they base this on? every other 'estimate' was based on a guess'
Literally, based on guess. Not based on call or text logs. Just there where x amount of accidents, 70% have cell phones, so we will just say a 3rd of those were caused by cell phone use without even checking if they where that many on the phone.
I don't believe 26% of accidents where cause by cellphones, and I won't until some actual good studies are done.
"You know, if you stab a man in the dead of winter, steam will rise up from the wounds. Indians believed it was his soul escaping from his body." Mikita's Manager, Glen
" Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?" yes. Does this person give donation to charities? are they also perusing legal action in the city?
Just becasue he is head of a mafia doesn't mean he doesn't get the same rights or representation as anyone else.
I can think of a scenario were a Chinese mafia leader would want to set up a representative.
I don't know if any of that's true, just speculation. I suggest the same thing I always do: Calm down and wait and see.
" I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check." without bothering to back up your belief with any rigor.
"It's a factual rule of thumb." You don't know what the means, do you?
It's cute that you think you personal observation actually has Merritt or is accurate in any way.
If you want to be ignorant of science, and think you you observe if perfectly correct, that's fine by me, but shut the hell up until you have something substantial to back it up.
Since NPR has taken a really through look at it, I got to say you are wrong. IN fact, they are the only news organization I can find that's asking hard questions about it, to representatives regardless of the part affiliation. NPR reporting is some of the most actually balanced reporting.
" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat" and thats false.
What is happening is different organization report different stories differently and everyone is trying to find some sort of pattern. You might as well look for clues to the next terrorist attack in a Moby DIck book.
"He pushed for heavy gun regulations" heavy? no, not really.
" because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. " a) we don't know that. We will see what unfolds. b) No, he submitted some bills because it would get him votes. You don't need to be a representative in order to do gun smuggling.
First off: That's a horrible attempt at a rhyme. Secondly, I can find all kinds of article where the pub isn't called out as well. You should probably read up on observational bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Not really. Crime dropped dramatically during prohibition. Domestic crime dropped to just about 0%; which was the goal of prohibition. The vast majority of violent crime was gang on gang, and even then it was still substantially less then pre-prohibition violent crime rates.
What prohibition of alcohol set out to do, it did and quite successfully. Now, news papers made a big deal out of every gang incident, including exaggeration and lies. I'm sure the fact that they lost a major advertiser had nothing to do with the bad reporting...
It's a bad example. One was an established industry enjoyed by most, the other has always been a little secret and then made illegal. Plus, booze is harder to transport, requires a lot of space is you want to store enough to make money, and is a lot easier to detect.
If you noticed that at no place in the above statement do I give an opinion, then good for you you are actually reading. If you are getting ready to write a post assuming my opinion is anti becasue I pointed out some facts, (and 1 speculation) then shame on you. Calm done, take a breat, and learn to careful re-read things before replying.
"America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control " I disagree. I think it has far more to do with the privatization of prisons. Some drugs should no longer be prohibited, such as Marijuana, and some should remain.
Stop incarcerating people who don't do violence, and focus on social programs.
It's not really permission if you are intimidated into doing it.
"The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. " It's only viewably by her friends. Her friends may repeat it, but it's no different then telling something to a group of friends.
" Once you release something on the internet" overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless. It really depends on many other details. My computer is ';on the internet' does that mean it doesn't have any privacy?
"particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company." So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
Slashdot Mirror
they base this on? every other 'estimate' was based on a guess'
Literally, based on guess. Not based on call or text logs. Just there where x amount of accidents, 70% have cell phones, so we will just say a 3rd of those were caused by cell phone use without even checking if they where that many on the phone.
I don't believe 26% of accidents where cause by cellphones, and I won't until some actual good studies are done.
"You know, if you stab a man in the dead of winter, steam will rise up from the wounds. Indians believed it was his soul escaping from his body." Mikita's Manager, Glen
http://www.whoismcafee.com/fre...
No it isn't. It's leading. Like asking 'have you top beating your wife?"
"Or do you enjoy being a fugitive from justice?"
that's the problem.
