I keep hearing that. However, here are all of the economic planks of the 1928 Socialist Party Platform, and how they have fared legislatively. Smells like socialism to me.
'It's not possible. Space is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.'"
I feel the same way about settling the western United States. Oregon is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.
Yeah sorry dude but there hasn't been a judge, founding father, legislator or even constitutional clause since foundation thats actually said this. This is a fantasy of the tea party whackys.
Does Chief Justice Marshall count? He once said, "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." I'm pretty sure he's not a tea party whacky. How about Chief Justice William Rehnquist? He's the one who wrote the majority opinion when striking down the Gun Free School Zone Act in United States v. Lopez.
The index does not measure, and has nothing to say, about the main topics at hand - civil liberties and human rights - so it doesn't refute the binary guy's claims even one bit. In fact, it's almost completely unrelated to his claims.
And here is Freedom House's 2013 annual survey of freedom. In it you'll find the United States rated as "Free" (most free of three categories) in freedom status, "1" (most free of seven categories) in political rights, and "1" (most free of seven categories) in civil liberties.
The Heritage Foundation is based in the US. That doesn't prove anything.
First, I'm going to try to prove that you're wrong. I'm going to do that by showing that your argument is flawed, and can be rejected on that basis. Following that I'm going to try to prove that I'm right. I'm going to do that by showing that Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. Here's why your argument is flawed. You're saying that the US isn't free because the entity stating that it's free is based in the US. You're arguing against an argument because of some attribute of the entity making the argument. That's flawed because arguments stand on their own. To argue against the entity making the argument is a fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem, which can be translated as "argument against the man" and is sometimes colloquially called an ad hominem argument. You've just committed the ad hominem fallacy. Since your argument is fallacious it can be rejected.
Second, Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. In fact, that's the reason authorities exist, to deliver us conclusions that are too difficult for people not schooled in the art to reach. Now, to be a valid Argument from Authority, it must meet four prongs. The first prong is that the Authority must be an actual authority. You can find information about their authority here. Second, the authority must be an authority in a relevant sphere of inquiry. You can find information about relevance at the same site. Third, if the sphere of inquiry is well established then there must be general agreement in the field, and if not then the authority must have a reputation of having made correct predictions. You can find information about agreement at that same site. Finally, the authority must explain, so far as possible, the reason he reached that conclusion. You can find information about methodology at that same site. Therefore, I have made a valid appeal to authority and the conclusion I stated may be relied on with some confidence.
And Singapore is rated 8 steps above the US. Singapore, which has an actual dictator and all kinds of crazy laws.
You can find the reasons Singapore is rated so highly here.
And Chile beats the US in terms of freedom? Well at least they are not aiming high.
You can find the reasons Chile is rated so highly here.
In any case your whole post is basically an Argument from Authority. You are saying, "This is what the Heritage Foundation thinks."
The actual fallacy is called Argument from Inexpert Authority. An Argument from Inexpert Authority is an argument from authority that does not meet one or more of the four prongs I outlined. Since the argument I made meets all four prongs it's a cogent argument.
Try actually making a real argument to support the view that the US is "one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot".
You can find the reasons the United States is rated so highly here.
The US is still one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot
I am willing to bet that you have never spent more than a month living outside of the US. Otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid things.
It's not so much a "stupid" thing to say as an, oh, "accurate" thing to say. If you would like to see an (as nearly as possible) objective way to look at the relative freedom of countries you might refer to The Heritage Foundation's annual survey. It says pretty much exactly what LordLimecat said, listing the US at 10 freest out of 177 countries ranked.
By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.
You know? I was reading Jewish Wisdom by rabbi Joseph Telushkin. In it he refers to the requirement for rabbis to be able to prove that lizards are kosher. The idea is not that lizards are kosher. The idea is that rabbis must be able to construct specious arguments so that they'll be able to discern when an argument is not cogent, but merely specious. I've seen arguments that bald people are hirsute, that ham sandwiches are better than perfect happiness, and that ignorance is strength. The rest is left as an exercise for the student.
