I don't think you quite understand the point of the electoral college. It wasn't to make some people's votes be worth more than others; the founders had a more state-centered view of the matter, as back then being a state meant a lot more than it does now.
Rather than remove the electoral college to keep in line with modern encroachments on the constitution, why not go back to the state-centered approach instead of the large-central-government one? It would mean that the feds couldn't try to override local marijuana laws and stick sick people in jail, for one thing.
Do you think the insane and biased ballot laws (put into place by both Democrats and Republicans, to keep out the "competition" much like a large corporation would--but ) serve the best interest of people in Texas, or anywhere, for that matter?
I'm sorry, I find this comment naive. Capitalism only works well when the financial system is "well" regulated and the systems are fair. What I mean by ""well regulated" is the rules are refined, redundant rules are weeded out and new rules are implemented. The reason for this is that some people are dishonest (and worse) and will commit fraudulent behaviour. If you don't have structure and rules in financial markets then people can't have confidence in those markets. This is what has brought about the situation in American markets today.
If people will commit fraudulent behavior, then what of the regulations themselves and the people who enforce them? This is the naivety I'm talking about; you are loathe to trust a corporation (I'd say you shouldn't trust anybody) but you merrily trust the government. The difference between a business and government is obvious--you elect to deal with a business, but the government is there whether you like it or not, and democracy doesn't work at all like it's popularly envisioned; oligarchy structures emerge (political parties) and most people aren't aware of the issues and don't care, anyway--to say nothing of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner!
For a good example look at how the airline industry works, it's how we should run financial systems and hospitals too.
Haha, the airline industry is an excellent model for financial systems and hospitals *giggle*....?
So who should he vote for? It's well known McCain's economic credentials are lacklustre at best even to an external observer. If it's a 'party' philosophy then it appears that the American republican party's financial policies is what got you guys into this situation in the first place cause I'm pretty sure Bush started with a budget surplus. btw I'm Australian and keep an interested eye on US UK and Europe's political systems because it affects us.
Who said anything about voting? There are better things to do with your time then selecting reinforcing the lies of sociopaths and sweet-talkers.
Well it's either regulation before the fact or taxpayer dollars to bail out financial irresponsibility after.
Great false dichotomy--either pass regulations (often designed to favor the big players that are already established and to shy competition away) or create corporate welfare (well, if individuals get welfare, why shouldn't businesses, you bigot? Please note this is sarcasm) to provide a safety net for irresponsible behavior on the part of financial institutions.
It's fairly obvious that there has been too much risk taken and if everyone keeps speculating on the value of a market then eventually something is going to call it. In Aussie we had American Federal Reserve bank officials over here some months ago investigating the regulatory controls that are in place in the Australian financial system that make Sarbanes Oxley irrelevant.
Thanks for the fun fact.
Anyway, the disincentive for risky speculation is potential loss of money; bailouts take out that disincentive.
In the housing market, a lot of blame goes not to the banks but to the people accepting loans they couldn't pay off of.
The American economy maybe bigger than the Aussie, but, as we are much more conservative than you guys we *impose* regulation because we know that some people are going to 'get creative' with financial controls for their own gain.
Just like the regulators and government itself, right? If someone steals money or otherwise similar action, they should be individually taken up on it.
Consequently Australia has been one of the only western economies still growing, so strong regulatory control can't be such a bad thing. I doubt we will come out of 'meltdown monday' unscathed though.
There could be any number reasons why Australia's economy is growing that have nothing to do with regulation; hell, the regulation could be dampening what would have been even more growth, I do not know
So many assertions, all based on people's political philosophy and not on data!
I find the "oversight over the free market" comment more hilarious, though. Always the desire for some higher power, be it your parents, government, or God to come and save the day. If you have a government overseeing everything then you just have one big possible point of failure as opposed to just smaller points of failure.
Look, I know you're probably young, idealistic, and ready to march to the polls ready to vote for Barack Obama like your sociology professor instructed you to do, but massive government oversight of peoples' lives and dealings, whether they be business or personal (not like the distinction is meaningful or real) is ever really a just or good idea.
Business does not exist merely to serve you, although politicians may tell you otherwise. Learn that you are not the center of the world, that other people have a right to try to make money and improve their lives, even if it might mean that someone else can't be top dog, and maybe we'll be one tiny step closer to a freer country instead of one kept in the shackles of expecting a higher power to save us instead of doing what it's always done and making things worse.
