I agree totally with your analysis. The article (and maybe the study) says only that those who want more short-term relationships will have short-term relationships. That this is spun as desirable probably has to do with the biases of the researchers, the writers at New Scientist, and of Slashdot readers, who all probably don't fit into the bad boy demographic.
One of the things the manual apparently advocates is "the suspension of habeas corpus". Why is this shocking? The U.S. Constitutional standard is "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" and I'd sure consider insurgency as qualifying.
My only point there is that your assumption of ceteris paribus is faulty: additional factors (such as a falling economy for example) may mask the very real positive effects of gun laws.
Also, I suspect that for Europeans, hate speech (that is the words themselves) is consitered harmful enough to deserve restriction with it causing violence.
Still, I apologies for nit picking. I don't get to do a lot of logical arguing at work...
I would rather mod you up for nailing the point that this is a bottom up vs. top down version of restricting speech and mod the parent down for the logical fallacy of "cities with the most gun crime have the strictest gun control, therefore gun control doesn't work".
This news posting goes great with the NY Times article pointing out how greatly America's free speech legal tradition is so different than most of the rest of the world.
Most of problems with electronic voting are structural and institutional, and thus not something that you can easily fix on site. They say only a fool tries to rig an election on Election Day; the same applied to preventing fraud. Bring this issue up within the party apparatus and within local and state government. Talk to other election judges about this. Enough conversation and concern within the political class may prove more effective than the warnings of experts.
Also, incase nobody else has said this, thank you for taking this issue seriously! Your commitment to public integrity is to be commended.
If it weren't for old, slow laptops, a lot fewer people would know how to use Linux. Battling everyday with Mythbuntu and an Xbuntu print server sure is teaching me.
When you first started using OS X, you bought a new machine that was specifically built to run that OS. Comparing that experience to trying to install Ubuntu on random hardware is absurd.
By this logic, Windows (which runs on the most random hardware) is almost awesome!
Criminal cases, murder in particular, tend not to involve a whole lot of paper. In fact, relatively little evidence is ever admitted. I don't know if this is a criminal or civil procedure (or if Sweeden has different distinctions) but IP litigation tends to involve tons of paper. Let me tell you, I'm a paralegal and I printed some 2000 pages today alone. A major case can involve a couple million pages. Really. 4,000 pages is actually 2-3 normal sized boxes worth.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree totally with your analysis. The article (and maybe the study) says only that those who want more short-term relationships will have short-term relationships. That this is spun as desirable probably has to do with the biases of the researchers, the writers at New Scientist, and of Slashdot readers, who all probably don't fit into the bad boy demographic.
One of the things the manual apparently advocates is "the suspension of habeas corpus". Why is this shocking? The U.S. Constitutional standard is "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" and I'd sure consider insurgency as qualifying.
My only point there is that your assumption of ceteris paribus is faulty: additional factors (such as a falling economy for example) may mask the very real positive effects of gun laws. Also, I suspect that for Europeans, hate speech (that is the words themselves) is consitered harmful enough to deserve restriction with it causing violence. Still, I apologies for nit picking. I don't get to do a lot of logical arguing at work...
And if so, isn't France just creating a "Get Yer Child Porn Here!" list?
I would rather mod you up for nailing the point that this is a bottom up vs. top down version of restricting speech and mod the parent down for the logical fallacy of "cities with the most gun crime have the strictest gun control, therefore gun control doesn't work". This news posting goes great with the NY Times article pointing out how greatly America's free speech legal tradition is so different than most of the rest of the world.
Most of problems with electronic voting are structural and institutional, and thus not something that you can easily fix on site. They say only a fool tries to rig an election on Election Day; the same applied to preventing fraud. Bring this issue up within the party apparatus and within local and state government. Talk to other election judges about this. Enough conversation and concern within the political class may prove more effective than the warnings of experts. Also, incase nobody else has said this, thank you for taking this issue seriously! Your commitment to public integrity is to be commended.
If it weren't for old, slow laptops, a lot fewer people would know how to use Linux. Battling everyday with Mythbuntu and an Xbuntu print server sure is teaching me.
When you first started using OS X, you bought a new machine that was specifically built to run that OS. Comparing that experience to trying to install Ubuntu on random hardware is absurd.
By this logic, Windows (which runs on the most random hardware) is almost awesome!Criminal cases, murder in particular, tend not to involve a whole lot of paper. In fact, relatively little evidence is ever admitted. I don't know if this is a criminal or civil procedure (or if Sweeden has different distinctions) but IP litigation tends to involve tons of paper. Let me tell you, I'm a paralegal and I printed some 2000 pages today alone. A major case can involve a couple million pages. Really. 4,000 pages is actually 2-3 normal sized boxes worth.