You'd like to believe that because it reinforces your stereotypes of the people you oppose, while allowing you to portray yourself as more enlightened. Sadly for you, neither is true.
The reality is, she's a carpetbagger who has continually adjusted her political opinions to match consensus, while expressly stating it was what she believes. Her positions are determined by their ability to gain her power, nothing more.
It might be ok for you that she craves power enough to risk her credibility, but that very desire for power that she displays at virtually every opportunity scares the hell out of me.
I want my Presidents to detest the power and trappings of the office, not revel in them as though they were her birthright.
Welcome to the reality, I hope you adjust your personal fiction accordingly, you sound pretty stupid claiming we dislike her because she's a strong woman. And frankly, your certainty of that fact is incredibly insulting to those of us well versed in her politics.
Perhaps you were assuming everyone was as shallow and easily swayed as you are, only they got swayed by the other camp?
"His statement does not excuse his refusal to apologize, when asked, for the racism printed in his publication. "
Why should he apologize for something he claims he didn't do? Wouldn't that belie his claims?
And seriously, sometime you people and your demands for "apologies" make me ill.
Since you've already made up your mind, stop pretending you've considered the idea rationally, especially since you're ignoring evidence that refutes you.
If you wee nearly as equitable as you pretend to be, you sure as hell wouldn't be demanding apologies from him for something he never said.
"Of all of the current candidates, left and right, she is the only one who has consistently, from what I can tell, maintained her positions"
Then you need to check again, because that's completely wrong.
"She has, I think, a fairly clear idea of what she wants and what her platform is."
Yes, whatever she needs it to be to get elected.
I appreciate that you have an opinion, but she's transparent to anyone who has seen her as long as we have. She's a carpetbagging power-monger who has no real ideology apart from whatever it takes to get votes.
"All things being equal, she gave her husband the benefit of the doubt. "
That brings to mind and old saying, "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you, fool me continuously for years, and I'll ignore it because political power is far more important to me than maintaining the illusion of a successful marriage, and my dignity is not important enough to me to defend it if it means I have to make a political sacrifice..."
"OK, so you believe that by posting as anonymous, that there is no way it could be tracked back to me?"
Yup. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up.
"Dude, spend less time jerking off, your brain needs more exercise. "\
Dude, spend less time in your hole making up stupid excuses, they're obviously retarded and easily torn apart, which is why you attack, you know I'm right.
Save your made up rants, loser, you're full of shit and will use any excuse to avoid admitting it.
"How dare Red Hat not give everything away for free?"
Why are they pushing this misconception of what open source means? AFAIK, it doesn't mean "give everything away for free" it means "the source is open".
"but to claim that this somehow puts the lie to the data is an absurd overreach."
Why? Just saying so doesn't make it true, so tell me why.
"Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort to spin the results?"
And saying it's "only" one more year isn't also spinning it?
Why are you doing exactly what you are trying to denounce?
Congratulations, you've focused on the data quite well, while totally missing the point.
The data, which had previously been considered accurate, wasn't. The data was used as the basis for other studies, which themselves may or may not be inaccurate.
The point here really has nothing to do with the conclusions you so lucidly point out, but with the methodology. The data was not public nor was the algorithm used to calculate the conclusions.
That's not good science by anyone's measure.
And you'll notice, I never explicitly discussed the conclusions anywhere in my post. Try to do the same if you reply.
The important point here is not the inaccuracy of the data, but that the data was accepted at face value without being adequately vetted.
It doesn't matter how you feel about this subject, there is really no valid reason to allow studies like this one to be used as the basis for conclusions without access to all of the data and all of the methodology. This was never available. What does it say about your confidence in your results when you won't allow anyone to look at how you got there?
The study was wrong, and this guy had to not only reverse engineer the algorithm, he had to reverse engineer the data to demonstrate it was inaccurate.
There's no way anyone could think that was a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, did your boy win nuthugger? Nope.
Argue with that loser.
I win again, unlike you and your boy Gore.
"I'm not demanding any apologies."
Really then what is this?
"His statement does not excuse his refusal to apologize, when asked, for the racism printed in his publication."
Go ahead and claim that wasn't a demand for an apology. Then I can demand you apologize for lying.
You're a lying troll and I caught you. Fuck off now.
"Ooh, a Faux intellectual has come out to troll..."
At least you were man enough to admit it in advance.
Thanks for that, it helped me avoid more of your nonsensical nuthugging.
I win, unlike you and Gore.
You'd like to believe that because it reinforces your stereotypes of the people you oppose, while allowing you to portray yourself as more enlightened. Sadly for you, neither is true.
The reality is, she's a carpetbagger who has continually adjusted her political opinions to match consensus, while expressly stating it was what she believes. Her positions are determined by their ability to gain her power, nothing more.
It might be ok for you that she craves power enough to risk her credibility, but that very desire for power that she displays at virtually every opportunity scares the hell out of me.
I want my Presidents to detest the power and trappings of the office, not revel in them as though they were her birthright.
Welcome to the reality, I hope you adjust your personal fiction accordingly, you sound pretty stupid claiming we dislike her because she's a strong woman. And frankly, your certainty of that fact is incredibly insulting to those of us well versed in her politics.
Perhaps you were assuming everyone was as shallow and easily swayed as you are, only they got swayed by the other camp?
