fit. ok, now we're into interesting territory. You are not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, because that insights panic. And you are not allowed be hysterical in an auditorium for the same reason. He was shouting and waving his arms and running around the auditorium. That is completely out of line. He does not have the right to do that. What is the punishment? Simple, the police are going to restrain him for everyone's safety and forcibly remove him. Still no taser involved. And once again, it was his choice to go to step 3. When the police put their hands on him, he could have walked out of the venue and that would be the end of it. But no, he choose to escalate to 3. Did you watch the video? there was nothing gentle about it. if he was so obnoxious, how do you contend they could get him one foot from where he was by doing nothing more than "gentle." Also, at no point was he running around. He was always surrounded by officers being forcefully removed all the while saying if they let him go, he'll leave quietly. Also, he was placed under arrest well before being put to the ground. He was placed under arrest before he even got to the back of the auditorium. You can hear the one officer telling him he's under arrest. he reacted frantically asking what did i do and at the same time saying if you let me go i'll leave. *THEY* chose to escalate it. He offered to leave quietly, but they wouldn't allow it.
4. The police get him to the back of the auditorium and the whole thing is about 10 seconds from being over and then einstein breaks free from the police and tries to run back down the isle. I'm sorry, but at that point, the consequences of all of his actions have reached the level where a taser is appropriate. The police had a duty to subdue and restrain this asshat and get him outside. He was restrained before getting tasered. Asshat.
If I had been in his shoes, I would have asked Kerry a pithy question - I would have made my point that way. Then I would have preached rhetorically on my blog. But then, I'm not a dick. You may not be a dick, but you're a non-dick who doesn't mind when people's rights are trampled on. If it was SO clearly his fault, i highly doubt Kerry would be continually saying "i'll answer the question, its an important question" nor would you hear the crowd yelling at the police to stop or yelling "police brutality." Personally, i was sickened when I watched that. Anyone who can watch that and blame the victim has bigger problems going on.
the crowd did start trying to interfere once he started getting tasered. you can hear shouts telling him to stop, shouts of police brutality, and another officer telling people to get back (possibly from people trying to physically interfere, but its hard to tell).
No, you can't easily conclude that. There's no basis that had anything to do with it. They said this part of the brain is used more when category A does this. When category B does it, a different part is used. Thats what they said. They had scientific proof that in their test subjects, various parts of the brain worked differently. Yours is based off a bunch of unfounded assumptions. You jump to too many conclusions about various data. They jumped to no conclusions other than the observation that was made. You took the observation and interpreted it based off of several assumptions.
You need to know the difference between making an observation and interpreting an observation. They observed the way the brains worked. Thats the observation people should be focusing on. They shouldn't be focusing on same weird notion that they're saying one is better than the other (they're not saying that, and also, one isn't better than the other).
Seeing as how they basically used the scientific method here, I don't see how you can say its not science. They had a question (how does the brain activities differ), they formed a hypothesis, they experimented (repeatedly... each test subject is an experiment), they analyzed the results. It fit their hypothesis and they re-published it. If you have a problem with it, find proof that liberals DON'T use that part of their brain more and do the same for conservatives. All they said is that liberals use part A, conservatives use part B. Since you obviously have no problem with defining a liberal and conservative (you used them in your own conclusion), you can't use the *one* real argument people had against this experiment. So, perform your tests that definitively show the brain activities don't fit that model.