The facts are that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored the 911 dispatcher
Actually, the facts suggest that Mr. Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher.
chased down a kid because he thought he "looked suspicious".
One doesn't deserve to be assaulted and battered for chasing.
He then killed a kid who was armed with only a bag of skittles.
Ah, but the bag of Skittles bloodied and broke Mr. Zimmerman's nose, put five contusions on his face, and two lacerations on the back of his head.
If he would have followed the dispatcher's advice and waited for actual law enforcement - rather than taking on the role himself - that kid would still be alive.
If Mr. Martin had restricted himself to attempting murder of unarmed people then he would still be alive.
So if you are walking along the street and I run up behind you and follow you to where ever you are going you would be happy with that?
Well, the criterion is not whether a reasonable person would be happy; the criterion is whether a reasonable person would judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury. Running up behind someone doesn't meet that criterion. Following someone to wherever you are going doesn't meet that criterion.
Because if you show any sign you are not I get to legally shoot you dead.
Well, it's not so much "any sign." It's only any sign which causes a reasonable person to judge that he is in immanent danger of death or serious bodily injury. So, if you were to change that to say, "Because if you show any sign which would cause a reasonable person to judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury I get to legally shoot you dead," then you would be correct.
You Americans are all nuts.
We don't suffer from insanity. We enjoy every minute.
Getting your head bashed into the pavement isn't life-threatening injury, as the prosecutor's expert witness testified.
Close. The criterion is actually whether a reasonable person would judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury. What the prosecutor's expert witness actually testified is that Mr. Zimmerman didn't receive any life threatening injuries. The point that I'm trying to make is that it's possible for a reasonable person to judge that he's in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury without having actually received life-threatening injuries. Both can be true at the same time. Coupled with Mr. Zimmerman's claim that Mr. Martin threatened, "you're gonna die tonight," and his further claim that Mr. Martin tried to get Mr. Zimmerman's gun, obviously uncorroborated, it's possible for a reasonable person to judge that he was in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury.
George Zimmerman joined (or apparently created) a neighborhood watch.
In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator. So, apparently he didn't create a neighborhood watch.
If you choose to go around your neighborhood at night...you're looking for trouble.
That's pretty close to the definition of Neighborhood Watch.
ignoring the advice of people who know better (like the 911 operators),
All the evidence suggest that he followed the advice of the 911 operator. Mr. Zimmerman exited his vehicle, and started running. The 911 operator asked whether Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin. Mr. Zimmerman answered that he was. The 911 operator said, "We don't need you to do that." Mr. Zimmerman answered, "okay." The sounds on the recording then suggest that Mr. Zimmerman stopped running.
If your prepared response in that situation is to carry a gun and shoot the stranger, you better be prepared to have the jury find you guilty of some degree of homicide.
Yes. Mr. Zimmerman made great sacrifices in his attempt to keep his neighborhood safe and reduce crime.
When white people kill black in the South (or even in the North) they get acquitted.
Actually, I understand that Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic, but with some black ancestry.
There were 6 white jurors.
The prosecution had just as many voir dire challenges as did the defense, and they had just as many "for cause" challenges available to them.
What are the odds of getting 6 white jurors by chance?
The odds of getting six non-black (a similar but not exact comparison) jurors, and going by the 2005 Florida demographics are (1-0.1631)^6 = 34%.
What are the odds of getting heads 6 times in a row?
Using a fair coin it's 0.5^6 = 2%.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that he wasn't.
You're a racist, and would have been eliminated from the jury pool for cause if the defense found out.
The authors add that the substantial overoptimism about completing a degree in science can be attributed largely to students beginning school with misperceptions about their ability to perform well academically in science.
That hasn't been my experience. I have two sons who were taking engineering at the same university where I received my degree, but dropped out last year. I was tutoring them, and my evaluation is that they were learning the material. In fact, they understood some of the material better than I did at the same point in my academic career. My judgement is that the university has changed.
