Move 3 from 137 to 72, giving 75 and 134. Now move 25 giving 100 and 109.
For the love of all things complicated...
If you're adding 137 and 72, store the bigger number in your head, 137, add the 2 to it, and you have 139 and 70. Then line up the next digit, get 209, and you're done.
I'm also an independent, and I support most of the same things that you do. However, your analysis of Fox News is missing most of the details.
I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.
The news editor of Fox news is a hardcore republican, who sends all of his newscasters a daily list of issues they are required to talk about, and sends them what viewpoint they should present about these issues. His news reporters then either present his viewpoint or stop becoming his news reporters.
How does a fair and balanced news organization support a controversial war 100%? Shouldn't a news organization instead cover a war, debate its reasoning and necessity, and interview the politicians who support and disagree with the war?
Bill O'Reilly... like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions... Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.
Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.
When was the last time you saw Larry King yell at a guest, turn off a guest's microphone, or kick a guest off the show?
Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat
Hannity is a talented and skilled speaker. Colmes is the most sniveling tiny-tiny human they could get to possibly host a news show. It would be wonderful if the two were matched and they had equal ability to present their viewpoints. Hannity is given the vast majority of microphone time, Colmes occasionally gets to express a minority opinion in a poor fashion.
And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C.
Yes, precisely. Greta Van Susteren is probably one of the better reporters on Fox News, but she is usually never given political assignments.
In the voting booth, when it's time to be counted, people aren't going to be as willing to play the game. Nader might just do better than most people think.
Making a point doesn't put food on the table. Playing the system does. After the close election of 2000, most voters are probably very conscious of the importance of their vote, and of the consequences of not playing the plurality game for as long as we have a plurality system.
There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.
A direct pluralistic vote solves very few problems intrinsic to our current voting system. By comparison, Approval Voting resolves many of the problems. It would permit multiple political parties with realistic chances of winning, giving voters greater diversity of choice. It would reduce negative campaigning, and force candidates to present themselves and their issues rather than spend the majority of their time debasing their opponents.
On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp
Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.
There is a difference between being socially conservative and economically conservative. Bush is socially conservative, and the closest he comes to being economically conservative is cutting taxes for the wealthy. But his spending has been kept high enough to result in a massive debt.
What the country needs is for one of the two political parties to shift its platform to being socially progressive and fiscally responsible. Bush opened the door for the Democratic party to choose this by taking the exact opposite stance, but the Democrats were so afraid of Bush that they just voted for the guy they thought everyone else would be most likely to vote for.
Your chart shows GNP, not GDP. GNP includes products produced by citizens of a country who are living in other countries. If you instead compare GDP's, then the USA is above Switzerland by about 15%.
This confirms my decision to invest in the tinfoil and hat industries. I should be happily retired by early November.
Not everything that sounds like a conspiracy is necessarilly fabricated. These types of things DO happen regularly, believe it or not, and its the responsibility of a free society to not stick its head in the sand when they occur.
Anyone who denies global warming, or that a large portion of it has human causes, is at this point right up there with creationists, flat-Earthers, and Holocaust-deniers on the "crazy crank" scale.
Then could you please post the strong evidence which supports a causal system of global warming where human use of fossil fuels has and will create a significant increase in global temperature?
Seriously, please post it, I've been looking for this evidence for a while, and I'd really like to understand where this evidence is that makes so many people so certain.
Every politician currently in power GOT there using the two-party system. So you can't get them to change the rules that got them there.
There was once a time when every politician in power got there by being elected by an all male electorate. Under public outcry, it changed by constitutional amendment.
The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:
Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.
This is the case so long as we maintain a plurality voting system. If you want REAL change, it will take more than just voting for some small party candidate. You have to start raising public support for a change in our voting system toward Approval Voting until the public outcry for this change is too large to be ignored.
Not sure there's any value in casting my vote that way, but geez, it's getting ridiculous
If you vote libertarian, you won't get libertarian policies, you'll get the exact opposite. The problem is not that we have two parties, the problem is that we have plurality voting which enforces the existence of two parties and penalizes third party voters by giving them the opposite of what they want.
If you don't like politics as they are, then you need to start encouraging people to support Approval Voting. If enough people are educated about what Approval Voting is and how it would change politics in this country, then the change would happen, and third party voters would be rewarded for their votes. Right now we have a big job of educating the public ahead of us, so start with the people you know.