You are describing a "winner takes all" approach. AFAIK, that's very rare. In my country, x&y would have to join forces, or x&z or y&z. Government requires 50% +1 support to be elected. If no agreement is reached, voting is repeated. There's a whole theory on voting out there, and it *is* possible to get multi-party democracies off the ground. In fact, most of the democracies of the world work that way (at least nominally; many are de-facto 2-party systems). Start by checking wipedia. Multi-party democracies? You mean, like the USA? The USA only has a de-facto 2-party system. We have other parties. It's just that if you vote for the one that could possibly 100% aligned with your views, you risk the chance that your not voting for the Party-A which is only partially aligned with your views will lose to Party-B which is completely not aligned with your views. This problem will always occur with voting systems that have more than two parties. I'm confused as to your whole aligning thing and don't really know how that would work (two presidents? i'm not sure if thats what you're saying, at least in perspective to the US). Though, I'm pretty sure the point of the co-aligned system is to try and bring it down to fewer choices (as close to two as it can get, most likely). The more choices you have, the harder it will be to ever get 51%. You're virtually guaranteed to have at least 51% (it'd be really difficult to get exactly 50/50) with a two party system, so any co-alignment system is probably trying to solve the >2 problem.
I strongly dislike "us vs them" politics. I also dislike research which extracts grand conclussions from its data (which does not support them), specially when these conclussions get echoed all over the media. Count on the media for accurate headlines and critical reading of the latest juicy "findings". this sounds more like you're upset with how the media interpreted it as opposed to the actual study. the actual study just said the pattern was that one thought differently than the other. neither said one was better at all. i'm not surprised that one who views themselves as liberal is more likely to think differently than one who views themselves as conservative. Even with your co-alignments, there's obviously some characteristics they share that caused them to align. You like this characteristic. This is the characteristic they're measuring. It's not an "US vs THEM." You're making it into that. The media is making it into that. The study did NOT make it into that. The study was just saying, given these parameters, those that choose A, think this way and those that choose B, think this way. If they found a pattern of people that choose the color red when given the choice of blue or red, any pattern that emerges amongst them is still a valid observation. The study set some boundaries and perform a study under those conditions. Given the choice of liberal or conservative, those who chose one also tended to think in a different way. This is not bad science. It's an observation. The only problem i can foresee is that instead of saying Liberals tend to think some specific way, it should be Those Who Think They're Liberal tend to think some specific way.
The only mistake made was that they used the wrong titles. It should say, "Those Who Think They're Liberal" and "Those Who Think They're Conservative." That would fix most of the problems that you find in this study. The other problems would be fixed if you just didn't take the media's word on a study and interpreted the results yourself. The study boiled down to "People who chose A over B tend to think in format X. People who chose B over A tend to think in format Z." There's nothing wrong with a study like that.
This is just a study that found a pattern correlating the way certain people behave and think. The pattern may be part of some much more complex pattern and this is an extremely simple view, but its a pattern nonetheless. I'm sure there are error margins and everything. I'm sure not every liberal fit their model and not every conservative fit their model.
Having a problem with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Here's the business model (really simplified):
Advertising Company says they'll pay for x% of the bandwidth depending upon how many of the users click on their ads (the higher portion of users that do so, the higher percentage of the bandwidth they'll pay).
Web creator puts the website, available for free, on the web. They don't have ANY contract with the user that they will view their site. The user (surprise) blocks the ads. The user is breaking no rules. The user also isn't necessarily costing the web creator money (thats like assuming every pirated song is a lost sale). The content is free and there's no obligation to download the entire site.
HOWEVER, if there is an entry web page that one must go through and agree to a user license that states it will not block ads (or, even further, could say they have to click on x amount of ads) and you click OK, then YES, you are stealing resources. You're entering a contract and not delivering on your end.
But, I've yet to see this set up. All I've seen are people asking nicely, "Please visit our sponsors. blah blah blah."
Blocking ads (or even just not clicking ads) is akin to not putting any money in the suggested donations box when you go to the museum. The web creator is basically making each ad a suggested donation. Until they say its NOT just a suggestion, then its not theft.
It's just saying that in the war to bring down MS Office being the unofficial standard as office documents (though, is trying real hard to become a standard), MS code will play a role against MS.
Microsoft code will be used to help out a product in direct competition with Microsoft. That's where the article headline comes from.