There is no longer a human grading homework. They have reduced costs by having a computer do that work. The problem that causes is that these computers only know one correct answer. The instructor accommodates the computer by having the significant digits be required in every problem. Thus, if the answer is 2.2, then 2.21 is marked wrong. In fact, 2.20 is marked wrong as well. No partial credit is awarded. Now, I could understand if that were being done on a section regarding significant digits, but it's done everywhere. That's absurd. In the real world you have to accept nearest best. Suppose the ideal size for a drain hole is calculated to be 0.160 inches diameter. Well, it turns out that there are no 0.160 drills. You have to accept either a #20 drill or a #19 drill. And even then you must live with the hole + or - 0.003. Or suppose in electrical engineering that you calculate the ideal size of a resistor to be 43.5K ohms. There are no 43.5K ohm resistors. Well, there aren't at any kind of price that I'm willing to pay.
Furthermore, their physics instructor had no text book. That's outrageous. Who teaches physics without a text?
If indeed there was any overoptimism it wasn't because of any misperceptions about their ability to perform well academically in science.
That was my initial thought, as well. Upon reflection, however, I suspected that he had modeled the probability of any given booth coming equipped with a booth babe as $ I = I_0\epsilon{-kt}. $ For large $t,$ and assuming $k>0,$ we shouldn't be surprised to find that any given flock of booths have fewer than two equipped booths. That being the case, discovering that $I(t+1)>I(t)$ for some $t$ is insufficient to invalidate the model.
1. I feel like Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains. Damn, your dunk tests are hard!
2. Okay, how about this. Suppose that the police ask the suspect whether he committed the murder. Suppose further that the suspect answers truthfully. Suppose even further than that that the suspect is convicted. Now lets examine the results. If the suspect was innocent, then he is convicted of murder and obstruction of justice. If the suspect was guilty then then he is convicted of murder.
3. Criterion 1: The outcomes are in a world with the fifth amendment are clearly different. With the fifth amendment the innocent person is not convicted of obstruction of justice. Without the fifth amendment he is.
4. Criterion 2: The outcome in a world with the fifth amendment is clearly better. It's good not to convict innocent people.
5. Criterion 3: The outcome doesn't benefit all suspects equally. The truthful, guilty, convicted people have the same outcome with our without the right. The truthful, innocent, convicted people are harmed without the right. (By the way, I don't see why a right should only benefit some people. I would rather you not included this criterion.)
6. Criterion 4: The outcome doesn't exist separately from the fifth amendment. Without the right against self-incrimination the risk of an obstruction of justice conviction is possible. With the right, assuming it's exercised, it isn't.
7. Criterion 5: The argument has no major implication for the competency of courts in general, therefore no discussion is necessary.
8. Fail 0: A scenario was specified. See paragraph 2., above.
9. Fail 1: . The outcome in the fifth amendment world is different than the one without. See paragraph 3., above.
10. Fail 2: The outcome in the fifth amendment world is better than the one without. See paragraph 4., above.
11. Fail 3: The benefits of the fifth amendment differ for the innocent than for the guilty. See paragraph 5., above.
12 Fail 4: The benefits are exclusive to the right against self-incrimination. See paragraph 6. above.
13. That was hard work. Can I at least have a cookie?
It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.
For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.
So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?
Furthermore, my little brother was being threatened and had fist sized rocks thrown at him when he was walking past a middle school. We reported the kids to the police. Guess what? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. There has been no crime unless he actually gets injured.
You know, I've thought for a long time that allowing the government to make laws that specify fines, and allowing the government to keep the proceeds from the fines, is a major conflict of interest. Any time a government want to raise revenue, but find that raising tax rates is unpalatable, they find it too easy to pass another law. It seems to me that laws should be passed to reduce harm to some (logical) class. In the case of red lights, and the running of same, the class of people harmed are the class of all drivers. I wish there were some way to divide all the fines amongst all drivers. That way there would still be an incentive for red light runners to forgo their favourite pastime, but there would be less incentive for governments to over-legislate red light running.
That's where all the evidence points. It was her claim from the first. She has maintained it consistently for ten years. The objects of her rhetoric, who have great incentive for proving she's a shill for IBM, attempted to do so, but unsuccessfully. The court ordered IBM to disclose any relationship between them and Groklaw, and IBM claimed, under penalty of perjury, that there was none.