... in medicine, and one in physics, and probably one in chemistry, waiting for anyone who can demonstrate a possible mechanism of action for health effects of non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels.
I used to agree with you, but a number of studies recently have shown that under these radiation wavelengths, some membranes in the body pass some molecules when they would otherwise block them.
It turns out it's insufficient to just consider heating effects and ionization effects, since lipid membranes are composed of dipolar molecules which can be subject to other electromagnetic effects.
The thinking that "society" has "rights", while "individual" only has "responsibilities" is a very dangerous (and *logically* totally unsupported!) proposition.
Actually, I would say individuals have rights, and as members of society we also have responsibilities.
oh that would be great if people would plan ahead and there would be a cheap way to exclude those not paying from getting the benefits(don't want to pay for keeping the roads in good shape? well, lose your ability to receive any goods transferred on those roads.. the point being that a system like that would ultimately suck because people are short sighted and can't see the connections between things that make their daily life possible).
If no one payed for social security disability, or food stamps, or head start programs, then we'd have a whole lot more crime as people grow up unable to find simple things like food and jobs. How do you even begin to measure that?
At some point we need to stop looking at ourselves as just individuals, and begin looking at ourselves as a society which rises and falls in unison.
The reason the articles are so often distorted is simple. Slashdot editors reject submissions that just provide the facts, and accept articles that are emotionally rousing. A lot of the time, the true story is more fact that emotionally rousing, so the article submission doesn't match.
This isn't so different from mainstream for-profit news.
Slashdot Mirror
Move 3 from 137 to 72, giving 75 and 134. Now move 25 giving 100 and 109.
For the love of all things complicated...
If you're adding 137 and 72, store the bigger number in your head, 137, add the 2 to it, and you have 139 and 70. Then line up the next digit, get 209, and you're done.
number of words in Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice ...
:)
Yours 100000±200000 words
True answer 122093 words exactly
0 points
You deserved 0 points for that one. Did you think she wrote it backwards?
150000±150000 would have been a much better guess.
Yeah, would that be Pittsburgh, aka, Knowledge City?
I'll be frank up front too. I'm an Independant
... like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions ... Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.
I'm also an independent, and I support most of the same things that you do. However, your analysis of Fox News is missing most of the details.
I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.
The news editor of Fox news is a hardcore republican, who sends all of his newscasters a daily list of issues they are required to talk about, and sends them what viewpoint they should present about these issues. His news reporters then either present his viewpoint or stop becoming his news reporters.
How does a fair and balanced news organization support a controversial war 100%? Shouldn't a news organization instead cover a war, debate its reasoning and necessity, and interview the politicians who support and disagree with the war?
Bill O'Reilly
Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.
When was the last time you saw Larry King yell at a guest, turn off a guest's microphone, or kick a guest off the show?
Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat
Hannity is a talented and skilled speaker. Colmes is the most sniveling tiny-tiny human they could get to possibly host a news show. It would be wonderful if the two were matched and they had equal ability to present their viewpoints. Hannity is given the vast majority of microphone time, Colmes occasionally gets to express a minority opinion in a poor fashion.
And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C.
Yes, precisely. Greta Van Susteren is probably one of the better reporters on Fox News, but she is usually never given political assignments.
In the voting booth, when it's time to be counted, people aren't going to be as willing to play the game. Nader might just do better than most people think.
Making a point doesn't put food on the table. Playing the system does. After the close election of 2000, most voters are probably very conscious of the importance of their vote, and of the consequences of not playing the plurality game for as long as we have a plurality system.
There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.
A direct pluralistic vote solves very few problems intrinsic to our current voting system. By comparison, Approval Voting resolves many of the problems. It would permit multiple political parties with realistic chances of winning, giving voters greater diversity of choice. It would reduce negative campaigning, and force candidates to present themselves and their issues rather than spend the majority of their time debasing their opponents.
On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp
Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.
There is a difference between being socially conservative and economically conservative. Bush is socially conservative, and the closest he comes to being economically conservative is cutting taxes for the wealthy. But his spending has been kept high enough to result in a massive debt.