Your assumption of a.712 on some fictional absolute scale having to have the same stances as another who scored.712 is ridiculous. It's a matter of how many of your views tend to be liberal or conservative. It's not like if you're a little conservative, you're going to have the same stance on a particular conservative issue as someone else who is a little conservative.
Political leaning is a part of a human behavior. Everyone leans in one way or the other. Why is it so crazy that those who tend to lean towards one direction tend to think a certain way? True, maybe some time in the future political leanings will be more defined than just a 1 dimensional spectrum, but there will still be some similarities of those that shared the same side of the spectrum and that was the characteristic that was influencing this study.
On an off-topic note, more than two parties is dangerous because you run the risk of the majority of people not voting for the winner. If you have candidates x, y, & z where y & z share a lot of similar views except one, you can get a situation where 3/5 of the population are split amongst those two. Now, 2/5 of the votes went to x, which 3/5(obviously) of the population did not vote for, but even so, he got more votes than the other two (the other two both getting 3/10 of the vote, whereas (if you can't do math) he got 4/10). That's why more than two political parties is illogical. You can get a winner who can possibly share no views with the majority of the population.
I think its interesting that a pattern emerged amongst those who tend to think one way as opposed to another. It's not bad science. It's noticing a pattern. That's all. You could very well be an outlier who doesn't fit their model, but that doesn't mean their study lacks any merit.
You realize all this study is saying is that those who define themselves as liberals/conservative tend to share a similar way of thinking as others who label themselves as liberals/conservatives. At what point does this all of the sudden become A) that surprising, and B) that upsetting?
Well, they probably had them fill out a questionnaire and figured out which way they lean. All your variables are based on that first assumption that they just went by the subject identifying themselves. While its true that may be a possibility in how it's done, it's also not the usual way an experiment would be conducted. And your whole variable of "are the subject of your study representative of all people..." would then make virtually ALL science awful. All science is based off a test sample and than basing some hypothesis that the idea will scale to the rest of society, with some margin of error.
I don't think its junk at all. Determining differences in cognitive abilities on something such as politics makes a lot of sense. The study doesn't say one is better than another, but it did show a difference in thinking which supports WHY each faction has different tendencies. It doesn't seem out of reach that SO MANY people seem to be split on such basic ideas about the driving forces of our society.
The only awful science is if you try to say that this article says one is better than the other.
And yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective titles, but mainly because each is a spectrum characteristic. They're varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism. So, when you try to place someone exactly where they belong, its difficult, but when trying to determine if they're on one half of the spectrum or the other has a lot less guesswork involved.
It's supposed to be alternate history, therefore it's supposed to take place in places that people will recognize. If you start making up things, it no longer is alternate history fiction, it's just plain fiction.
Imagine the Spider-man game based off the movie. If the Empire State building was something else, it wouldn't be New York. If Ellis Island was re-named and remodeled, it wouldn't be the same. It'd basically be Grand Theft Auto: Spider-man.
The reason the author is making a big deal about this is that Sony didn't set a great precedent. They didn't back down, but they didn't really stand up and fight and say, "Hey, we're right," when they were actually right. I think it's fine that the church was included and I think they had every right to include it.
I mean replace the screen with the larger touch screen. I just want the touch screen capabilities, but the larger capacity. I don't care about making the physical size of the ipod thinner. I want capacity and I want the cool touch interface, but apparently I have to choose and since capacity is somewhat nonnegotiable, I need to go with the larger capacity. I put a lot of tv shows on there (quite a few different shows with numerous seasons and I use it as my main source for viewing, so I carry a lot more than 16GB of video... and thats not counting the 7gigs of music I have.)
They didn't bring the touch screen to the larger capacity "classic" models. I'm curious as to why they're striving towards dropping actual hard drives in favor of flash memory. Some of us like the large capacity, but would also like some of the nifty features that they're bringing in to the flash models. Why can't they drop the "classic" models and just make them touch screen as well?