Your evidence that she isn't a paralegal attempting to learn how to blog is...it sounds suspicious.
Yeah, I know where the preponderance of the evidence is.
Founded just to cover the SCO/Caldera UNIX lawsuits back in 2003,
Actually, that's not true. It was founded so that Pamela Jones could learn about blogging. It just happened to occur at the same time that the SCO debacle was starting.
It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation.
I suppose it's possible that as many as 149 out of those 150 organizations withdrew their applications because they intended to do something illegal. I can't agree that they withdrew their applications when the IRS caught their violations, because the IRS didn't catch any violations.
However, it's also possible that none intended to do something illegal. Instead, it's possible that they withdrew their applications when they found that the IRS was going to, in the IRS's words, violate IRS policy in pursuing them and their families in a manner that was, in their words again, wrong, incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.
That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
Bangladesh is listed as 132 (out of 177) on the Heritage Foundation's 2013 index of economic freedom, which awards it the category of "Mostly Unfree." It's not quite as free as Tajikistan, but a little more free than Cameroon. It's not exactly a libertarian Utopia.
It has it's advantages, but it has it's disadvantages as well.
2) Government debt is the foundation of an economy.
So, you're saying that under anarchy there's no such thing as an economy? You're saying that a government without debt can only happen when the economy has been eliminated?
3) Greed is the cause of inflation.
So, that would mean that they're about ten thousand times greedier in Zimbabwe as they are in, say, the United States of America? That USAans are positively altruistic in comparison? That a wave of altruism swept America and the world in 1929?
4) You're lazy. If you want details, grow a pair and read.
That's like saying that Canadian Tire Money [wikipedia.org] is money because there are shops (and not just Canadian Tire) that will accept it as currency.
Actually, an economist would say that Canadian Tire Money (learned something new today) is money. Economists define money as "anything that separates the act of buying from the act of selling." For example, in post-WW2 Germany, currency restrictions made cigarettes and Cognac money. People would exchange what they wanted to buy, in one case gasoline, for cigarettes. The gasoline salesman didn't want the cigarettes for smoking; in fact she didn't want cigarettes at all. She simply wanted the things she could buy with cigarettes. Cigarettes were used from small purchases, and Cognac was used for large ones.
Slashdot Mirror
The 2nd Amendment applies to what is now the National Guard. We never updated the Constitution as we adopted a "standing army" policy.
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
~Loyal
Socialism, lol.
I keep hearing that. However, here are all of the economic planks of the 1928 Socialist Party Platform, and how they have fared legislatively. Smells like socialism to me.
~Loyal
'It's not possible. Space is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.'"
I feel the same way about settling the western United States. Oregon is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.
~Loyal
"You have died of dysentery."
Yeah sorry dude but there hasn't been a judge, founding father, legislator or even constitutional clause since foundation thats actually said this. This is a fantasy of the tea party whackys.
Does Chief Justice Marshall count? He once said, "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." I'm pretty sure he's not a tea party whacky. How about Chief Justice William Rehnquist? He's the one who wrote the majority opinion when striking down the Gun Free School Zone Act in United States v. Lopez.
~Loyal
The index does not measure, and has nothing to say, about the main topics at hand - civil liberties and human rights - so it doesn't refute the binary guy's claims even one bit. In fact, it's almost completely unrelated to his claims.
And here is Freedom House's 2013 annual survey of freedom. In it you'll find the United States rated as "Free" (most free of three categories) in freedom status, "1" (most free of seven categories) in political rights, and "1" (most free of seven categories) in civil liberties.
~Loyal
The Heritage Foundation is based in the US. That doesn't prove anything.
First, I'm going to try to prove that you're wrong. I'm going to do that by showing that your argument is flawed, and can be rejected on that basis. Following that I'm going to try to prove that I'm right. I'm going to do that by showing that Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. Here's why your argument is flawed. You're saying that the US isn't free because the entity stating that it's free is based in the US. You're arguing against an argument because of some attribute of the entity making the argument. That's flawed because arguments stand on their own. To argue against the entity making the argument is a fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem, which can be translated as "argument against the man" and is sometimes colloquially called an ad hominem argument. You've just committed the ad hominem fallacy. Since your argument is fallacious it can be rejected.
