I have no real problem with primaries in general - seems a strange way of choosing the candidate that will run under a party's banner. In a democratic system having a democratic method makes sense - letting people outside the party pick seems really silly though. Primaries do have the advantage of putting some of the back room dealings out in the open, for example, preselection in say Australia can be a wondrous affair of back room deals and branch stacking.
There's still a need to a party to choose who will get to use the party name when running. No reason it can't be multiple people in an IRV system of course (though in practice there would be risks in doing so) but I don't think you want just anyone to be able to run under a party name without the party having some input into the matter.
Sure, but those seem less likely and more easily remedied than the issues people have with the act of the voting itself (because voting on a day when most people aren't working would be willy apparently) more than once.
And simple "how to vote" guides from the parties solves most of the informed voter problem. Either people care enough to find out about the policies and histories of all the candidates or they rank them the way a group they trust recommends they should.
Write ins are harmed of course, but if they haven't managed to get the word on out on election day in the current system they are already screwed anyway.
There is no perfect voting system. Simple IRV while having numerous flaws seems significantly better than the current US system and than actual run off systems though. It's not the my personal favorite, but it's simple and easy to understand and run which counts for something.
Obviously IRV since the purpose was to avoid having run off elections. So picking the one that gives the same results (assuming no one changes their minds between votes) is a no brainer.
And yes all voting methods have failure modes and weaknesses to being gamed. Almost all of them are better than the what the US currently uses though, so that doesn't seem worth even bringing up.
So which, specifically, of those NGOs funded by Google and Netflix list as their members organizations that have not actually ever heard of the NGO in question?
Which still leaves the question why, since the reason and justification for why that is a good idea is what is being asked. That there's a law just moves the question back a bit to "why does that law exist?".
They can vote in the actual election. But why should Joe the Democrat have any input at all into which candidate the Republican party chooses to run under their banner?
Should Republicans get to choose who the Green Party candidate should be too?
Wind chill doesn't care if something is animate or not.
A hot inanimate rock will cool faster in the presence of a wind chill than without (holding the actual temperature constant).
4 year old children have worked this out, as evidenced by them blowing on their hot food in order to cool it faster so they can eat it faster and get back to doing far more important things.
How do you think the fan in a computer manages to keep the inanimate cpu from overheating?
Zicam is a homeopathic remedy plus non-homeopathic Zinc. That the zinc actually does something isn't evidence for homeopathy since the Zinc hasn't been dilluted according to homeopathy. The other "active" ingredients have, and note of course you aren't bothering to claim they do anything (which is wise since unlike the zinc there isn't actually any of them in the final product).
I find freedom or religion vile and disgusting. And I find it vile and disgusting that a warrant is required to search a criminal's house.
So I sure hope there isn't such a way. Though I'm sure some lawmaker somewhere can interpret the commerce clause to require it...
Though you would think the lack of a model release type form would make such porn illegal already anyway - unless the person in it was really dumb enough to sign such a thing, in which case they wanted it shown anyway you would have to assume.
Who cares? Does it really matter what label someone else gives or doesn't give you?
Wheaton's own definition of nerd/geek seems broad enough to cover just about everything anyway (including explicitly those into sports): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
1. A is doing B because of C 2. C isn't true because if D Thus A is being stupid.
Has been an argument style long before twitter existed. That you don't understand basic arguments is your problem and has nothing to do with kids with twitter these days.
Sickle cell anemia doesn't help you pass on your genes either. And yet there was selection pressure for it due to people who could produce children with it having higher malaria survival rates.
It's hardly uncommon for a selection pressure to result in a gene with some down side (like say some children being autistic) being selected before because it also has a upside (like some children fitting into the modern working world and hence being able to have more kids).
Of course that's not going to be the case here because those people don't in fact have more kids than people who don't have tech desk jobs, but for your general question there could be a bunch of advantages that "being more likely to have a child with autism" could provide if the genetics for that happen to also be related to something else...
Except it isn't a 25% increase from the base and then a 21% decrease from that higher result. It's a 21% decrease from the base. Where the base is the average Monday rate.
So if heart attacks are evenly distributed across the days of the year (which seems very unlikely but I don't know the stats on it and can't be bothered looking it up) and there are 52 Mondays in a year (well a little more...) then 2% of heart attacks happen on a Monday. Taking the conclusion in the headline at face value then there's a 4% increase due to daylight saving. We have a 0.08% increase in the number heart attacks in a year.
I'm pretty sure there's other slightly more impactful risk factors to tackle first...
The fact that competitive debating is a thing is pretty clear evidence that you are wrong.
Of course that wasn't the type of debate being discussed - but you changed "the" into "a" thus making a more general claim.
Also surely "when your opponent's arguments convince you to agree with them" is winning, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" and all.
Right because only a lawyer could possibly claim that "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity" isn't covered by any of those claims even though all of them are completely unrelated to it.
Or are you arguing the US nuked Ukraine last week and nobody noticed?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no real problem with primaries in general - seems a strange way of choosing the candidate that will run under a party's banner. In a democratic system having a democratic method makes sense - letting people outside the party pick seems really silly though. Primaries do have the advantage of putting some of the back room dealings out in the open, for example, preselection in say Australia can be a wondrous affair of back room deals and branch stacking.
There's still a need to a party to choose who will get to use the party name when running. No reason it can't be multiple people in an IRV system of course (though in practice there would be risks in doing so) but I don't think you want just anyone to be able to run under a party name without the party having some input into the matter.