There are actually two different Civic Hybrids (for 2005 at least). One is categorized ULEV, the other is PZEV-AT. The PZEV-AT model is actually only available in some states (not sure if its due to legal reasons or not, but that portion of the story is actually true). Again: PZEV != Close to zero emissions. It means it gives off zero evaporative emissions. The 2007 Civic Hybrid I believe comes in only one model. Can't remember where (it may be the actual article in the post), but Honda is apparently the only ones trying to release only PZEV-AT models where possible.
PZEV doesn't actually imply at times it gives off zero emissions, it implies that it gives off zero evaporative emissions. So, while it doesn't give off zero emissions, it does give off zero emissions of a specific kind. SULEV is an equivalent term (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZEV.
Apparently, I'm wrong on a lot of assumptions, but so is a lot of other stuff. Some of these aren't hybrids at all. They don't get better gas mileage or anything. They're just cleaner and more expensive. They still use regular gasoline. I'm really having difficulty finding the issue about why its illegal to sell elsewhere.
While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.
Though, I could be mistaken. I can't remember where I was reading about it, so my head could be playing tricks on me. However, I'm fairly certain the hybrid models available on the market aren't PZEVs. I'm pretty sure some of the Volvo models for 2008 are however biodiesel hybrids (though, it might be regular diesel hybrids), which would make sense for the restriction in terms of shifting crop production.
what laws though exactly? at least state the California laws since you already know them. I'm curious as well to the exact rights a store has to search a customer.
If you get pushed around, you can always count on the internet to voice your oppression so to speak. If this guy wasn't computer literate or what not and couldn't get his story out there through the internet, I doubt he'd have such backing from a huge amount of people. I also doubt the story would get spread so quickly. The police station and the store in question are probably both kicking themselves because this is bad PR and it didn't just go away. All those on the other side of the story probably expected this to go smoothly and to have no backlash. They most likely expected him to accept the obstruction charge and everyone will go on with their lives. Obviously they were mistaken. I think this is a good example to people in any kind of authority (store managers, police officers, etc.) that you gotta watch out who you push around because it can come back and bite you.
Slashdot Mirror
You can change the legal status from illegal to legal under certain circumstances. Such as situation where someone finds a loophole so that they get punished for doing something that really shouldn't have been illegal, but due to the wording of the law, it technically was. Laws can be retroactively applied to 'free' people. However, in this case, they'd have to make it legal for the companies to do whatever it was that they did. I for one hope they never make it legal and in that case, they therefore can't retroactively apply it.
Just taking voluntary orders from a government body doesn't make you immune from your actions. The company was never forced to do anything. Though, i suppose its possible the NSA is trying to put a lid on this because they may have used shady tactics to get the companies to comply. If thats the case, the lawsuit should still go forward and we should wait and see what the companies have to say for themselves. If they weren't given a choice, then go ahead with the lawsuit and have it come out. They won't be charged, and then the NSA can be punished.
And it is very illegal to prosecute someone above and beyond the full extent of the current law. New laws can't be retroactively applied to punish, only to free or acquit. We're talking about trying to get revenge at those who attacked our rights. It'd make no sense if we did the same thing they did.
Madness?! This is Sparta!
i believe it was when he was saying, "let go of me and i'll leave".
plus, even if he was acting for the camera, it still doesn't justify what occurred. just because you think he was "asking for it" doesn't allow them to give it to him. Even if it all was a big stunt, the campus cops acted completely inappropriately. It looks like they probably had problems with him in the past and let their emotions control them. something a cop should *never* allow to happen.
he didn't stop yelling because he wanted to hear the answer and the police weren't going to allow that. i don't see any reason as to why they even started taking him out in the first place. who ordered it? or did the police officers take it upon themselves to just take the guy out. everything was civil til they started pulling him away from lord knows what (you can hear him yelling the same question, "what did i do?")