Second, Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. In fact, that's the reason authorities exist, to deliver us conclusions that are too difficult for people not schooled in the art to reach. Now, to be a valid Argument from Authority, it must meet four prongs. The first prong is that the Authority must be an actual authority. You can find information about their authority here. Second, the authority must be an authority in a relevant sphere of inquiry. You can find information about relevance at the same site. Third, if the sphere of inquiry is well established then there must be general agreement in the field, and if not then the authority must have a reputation of having made correct predictions. You can find information about agreement at that same site. Finally, the authority must explain, so far as possible, the reason he reached that conclusion. You can find information about methodology at that same site. Therefore, I have made a valid appeal to authority and the conclusion I stated may be relied on with some confidence.
And Singapore is rated 8 steps above the US. Singapore, which has an actual dictator and all kinds of crazy laws.
You can find the reasons Singapore is rated so highly here.
And Chile beats the US in terms of freedom? Well at least they are not aiming high.
You can find the reasons Chile is rated so highly here.
In any case your whole post is basically an Argument from Authority. You are saying, "This is what the Heritage Foundation thinks."
The actual fallacy is called Argument from Inexpert Authority. An Argument from Inexpert Authority is an argument from authority that does not meet one or more of the four prongs I outlined. Since the argument I made meets all four prongs it's a cogent argument.
Try actually making a real argument to support the view that the US is "one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot".
You can find the reasons the United States is rated so highly here.
~Loyal
The US is still one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot
I am willing to bet that you have never spent more than a month living outside of the US. Otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid things.
It's not so much a "stupid" thing to say as an, oh, "accurate" thing to say. If you would like to see an (as nearly as possible) objective way to look at the relative freedom of countries you might refer to The Heritage Foundation's annual survey. It says pretty much exactly what LordLimecat said, listing the US at 10 freest out of 177 countries ranked.
~Loyal
By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.
You know? I was reading Jewish Wisdom by rabbi Joseph Telushkin. In it he refers to the requirement for rabbis to be able to prove that lizards are kosher. The idea is not that lizards are kosher. The idea is that rabbis must be able to construct specious arguments so that they'll be able to discern when an argument is not cogent, but merely specious. I've seen arguments that bald people are hirsute, that ham sandwiches are better than perfect happiness, and that ignorance is strength. The rest is left as an exercise for the student.
~Loyal
The facts are that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored the 911 dispatcher
Actually, the facts suggest that Mr. Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher.
chased down a kid because he thought he "looked suspicious".
One doesn't deserve to be assaulted and battered for chasing.
He then killed a kid who was armed with only a bag of skittles.
Ah, but the bag of Skittles bloodied and broke Mr. Zimmerman's nose, put five contusions on his face, and two lacerations on the back of his head.
If he would have followed the dispatcher's advice and waited for actual law enforcement - rather than taking on the role himself - that kid would still be alive.
If Mr. Martin had restricted himself to attempting murder of unarmed people then he would still be alive.
~Loyal
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to punch a creepy-ass cracker in the nose and break it?
~Loyal
So if you are walking along the street and I run up behind you and follow you to where ever you are going you would be happy with that?
Well, the criterion is not whether a reasonable person would be happy; the criterion is whether a reasonable person would judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury. Running up behind someone doesn't meet that criterion. Following someone to wherever you are going doesn't meet that criterion.
Because if you show any sign you are not I get to legally shoot you dead.
Well, it's not so much "any sign." It's only any sign which causes a reasonable person to judge that he is in immanent danger of death or serious bodily injury. So, if you were to change that to say, "Because if you show any sign which would cause a reasonable person to judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury I get to legally shoot you dead," then you would be correct.
You Americans are all nuts.
We don't suffer from insanity. We enjoy every minute.