That a great way to be damn sure only the rich have power, well done.
What about entrapment?
" Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?"
yes.
Does this person give donation to charities? are they also perusing legal action in the city?
Just becasue he is head of a mafia doesn't mean he doesn't get the same rights or representation as anyone else.
I can think of a scenario were a Chinese mafia leader would want to set up a representative.
I don't know if any of that's true, just speculation.
I suggest the same thing I always do: Calm down and wait and see.
" I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check."
without bothering to back up your belief with any rigor.
Typical.
"It's a factual rule of thumb."
You don't know what the means, do you?
It's cute that you think you personal observation actually has Merritt or is accurate in any way.
If you want to be ignorant of science, and think you you observe if perfectly correct, that's fine by me, but shut the hell up until you have something substantial to back it up.
You need to PROVE your claim. It onerous is on you.
Since NPR has taken a really through look at it, I got to say you are wrong.
IN fact, they are the only news organization I can find that's asking hard questions about it, to representatives regardless of the part affiliation.
NPR reporting is some of the most actually balanced reporting.
" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"
and thats false.
What is happening is different organization report different stories differently and everyone is trying to find some sort of pattern.
You might as well look for clues to the next terrorist attack in a Moby DIck book.
"He pushed for heavy gun regulations"
heavy? no, not really.
" because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. "
a) we don't know that. We will see what unfolds.
b) No, he submitted some bills because it would get him votes. You don't need to be a representative in order to do gun smuggling.
First off: That's a horrible attempt at a rhyme.
Secondly, I can find all kinds of article where the pub isn't called out as well.
You should probably read up on observational bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
why are they celebrating?
Not really.
Crime dropped dramatically during prohibition. Domestic crime dropped to just about 0%; which was the goal of prohibition.
The vast majority of violent crime was gang on gang, and even then it was still substantially less then pre-prohibition violent crime rates.
What prohibition of alcohol set out to do, it did and quite successfully.
Now, news papers made a big deal out of every gang incident, including exaggeration and lies.
I'm sure the fact that they lost a major advertiser had nothing to do with the bad reporting...
It's a bad example. One was an established industry enjoyed by most, the other has always been a little secret and then made illegal.
Plus, booze is harder to transport, requires a lot of space is you want to store enough to make money, and is a lot easier to detect.
If you noticed that at no place in the above statement do I give an opinion, then good for you you are actually reading. If you are getting ready to write a post assuming my opinion is anti becasue I pointed out some facts, (and 1 speculation) then shame on you. Calm done, take a breat, and learn to careful re-read things before replying.
"Legalization is going to be better overall than the current state."
You can't actually know that, so stop deluding yourself.
" but having better laws is a piece of cake. "
Apparently it isn't, as seen by the lasts 35 years.
" civil forfeiture funds"
Yes, that should be stopped for a great number of reasons.
"America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control "
I disagree. I think it has far more to do with the privatization of prisons.
Some drugs should no longer be prohibited, such as Marijuana, and some should remain.
Stop incarcerating people who don't do violence, and focus on social programs.
When were 'military upgrades' used against any protest in the last 50 years?
Yes, there have been a bad response bo those protest by some law enforcement, but I am unaware of any of them use advanced military weaponry?
It's not really permission if you are intimidated into doing it.
"The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. "
It's only viewably by her friends. Her friends may repeat it, but it's no different then telling something to a group of friends.
" Once you release something on the internet"
overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless. It really depends on many other details. My computer is ';on the internet' does that mean it doesn't have any privacy?
"particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company."
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
Learn to think complex thoughts, please.
It is not uniquely North American.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.or...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.e...
Who says anyone hates him? only said he is being a jerk for perpetuation a myth. A myth that hurts people and prevents people form getting help.
I don't hate people I don't know.
Taking anti-depressants were like a heavy weight being lifted off me. I couldn't be happier.
Err.. I'n not implying they are happy pills, only that I am happy to have a range of emotions.
Why is it a BS patent?
the antidepressant myth, jerk.