3. When security took him by the arm and gently began to escort him from the venue, he began pitching an absolute hissy fit. ok, now we're into interesting territory. You are not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, because that insights panic. And you are not allowed be hysterical in an auditorium for the same reason. He was shouting and waving his arms and running around the auditorium. That is completely out of line. He does not have the right to do that. What is the punishment? Simple, the police are going to restrain him for everyone's safety and forcibly remove him. Still no taser involved. And once again, it was his choice to go to step 3. When the police put their hands on him, he could have walked out of the venue and that would be the end of it. But no, he choose to escalate to 3. Did you watch the video? there was nothing gentle about it. if he was so obnoxious, how do you contend they could get him one foot from where he was by doing nothing more than "gentle." Also, at no point was he running around. He was always surrounded by officers being forcefully removed all the while saying if they let him go, he'll leave quietly. Also, he was placed under arrest well before being put to the ground. He was placed under arrest before he even got to the back of the auditorium. You can hear the one officer telling him he's under arrest. he reacted frantically asking what did i do and at the same time saying if you let me go i'll leave. *THEY* chose to escalate it. He offered to leave quietly, but they wouldn't allow it. 4. The police get him to the back of the auditorium and the whole thing is about 10 seconds from being over and then einstein breaks free from the police and tries to run back down the isle. I'm sorry, but at that point, the consequences of all of his actions have reached the level where a taser is appropriate. The police had a duty to subdue and restrain this asshat and get him outside. He was restrained before getting tasered. Asshat. If I had been in his shoes, I would have asked Kerry a pithy question - I would have made my point that way. Then I would have preached rhetorically on my blog. But then, I'm not a dick. You may not be a dick, but you're a non-dick who doesn't mind when people's rights are trampled on. If it was SO clearly his fault, i highly doubt Kerry would be continually saying "i'll answer the question, its an important question" nor would you hear the crowd yelling at the police to stop or yelling "police brutality." Personally, i was sickened when I watched that. Anyone who can watch that and blame the victim has bigger problems going on.
the crowd did start trying to interfere once he started getting tasered. you can hear shouts telling him to stop, shouts of police brutality, and another officer telling people to get back (possibly from people trying to physically interfere, but its hard to tell).
way to go. now 2clix is gonna sue slashdot.org. i hear they're planning on suing the internet too.
No, you can't easily conclude that. There's no basis that had anything to do with it. They said this part of the brain is used more when category A does this. When category B does it, a different part is used. Thats what they said. They had scientific proof that in their test subjects, various parts of the brain worked differently. Yours is based off a bunch of unfounded assumptions. You jump to too many conclusions about various data. They jumped to no conclusions other than the observation that was made. You took the observation and interpreted it based off of several assumptions.
You need to know the difference between making an observation and interpreting an observation. They observed the way the brains worked. Thats the observation people should be focusing on. They shouldn't be focusing on same weird notion that they're saying one is better than the other (they're not saying that, and also, one isn't better than the other).
Seeing as how they basically used the scientific method here, I don't see how you can say its not science. They had a question (how does the brain activities differ), they formed a hypothesis, they experimented (repeatedly... each test subject is an experiment), they analyzed the results. It fit their hypothesis and they re-published it. If you have a problem with it, find proof that liberals DON'T use that part of their brain more and do the same for conservatives. All they said is that liberals use part A, conservatives use part B. Since you obviously have no problem with defining a liberal and conservative (you used them in your own conclusion), you can't use the *one* real argument people had against this experiment. So, perform your tests that definitively show the brain activities don't fit that model.
The only mistake made was that they used the wrong titles. It should say, "Those Who Think They're Liberal" and "Those Who Think They're Conservative." That would fix most of the problems that you find in this study. The other problems would be fixed if you just didn't take the media's word on a study and interpreted the results yourself. The study boiled down to "People who chose A over B tend to think in format X. People who chose B over A tend to think in format Z." There's nothing wrong with a study like that.