~Loyal
Getting your head bashed into the pavement isn't life-threatening injury, as the prosecutor's expert witness testified.
Close. The criterion is actually whether a reasonable person would judge that he is in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury. What the prosecutor's expert witness actually testified is that Mr. Zimmerman didn't receive any life threatening injuries. The point that I'm trying to make is that it's possible for a reasonable person to judge that he's in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury without having actually received life-threatening injuries. Both can be true at the same time. Coupled with Mr. Zimmerman's claim that Mr. Martin threatened, "you're gonna die tonight," and his further claim that Mr. Martin tried to get Mr. Zimmerman's gun, obviously uncorroborated, it's possible for a reasonable person to judge that he was in immanent danger of death or severe bodily injury.
George Zimmerman joined (or apparently created) a neighborhood watch.
In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator. So, apparently he didn't create a neighborhood watch.
If you choose to go around your neighborhood at night...you're looking for trouble.
That's pretty close to the definition of Neighborhood Watch.
ignoring the advice of people who know better (like the 911 operators),
All the evidence suggest that he followed the advice of the 911 operator. Mr. Zimmerman exited his vehicle, and started running. The 911 operator asked whether Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin. Mr. Zimmerman answered that he was. The 911 operator said, "We don't need you to do that." Mr. Zimmerman answered, "okay." The sounds on the recording then suggest that Mr. Zimmerman stopped running.
If your prepared response in that situation is to carry a gun and shoot the stranger, you better be prepared to have the jury find you guilty of some degree of homicide.
Yes. Mr. Zimmerman made great sacrifices in his attempt to keep his neighborhood safe and reduce crime.
When white people kill black in the South (or even in the North) they get acquitted.
Actually, I understand that Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic, but with some black ancestry.
There were 6 white jurors.
The prosecution had just as many voir dire challenges as did the defense, and they had just as many "for cause" challenges available to them.
What are the odds of getting 6 white jurors by chance?
The odds of getting six non-black (a similar but not exact comparison) jurors, and going by the 2005 Florida demographics are (1-0.1631)^6 = 34%.
What are the odds of getting heads 6 times in a row?
Using a fair coin it's 0.5^6 = 2%.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that he wasn't.
You're a racist, and would have been eliminated from the jury pool for cause if the defense found out.
~Loyal
The authors add that the substantial overoptimism about completing a degree in science can be attributed largely to students beginning school with misperceptions about their ability to perform well academically in science.
That hasn't been my experience. I have two sons who were taking engineering at the same university where I received my degree, but dropped out last year. I was tutoring them, and my evaluation is that they were learning the material. In fact, they understood some of the material better than I did at the same point in my academic career. My judgement is that the university has changed.
There is no longer a human grading homework. They have reduced costs by having a computer do that work. The problem that causes is that these computers only know one correct answer. The instructor accommodates the computer by having the significant digits be required in every problem. Thus, if the answer is 2.2, then 2.21 is marked wrong. In fact, 2.20 is marked wrong as well. No partial credit is awarded. Now, I could understand if that were being done on a section regarding significant digits, but it's done everywhere. That's absurd. In the real world you have to accept nearest best. Suppose the ideal size for a drain hole is calculated to be 0.160 inches diameter. Well, it turns out that there are no 0.160 drills. You have to accept either a #20 drill or a #19 drill. And even then you must live with the hole + or - 0.003. Or suppose in electrical engineering that you calculate the ideal size of a resistor to be 43.5K ohms. There are no 43.5K ohm resistors. Well, there aren't at any kind of price that I'm willing to pay.
Furthermore, their physics instructor had no text book. That's outrageous. Who teaches physics without a text?
If indeed there was any overoptimism it wasn't because of any misperceptions about their ability to perform well academically in science.
~Loyal
Say what now?
That was my initial thought, as well. Upon reflection, however, I suspected that he had modeled the probability of any given booth coming equipped with a booth babe as $ I = I_0\epsilon{-kt}. $ For large $t,$ and assuming $k>0,$ we shouldn't be surprised to find that any given flock of booths have fewer than two equipped booths. That being the case, discovering that $I(t+1)>I(t)$ for some $t$ is insufficient to invalidate the model.