Sure, but those seem less likely and more easily remedied than the issues people have with the act of the voting itself (because voting on a day when most people aren't working would be willy apparently) more than once.
And simple "how to vote" guides from the parties solves most of the informed voter problem. Either people care enough to find out about the policies and histories of all the candidates or they rank them the way a group they trust recommends they should.
Write ins are harmed of course, but if they haven't managed to get the word on out on election day in the current system they are already screwed anyway.
There is no perfect voting system. Simple IRV while having numerous flaws seems significantly better than the current US system and than actual run off systems though. It's not the my personal favorite, but it's simple and easy to understand and run which counts for something.
That doesn't fix anything. Did you actually read what was being replied to: "How about we junk the primary system and simply have run off elections".
So why would I want to claim that "primaries are also silly" given junking them was the entire premise?
What exactly are you trying to fix?
Obviously IRV since the purpose was to avoid having run off elections. So picking the one that gives the same results (assuming no one changes their minds between votes) is a no brainer.
And yes all voting methods have failure modes and weaknesses to being gamed. Almost all of them are better than the what the US currently uses though, so that doesn't seem worth even bringing up.
So which, specifically, of those NGOs funded by Google and Netflix list as their members organizations that have not actually ever heard of the NGO in question?
Which still leaves the question why, since the reason and justification for why that is a good idea is what is being asked. That there's a law just moves the question back a bit to "why does that law exist?".
I didn't complain. I just think its silly.
Run offs are also silly, why not just have people rank their choices in the first place and not bother wasting time with another run off election.
Right.
They can vote in the actual election. But why should Joe the Democrat have any input at all into which candidate the Republican party chooses to run under their banner?
Should Republicans get to choose who the Green Party candidate should be too?
Wind chill doesn't care if something is animate or not.
A hot inanimate rock will cool faster in the presence of a wind chill than without (holding the actual temperature constant).
4 year old children have worked this out, as evidenced by them blowing on their hot food in order to cool it faster so they can eat it faster and get back to doing far more important things.
How do you think the fan in a computer manages to keep the inanimate cpu from overheating?
Can you not read your own references?
Zicam is a homeopathic remedy plus non-homeopathic Zinc. That the zinc actually does something isn't evidence for homeopathy since the Zinc hasn't been dilluted according to homeopathy. The other "active" ingredients have, and note of course you aren't bothering to claim they do anything (which is wise since unlike the zinc there isn't actually any of them in the final product).
Then it isn't homeopathic.
That homeopathic practitioners also use non-homeopathic treatments is completely irrelevant to claims made about homeopathy.
> But won't telling the patient "the facts" diminish the placebo effect?
Yep, probably.
http://www.plosone.org/article... is one study that disagrees with that.
Most of them will never learn to ride a horse because they can always use a car, is that also interesting/surprising/disappointing?
Sure, but I wasn't talking about the actual bill or article, just the post I responded too which also wasn't about the actual bill.
I find freedom or religion vile and disgusting. And I find it vile and disgusting that a warrant is required to search a criminal's house.
So I sure hope there isn't such a way. Though I'm sure some lawmaker somewhere can interpret the commerce clause to require it...
Though you would think the lack of a model release type form would make such porn illegal already anyway - unless the person in it was really dumb enough to sign such a thing, in which case they wanted it shown anyway you would have to assume.
Nope, they are a sixth of the way there though. Though I really doubt the plan is to find it in order to repair it and put is back in service...
Who cares? Does it really matter what label someone else gives or doesn't give you?
Wheaton's own definition of nerd/geek seems broad enough to cover just about everything anyway (including explicitly those into sports): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
That's the point.
1. A is doing B because of C
2. C isn't true because if D
Thus A is being stupid.
Has been an argument style long before twitter existed. That you don't understand basic arguments is your problem and has nothing to do with kids with twitter these days.
Sickle cell anemia doesn't help you pass on your genes either. And yet there was selection pressure for it due to people who could produce children with it having higher malaria survival rates.
It's hardly uncommon for a selection pressure to result in a gene with some down side (like say some children being autistic) being selected before because it also has a upside (like some children fitting into the modern working world and hence being able to have more kids).
Of course that's not going to be the case here because those people don't in fact have more kids than people who don't have tech desk jobs, but for your general question there could be a bunch of advantages that "being more likely to have a child with autism" could provide if the genetics for that happen to also be related to something else...
Except it isn't a 25% increase from the base and then a 21% decrease from that higher result. It's a 21% decrease from the base. Where the base is the average Monday rate.
So if heart attacks are evenly distributed across the days of the year (which seems very unlikely but I don't know the stats on it and can't be bothered looking it up) and there are 52 Mondays in a year (well a little more...) then 2% of heart attacks happen on a Monday. Taking the conclusion in the headline at face value then there's a 4% increase due to daylight saving. We have a 0.08% increase in the number heart attacks in a year.
I'm pretty sure there's other slightly more impactful risk factors to tackle first...
The fact that competitive debating is a thing is pretty clear evidence that you are wrong.
Of course that wasn't the type of debate being discussed - but you changed "the" into "a" thus making a more general claim.
Also surely "when your opponent's arguments convince you to agree with them" is winning, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" and all.
No one does. Well I guess you do, but you are clearly an idiot.
Right. "work for hire" is the efficient way of sating that.
Sure, but it's being put up against a theory with no numbers or data at all.
Right because only a lawyer could possibly claim that "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity" isn't covered by any of those claims even though all of them are completely unrelated to it.
Or are you arguing the US nuked Ukraine last week and nobody noticed?