This is just a study that found a pattern correlating the way certain people behave and think. The pattern may be part of some much more complex pattern and this is an extremely simple view, but its a pattern nonetheless. I'm sure there are error margins and everything. I'm sure not every liberal fit their model and not every conservative fit their model.
Having a problem with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Here's the business model (really simplified):
Advertising Company says they'll pay for x% of the bandwidth depending upon how many of the users click on their ads (the higher portion of users that do so, the higher percentage of the bandwidth they'll pay).
Web creator puts the website, available for free, on the web. They don't have ANY contract with the user that they will view their site. The user (surprise) blocks the ads. The user is breaking no rules. The user also isn't necessarily costing the web creator money (thats like assuming every pirated song is a lost sale). The content is free and there's no obligation to download the entire site.
HOWEVER, if there is an entry web page that one must go through and agree to a user license that states it will not block ads (or, even further, could say they have to click on x amount of ads) and you click OK, then YES, you are stealing resources. You're entering a contract and not delivering on your end.
But, I've yet to see this set up. All I've seen are people asking nicely, "Please visit our sponsors. blah blah blah."
Blocking ads (or even just not clicking ads) is akin to not putting any money in the suggested donations box when you go to the museum. The web creator is basically making each ad a suggested donation. Until they say its NOT just a suggestion, then its not theft.
It's just saying that in the war to bring down MS Office being the unofficial standard as office documents (though, is trying real hard to become a standard), MS code will play a role against MS.
Microsoft code will be used to help out a product in direct competition with Microsoft. That's where the article headline comes from.
Your assumption of a .712 on some fictional absolute scale having to have the same stances as another who scored .712 is ridiculous. It's a matter of how many of your views tend to be liberal or conservative. It's not like if you're a little conservative, you're going to have the same stance on a particular conservative issue as someone else who is a little conservative.
Political leaning is a part of a human behavior. Everyone leans in one way or the other. Why is it so crazy that those who tend to lean towards one direction tend to think a certain way? True, maybe some time in the future political leanings will be more defined than just a 1 dimensional spectrum, but there will still be some similarities of those that shared the same side of the spectrum and that was the characteristic that was influencing this study.
On an off-topic note, more than two parties is dangerous because you run the risk of the majority of people not voting for the winner. If you have candidates x, y, & z where y & z share a lot of similar views except one, you can get a situation where 3/5 of the population are split amongst those two. Now, 2/5 of the votes went to x, which 3/5(obviously) of the population did not vote for, but even so, he got more votes than the other two (the other two both getting 3/10 of the vote, whereas (if you can't do math) he got 4/10). That's why more than two political parties is illogical. You can get a winner who can possibly share no views with the majority of the population.
I think its interesting that a pattern emerged amongst those who tend to think one way as opposed to another. It's not bad science. It's noticing a pattern. That's all. You could very well be an outlier who doesn't fit their model, but that doesn't mean their study lacks any merit.
You realize all this study is saying is that those who define themselves as liberals/conservative tend to share a similar way of thinking as others who label themselves as liberals/conservatives. At what point does this all of the sudden become A) that surprising, and B) that upsetting?
Well, they probably had them fill out a questionnaire and figured out which way they lean. All your variables are based on that first assumption that they just went by the subject identifying themselves. While its true that may be a possibility in how it's done, it's also not the usual way an experiment would be conducted. And your whole variable of "are the subject of your study representative of all people..." would then make virtually ALL science awful. All science is based off a test sample and than basing some hypothesis that the idea will scale to the rest of society, with some margin of error.
I don't think its junk at all. Determining differences in cognitive abilities on something such as politics makes a lot of sense. The study doesn't say one is better than another, but it did show a difference in thinking which supports WHY each faction has different tendencies. It doesn't seem out of reach that SO MANY people seem to be split on such basic ideas about the driving forces of our society.