Why is this getting 5, informative? This is not phrenology at all. Phrenology is analyzing the shape of the head to determine qualities, a far cry from scanning active brain regions for levels of activity and trying to extrapolate results from that. This is not analogous to phrenology at all, unless you're some sort of weird kind of dualist that thinks that thoughts and actions have little to no connection to brain activity.
It's not that this clown's claims are necessarily false, it is entirely within the realm of physical possibility one can determine some likelihood of lying by looking at what brain regions become active when they make a true or false statement. However, we don't have near that level of understanding of the brain yet, and it likely isn't quite that simple--for one, individual brains (obviously) vary.
Does the parent think that phrenology is also documenting things such as the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, the different regions of the cerebrum, and so on...?
Some people who have met him claim that massive amounts of psychic energy just roll off him, like some sort of ridiculously powerful mentalist or something. Of course, this is completely unproven.:3
Signature:
Why, yes, I AM a Mesa/X.org developer! How did you know?
Why not win the prize and then the lottery? The prize is less about money and more about actually demonstrating psychic powers publicly under scientific controls. Of course, with a society so hostile to science as being the pursuit of ivory-tower intellectuals and silly nerds with no "common sense"...
That argument makes as much sense as, technicalities of how much bin Laden was actually involved aside, of, say, a hypothetical situation where a leader of a foreign nation ordered air strikes on California being put on the FBI 10 most wanted.
What point are you trying to make with bin Laden not being on the FBI 10 most wanted list? That is somehow proves that the FBI secretly knows 9/11 was a hoax and they are trying to hint to that fact? Please.
Of course, there are some problems with my argument; special allowances have been made. I'm trying to show possible reasons he wouldn't be on.
The actual reality is, you're just parroting bullshit, because he is on the top 10 most wanted list!
Go look at the the FBI website. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11.
What an idiotic argument. Does the FBI (which deals more with domestic crime) not listing someone everyone knows about already somehow prove that 9/11 was not the result of terrorists? I know exactly what you're implying with that statement as I've seen it before; don't go denying being a truther after this.
Militant atheist, n. An atheist that passionately argues for atheism as if one would argue any other political or philosophical position in the public square. Often used in a derogatory manner by the politically correct and theists.
People thought my post was overrated; I don't know how much you agree with me, but I will make an additional point:
Having raided in WoW myself, a lot of motivation was to top the damage or healing meters, to show one to be the "best". Despite what people say, WoW does have skill involved (even knowing when to spam a spell and knowing who to attack and when are important, and thus skill and intelligence are involved) and there are clearly some players that are better and some that are worse.
The social aspect, of course, is important; had I not played with the guild in WoW that I did, I would have quit a long time before I did, and I only quit because I no longer had a good guild to be a part of.
But it shouldn't be up to a search engine to decide what is interesting or not.
Bullshit. Why are you the great arbiter, the Great Decider, on what a search engine should be?
Not to mention, that is exactly what search engines do--they sort through the more relevant (which are the "interesting"--links most of interest) first through algorithms for relevancy and traffic.
He doesn't really seem to understand what drives people on WoW...
In earlier levels, yes, leveling up is the *big thing*; however, at higher levels, the questing becomes more involved and people play to read the lore and, more importantly, get better armor or weapons or a flying mount. Anyway, leveling up cannot be what keeps players there; that wouldn't explain why so many people play at endgame.
I think it's more of an ego thing. Having better weapons/armor, being in a top raiding guild, or being the best arena team, is what truly drives people. Leveling up is only one portion of that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he meant the more ideological type; the type that have a political philosophy and DON'T vote based on party line.
I don't think you quite understand the point of the electoral college. It wasn't to make some people's votes be worth more than others; the founders had a more state-centered view of the matter, as back then being a state meant a lot more than it does now.
Rather than remove the electoral college to keep in line with modern encroachments on the constitution, why not go back to the state-centered approach instead of the large-central-government one? It would mean that the feds couldn't try to override local marijuana laws and stick sick people in jail, for one thing.
Do you think the insane and biased ballot laws (put into place by both Democrats and Republicans, to keep out the "competition" much like a large corporation would--but ) serve the best interest of people in Texas, or anywhere, for that matter?