What the country needs is for one of the two political parties to shift its platform to being socially progressive and fiscally responsible. Bush opened the door for the Democratic party to choose this by taking the exact opposite stance, but the Democrats were so afraid of Bush that they just voted for the guy they thought everyone else would be most likely to vote for.
Your chart shows GNP, not GDP. GNP includes products produced by citizens of a country who are living in other countries. If you instead compare GDP's, then the USA is above Switzerland by about 15%.
This confirms my decision to invest in the tinfoil and hat industries. I should be happily retired by early November.
Not everything that sounds like a conspiracy is necessarilly fabricated. These types of things DO happen regularly, believe it or not, and its the responsibility of a free society to not stick its head in the sand when they occur.
Anyone who denies global warming, or that a large portion of it has human causes, is at this point right up there with creationists, flat-Earthers, and Holocaust-deniers on the "crazy crank" scale.
Then could you please post the strong evidence which supports a causal system of global warming where human use of fossil fuels has and will create a significant increase in global temperature?
Seriously, please post it, I've been looking for this evidence for a while, and I'd really like to understand where this evidence is that makes so many people so certain.
Yes, here in Germany you basically only get into trouble with old Nazi literature ("Mein Kampf" from Hitler comes to mind)
Books such as Mein Kampf should be carefully studied so that it doesn't happen again.
People are getting stupider.
People are NOT getting stupider!
They have people on the internet now?
That must explain it...
Every politician currently in power GOT there using the two-party system. So you can't get them to change the rules that got them there.
There was once a time when every politician in power got there by being elected by an all male electorate. Under public outcry, it changed by constitutional amendment.
If you believe in it, give it a try.
The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:
Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.
This is the case so long as we maintain a plurality voting system. If you want REAL change, it will take more than just voting for some small party candidate. You have to start raising public support for a change in our voting system toward Approval Voting until the public outcry for this change is too large to be ignored.
Not sure there's any value in casting my vote that way, but geez, it's getting ridiculous
If you vote libertarian, you won't get libertarian policies, you'll get the exact opposite. The problem is not that we have two parties, the problem is that we have plurality voting which enforces the existence of two parties and penalizes third party voters by giving them the opposite of what they want.
If you don't like politics as they are, then you need to start encouraging people to support Approval Voting. If enough people are educated about what Approval Voting is and how it would change politics in this country, then the change would happen, and third party voters would be rewarded for their votes. Right now we have a big job of educating the public ahead of us, so start with the people you know.
Stick with a thumbprint scanner or something.
They need me alive to force me to sign something. That's better than only needing my thumb.
... in medicine, and one in physics, and probably one in chemistry, waiting for anyone who can demonstrate a possible mechanism of action for health effects of non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels.
I used to agree with you, but a number of studies recently have shown that under these radiation wavelengths, some membranes in the body pass some molecules when they would otherwise block them.
Example here.
It turns out it's insufficient to just consider heating effects and ionization effects, since lipid membranes are composed of dipolar molecules which can be subject to other electromagnetic effects.
The thinking that "society" has "rights", while "individual" only has "responsibilities" is a very dangerous (and *logically* totally unsupported!) proposition.
Actually, I would say individuals have rights, and as members of society we also have responsibilities.
it would take three million seconds, or one year of constant writing
Your estimate should actually be five to six weeks.
oh that would be great if people would plan ahead and there would be a cheap way to exclude those not paying from getting the benefits(don't want to pay for keeping the roads in good shape? well, lose your ability to receive any goods transferred on those roads.. the point being that a system like that would ultimately suck because people are short sighted and can't see the connections between things that make their daily life possible).
If no one payed for social security disability, or food stamps, or head start programs, then we'd have a whole lot more crime as people grow up unable to find simple things like food and jobs. How do you even begin to measure that?
At some point we need to stop looking at ourselves as just individuals, and begin looking at ourselves as a society which rises and falls in unison.
The reason the articles are so often distorted is simple. Slashdot editors reject submissions that just provide the facts, and accept articles that are emotionally rousing. A lot of the time, the true story is more fact that emotionally rousing, so the article submission doesn't match.
This isn't so different from mainstream for-profit news.
since intelligent people tend not to breed
That doesn't sound very smart of them.
Somehow I'm thinking using support@microsoft.com wouldn't make much difference. According to this, support@microsoft.com trumps a@a.com.
And in continuing the theme...
The Bush administration looks silly by the end of the movie...