"His statement does not excuse his refusal to apologize, when asked, for the racism printed in his publication. "
Why should he apologize for something he claims he didn't do? Wouldn't that belie his claims?
And seriously, sometime you people and your demands for "apologies" make me ill.
Since you've already made up your mind, stop pretending you've considered the idea rationally, especially since you're ignoring evidence that refutes you.
If you wee nearly as equitable as you pretend to be, you sure as hell wouldn't be demanding apologies from him for something he never said.
"but when you attempt to generalize some national sentiment based off of things like 'he didn't have Clinton's charm' you lose any credibility."
What are you saying here, that he did have Clinton's charm? BWAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAAH!
No.
The rest of your post reads like what it is, a fanboi's response to someone calling your boy names.
Get off Gore's nuts, you're embarrassing yourself.
And read a fucking book before you post about this again, you're lying about half the shit in there, which is worse because you probably believe it.
"Of all of the current candidates, left and right, she is the only one who has consistently, from what I can tell, maintained her positions"
Then you need to check again, because that's completely wrong.
"She has, I think, a fairly clear idea of what she wants and what her platform is."
Yes, whatever she needs it to be to get elected.
I appreciate that you have an opinion, but she's transparent to anyone who has seen her as long as we have. She's a carpetbagging power-monger who has no real ideology apart from whatever it takes to get votes.
Your opinion about her couldn't be more wrong.
"All things being equal, she gave her husband the benefit of the doubt. "
That brings to mind and old saying, "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you, fool me continuously for years, and I'll ignore it because political power is far more important to me than maintaining the illusion of a successful marriage, and my dignity is not important enough to me to defend it if it means I have to make a political sacrifice..."
Or something like that.
"OK, so you believe that by posting as anonymous, that there is no way it could be tracked back to me?"
Yup. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up.
"Dude, spend less time jerking off, your brain needs more exercise. "\
Dude, spend less time in your hole making up stupid excuses, they're obviously retarded and easily torn apart, which is why you attack, you know I'm right.
Save your made up rants, loser, you're full of shit and will use any excuse to avoid admitting it.
"Oh but I did quote it"
No you didn't, you posted a quote which you misread and then made a bad assumption about.
You were wrong, but kept pretending you were right.
Quote or admission liar.
"It is totally expected that as results are coming in, it is going to fluctuate wildly."
Then that kind if negates the predictive value, which was what you were alluding to in your post.
Also, read the link, you're misunderstanding what happened.
When the very same market predicted a Kerry victory after the close of the Ohio and Florida polls?
t ion_Paper_11_9_04%20(2).doc (WARNING! DOC FILE!)
http://www.intrade.com/news/images/Dartmouth_Elec
They go on to discuss why, but they were apparently wrong in 2004.
"How dare Red Hat not give everything away for free?"
Why are they pushing this misconception of what open source means? AFAIK, it doesn't mean "give everything away for free" it means "the source is open".
Eat it bitch.
You tried, but failed.
Summary of your life really.
You pathetic sack.
He's a freak and should be told about it.
If you disagree, be a fucking man and say why, save that modding me down because I'm right shit, thanks.
"That's what they want you to believe ..."
You just said that, and you were totally serious. Holy crap.
You know how you feel when some freak goes on about how aliens anal probed him, well, that's the same feeling you just gave us.
"If I had first hand knowledge it would be classified, and posting on slashdot is certainly not worth risking felony conspiracy charges now is it?"
Nice try. You could post AC. So that ridiculous attempt at avoiding providing evidence is garbage.
"Otherwise I'm just making it up"
Well, that part's true at least.
"I know you're right, and I can't refute you."
Seriously, you'd have to be mentally retarded to post what you did.
Or admit you lied.
Save the stupid philosophizing for someone who will bother to read it.
You clearly admit you lied.
Quote or admission liar, I've stopped reading the garbage you put in you justify why you can't post a quote.
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"
I believe I captured the nuances of your post quite nicely.
"but to claim that this somehow puts the lie to the data is an absurd overreach."
Why? Just saying so doesn't make it true, so tell me why.
"Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort to spin the results?"
And saying it's "only" one more year isn't also spinning it?
Why are you doing exactly what you are trying to denounce?
Congratulations, you've focused on the data quite well, while totally missing the point.
The data, which had previously been considered accurate, wasn't. The data was used as the basis for other studies, which themselves may or may not be inaccurate.
The point here really has nothing to do with the conclusions you so lucidly point out, but with the methodology. The data was not public nor was the algorithm used to calculate the conclusions.
That's not good science by anyone's measure.
And you'll notice, I never explicitly discussed the conclusions anywhere in my post. Try to do the same if you reply.
The important point here is not the inaccuracy of the data, but that the data was accepted at face value without being adequately vetted.
It doesn't matter how you feel about this subject, there is really no valid reason to allow studies like this one to be used as the basis for conclusions without access to all of the data and all of the methodology. This was never available. What does it say about your confidence in your results when you won't allow anyone to look at how you got there?
The study was wrong, and this guy had to not only reverse engineer the algorithm, he had to reverse engineer the data to demonstrate it was inaccurate.
There's no way anyone could think that was a good thing.
Obviously you're bothered by that turn of phrase.