An online game, where content is continually added to it. Big difference; you're not being insightful or clever.
Why is it always the CEOs that are to blame, and not say, people that accept loans they can't pay because they want a nice house and they WANT IT NOW?
I'm sorry, I find this comment naive. Capitalism only works well when the financial system is "well" regulated and the systems are fair. What I mean by ""well regulated" is the rules are refined, redundant rules are weeded out and new rules are implemented. The reason for this is that some people are dishonest (and worse) and will commit fraudulent behaviour. If you don't have structure and rules in financial markets then people can't have confidence in those markets. This is what has brought about the situation in American markets today.
If people will commit fraudulent behavior, then what of the regulations themselves and the people who enforce them? This is the naivety I'm talking about; you are loathe to trust a corporation (I'd say you shouldn't trust anybody) but you merrily trust the government. The difference between a business and government is obvious--you elect to deal with a business, but the government is there whether you like it or not, and democracy doesn't work at all like it's popularly envisioned; oligarchy structures emerge (political parties) and most people aren't aware of the issues and don't care, anyway--to say nothing of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner!
For a good example look at how the airline industry works, it's how we should run financial systems and hospitals too.
Haha, the airline industry is an excellent model for financial systems and hospitals *giggle*....?
So who should he vote for? It's well known McCain's economic credentials are lacklustre at best even to an external observer. If it's a 'party' philosophy then it appears that the American republican party's financial policies is what got you guys into this situation in the first place cause I'm pretty sure Bush started with a budget surplus. btw I'm Australian and keep an interested eye on US UK and Europe's political systems because it affects us.
Who said anything about voting? There are better things to do with your time then selecting reinforcing the lies of sociopaths and sweet-talkers.
Well it's either regulation before the fact or taxpayer dollars to bail out financial irresponsibility after.
Great false dichotomy--either pass regulations (often designed to favor the big players that are already established and to shy competition away) or create corporate welfare (well, if individuals get welfare, why shouldn't businesses, you bigot? Please note this is sarcasm) to provide a safety net for irresponsible behavior on the part of financial institutions.
It's fairly obvious that there has been too much risk taken and if everyone keeps speculating on the value of a market then eventually something is going to call it. In Aussie we had American Federal Reserve bank officials over here some months ago investigating the regulatory controls that are in place in the Australian financial system that make Sarbanes Oxley irrelevant.
Thanks for the fun fact.
Anyway, the disincentive for risky speculation is potential loss of money; bailouts take out that disincentive.
In the housing market, a lot of blame goes not to the banks but to the people accepting loans they couldn't pay off of.
The American economy maybe bigger than the Aussie, but, as we are much more conservative than you guys we *impose* regulation because we know that some people are going to 'get creative' with financial controls for their own gain.
Just like the regulators and government itself, right? If someone steals money or otherwise similar action, they should be individually taken up on it.
Consequently Australia has been one of the only western economies still growing, so strong regulatory control can't be such a bad thing. I doubt we will come out of 'meltdown monday' unscathed though.
There could be any number reasons why Australia's economy is growing that have nothing to do with regulation; hell, the regulation could be dampening what would have been even more growth, I do not know
If only a politician were here to show me the light.
So many assertions, all based on people's political philosophy and not on data!
I find the "oversight over the free market" comment more hilarious, though. Always the desire for some higher power, be it your parents, government, or God to come and save the day. If you have a government overseeing everything then you just have one big possible point of failure as opposed to just smaller points of failure.
Look, I know you're probably young, idealistic, and ready to march to the polls ready to vote for Barack Obama like your sociology professor instructed you to do, but massive government oversight of peoples' lives and dealings, whether they be business or personal (not like the distinction is meaningful or real) is ever really a just or good idea.
Business does not exist merely to serve you, although politicians may tell you otherwise. Learn that you are not the center of the world, that other people have a right to try to make money and improve their lives, even if it might mean that someone else can't be top dog, and maybe we'll be one tiny step closer to a freer country instead of one kept in the shackles of expecting a higher power to save us instead of doing what it's always done and making things worse.
Why is he being modded down? It's a joke, people.
Yeah, yeah. Keep making excuses for why psychics write books and make TV appearances claiming to have powers but don't actually demonstrate it.