The only awful science is if you try to say that this article says one is better than the other.
And yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective titles, but mainly because each is a spectrum characteristic. They're varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism. So, when you try to place someone exactly where they belong, its difficult, but when trying to determine if they're on one half of the spectrum or the other has a lot less guesswork involved.
It's supposed to be alternate history, therefore it's supposed to take place in places that people will recognize. If you start making up things, it no longer is alternate history fiction, it's just plain fiction.
Imagine the Spider-man game based off the movie. If the Empire State building was something else, it wouldn't be New York. If Ellis Island was re-named and remodeled, it wouldn't be the same. It'd basically be Grand Theft Auto: Spider-man.
The reason the author is making a big deal about this is that Sony didn't set a great precedent. They didn't back down, but they didn't really stand up and fight and say, "Hey, we're right," when they were actually right. I think it's fine that the church was included and I think they had every right to include it.
i read about that, but it involves them sniffing the blood culture though, doesn't it? or did it work on patients as well?
I mean replace the screen with the larger touch screen. I just want the touch screen capabilities, but the larger capacity. I don't care about making the physical size of the ipod thinner. I want capacity and I want the cool touch interface, but apparently I have to choose and since capacity is somewhat nonnegotiable, I need to go with the larger capacity. I put a lot of tv shows on there (quite a few different shows with numerous seasons and I use it as my main source for viewing, so I carry a lot more than 16GB of video... and thats not counting the 7gigs of music I have.)
They didn't bring the touch screen to the larger capacity "classic" models. I'm curious as to why they're striving towards dropping actual hard drives in favor of flash memory. Some of us like the large capacity, but would also like some of the nifty features that they're bringing in to the flash models. Why can't they drop the "classic" models and just make them touch screen as well?
There are actually two different Civic Hybrids (for 2005 at least). One is categorized ULEV, the other is PZEV-AT. The PZEV-AT model is actually only available in some states (not sure if its due to legal reasons or not, but that portion of the story is actually true). Again: PZEV != Close to zero emissions. It means it gives off zero evaporative emissions. The 2007 Civic Hybrid I believe comes in only one model. Can't remember where (it may be the actual article in the post), but Honda is apparently the only ones trying to release only PZEV-AT models where possible.
PZEV doesn't actually imply at times it gives off zero emissions, it implies that it gives off zero evaporative emissions. So, while it doesn't give off zero emissions, it does give off zero emissions of a specific kind. SULEV is an equivalent term (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZEV.
Apparently, I'm wrong on a lot of assumptions, but so is a lot of other stuff. Some of these aren't hybrids at all. They don't get better gas mileage or anything. They're just cleaner and more expensive. They still use regular gasoline. I'm really having difficulty finding the issue about why its illegal to sell elsewhere.
Hybrids != PZEV
While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.
Though, I could be mistaken. I can't remember where I was reading about it, so my head could be playing tricks on me. However, I'm fairly certain the hybrid models available on the market aren't PZEVs. I'm pretty sure some of the Volvo models for 2008 are however biodiesel hybrids (though, it might be regular diesel hybrids), which would make sense for the restriction in terms of shifting crop production.
what laws though exactly? at least state the California laws since you already know them. I'm curious as well to the exact rights a store has to search a customer.
If you get pushed around, you can always count on the internet to voice your oppression so to speak. If this guy wasn't computer literate or what not and couldn't get his story out there through the internet, I doubt he'd have such backing from a huge amount of people. I also doubt the story would get spread so quickly. The police station and the store in question are probably both kicking themselves because this is bad PR and it didn't just go away. All those on the other side of the story probably expected this to go smoothly and to have no backlash. They most likely expected him to accept the obstruction charge and everyone will go on with their lives. Obviously they were mistaken. I think this is a good example to people in any kind of authority (store managers, police officers, etc.) that you gotta watch out who you push around because it can come back and bite you.