Quit wasting my time with your bullshit.
I agree it's both pseudoscience, but one is within our current understanding of plausibility, the other is not.
Polygraphs are largely snake oil. Any judge that orders a person to take a polygraph may very well be ready to condemn an innocent man.
Why is this getting 5, informative? This is not phrenology at all. Phrenology is analyzing the shape of the head to determine qualities, a far cry from scanning active brain regions for levels of activity and trying to extrapolate results from that. This is not analogous to phrenology at all, unless you're some sort of weird kind of dualist that thinks that thoughts and actions have little to no connection to brain activity.
It's not that this clown's claims are necessarily false, it is entirely within the realm of physical possibility one can determine some likelihood of lying by looking at what brain regions become active when they make a true or false statement. However, we don't have near that level of understanding of the brain yet, and it likely isn't quite that simple--for one, individual brains (obviously) vary.
Does the parent think that phrenology is also documenting things such as the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, the different regions of the cerebrum, and so on...?
Some people who have met him claim that massive amounts of psychic energy just roll off him, like some sort of ridiculously powerful mentalist or something. Of course, this is completely unproven. :3
Signature:
Why, yes, I AM a Mesa/X.org developer! How did you know?
'splains a lot.
Why not win the prize and then the lottery? The prize is less about money and more about actually demonstrating psychic powers publicly under scientific controls. Of course, with a society so hostile to science as being the pursuit of ivory-tower intellectuals and silly nerds with no "common sense"...
That argument makes as much sense as, technicalities of how much bin Laden was actually involved aside, of, say, a hypothetical situation where a leader of a foreign nation ordered air strikes on California being put on the FBI 10 most wanted.
What point are you trying to make with bin Laden not being on the FBI 10 most wanted list? That is somehow proves that the FBI secretly knows 9/11 was a hoax and they are trying to hint to that fact? Please.
Of course, there are some problems with my argument; special allowances have been made. I'm trying to show possible reasons he wouldn't be on.
The actual reality is, you're just parroting bullshit, because he is on the top 10 most wanted list!
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
WHAM!
The CFR, under guidance of the Freemasons, administered by the Illuminati, all thanks to Jewish machinations of course
Look how old that is, and, jesus, at least read the link added at the bottom which clarifies that:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
Seriously...
Go look at the the FBI website. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11.
What an idiotic argument. Does the FBI (which deals more with domestic crime) not listing someone everyone knows about already somehow prove that 9/11 was not the result of terrorists? I know exactly what you're implying with that statement as I've seen it before; don't go denying being a truther after this.
Irreducible complexity again?
You have a poor understanding of both evolution and science, if you think that irreducible complexity in this context is a good argument at all.
Stick to the romance novels, science ain't your bag.
Militant atheist, n.
An atheist that passionately argues for atheism as if one would argue any other political or philosophical position in the public square. Often used in a derogatory manner by the politically correct and theists.
People thought my post was overrated; I don't know how much you agree with me, but I will make an additional point:
Having raided in WoW myself, a lot of motivation was to top the damage or healing meters, to show one to be the "best". Despite what people say, WoW does have skill involved (even knowing when to spam a spell and knowing who to attack and when are important, and thus skill and intelligence are involved) and there are clearly some players that are better and some that are worse.
The social aspect, of course, is important; had I not played with the guild in WoW that I did, I would have quit a long time before I did, and I only quit because I no longer had a good guild to be a part of.
But it shouldn't be up to a search engine to decide what is interesting or not.
Bullshit. Why are you the great arbiter, the Great Decider, on what a search engine should be?
Not to mention, that is exactly what search engines do--they sort through the more relevant (which are the "interesting"--links most of interest) first through algorithms for relevancy and traffic.
He doesn't really seem to understand what drives people on WoW...
In earlier levels, yes, leveling up is the *big thing*; however, at higher levels, the questing becomes more involved and people play to read the lore and, more importantly, get better armor or weapons or a flying mount. Anyway, leveling up cannot be what keeps players there; that wouldn't explain why so many people play at endgame.
I think it's more of an ego thing. Having better weapons/armor, being in a top raiding guild, or being the best arena team, is what truly drives people. Leveling up is only one portion of that.
But of course, there will inevitably be private servers, however, they almost never do or can compare to the original.