~Loyal
1. I feel like Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains. Damn, your dunk tests are hard!
2. Okay, how about this. Suppose that the police ask the suspect whether he committed the murder. Suppose further that the suspect answers truthfully. Suppose even further than that that the suspect is convicted. Now lets examine the results. If the suspect was innocent, then he is convicted of murder and obstruction of justice. If the suspect was guilty then then he is convicted of murder.
3. Criterion 1: The outcomes are in a world with the fifth amendment are clearly different. With the fifth amendment the innocent person is not convicted of obstruction of justice. Without the fifth amendment he is.
4. Criterion 2: The outcome in a world with the fifth amendment is clearly better. It's good not to convict innocent people.
5. Criterion 3: The outcome doesn't benefit all suspects equally. The truthful, guilty, convicted people have the same outcome with our without the right. The truthful, innocent, convicted people are harmed without the right. (By the way, I don't see why a right should only benefit some people. I would rather you not included this criterion.)
6. Criterion 4: The outcome doesn't exist separately from the fifth amendment. Without the right against self-incrimination the risk of an obstruction of justice conviction is possible. With the right, assuming it's exercised, it isn't.
7. Criterion 5: The argument has no major implication for the competency of courts in general, therefore no discussion is necessary.
8. Fail 0: A scenario was specified. See paragraph 2., above.
9. Fail 1: . The outcome in the fifth amendment world is different than the one without. See paragraph 3., above.
10. Fail 2: The outcome in the fifth amendment world is better than the one without. See paragraph 4., above.
11. Fail 3: The benefits of the fifth amendment differ for the innocent than for the guilty. See paragraph 5., above.
12 Fail 4: The benefits are exclusive to the right against self-incrimination. See paragraph 6. above.
13. That was hard work. Can I at least have a cookie?
~Loyal
It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.
For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.
So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?
~Loyal
Furthermore, my little brother was being threatened and had fist sized rocks thrown at him when he was walking past a middle school. We reported the kids to the police. Guess what? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. There has been no crime unless he actually gets injured.
Assault is no longer a crime?
~Loyal
Yeah, my password is, "I agree to indemnify Loyal Opposition and hold him blameless."
~Loyal
You know, I've thought for a long time that allowing the government to make laws that specify fines, and allowing the government to keep the proceeds from the fines, is a major conflict of interest. Any time a government want to raise revenue, but find that raising tax rates is unpalatable, they find it too easy to pass another law. It seems to me that laws should be passed to reduce harm to some (logical) class. In the case of red lights, and the running of same, the class of people harmed are the class of all drivers. I wish there were some way to divide all the fines amongst all drivers. That way there would still be an incentive for red light runners to forgo their favourite pastime, but there would be less incentive for governments to over-legislate red light running.
~Loyal
Yes, that's totally believable
That's where all the evidence points. It was her claim from the first. She has maintained it consistently for ten years. The objects of her rhetoric, who have great incentive for proving she's a shill for IBM, attempted to do so, but unsuccessfully. The court ordered IBM to disclose any relationship between them and Groklaw, and IBM claimed, under penalty of perjury, that there was none.
Your evidence that she isn't a paralegal attempting to learn how to blog is...it sounds suspicious.
Yeah, I know where the preponderance of the evidence is.
~Loyal
Founded just to cover the SCO/Caldera UNIX lawsuits back in 2003,
Actually, that's not true. It was founded so that Pamela Jones could learn about blogging. It just happened to occur at the same time that the SCO debacle was starting.
~Loyal
It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation.
I suppose it's possible that as many as 149 out of those 150 organizations withdrew their applications because they intended to do something illegal. I can't agree that they withdrew their applications when the IRS caught their violations, because the IRS didn't catch any violations.
However, it's also possible that none intended to do something illegal. Instead, it's possible that they withdrew their applications when they found that the IRS was going to, in the IRS's words, violate IRS policy in pursuing them and their families in a manner that was, in their words again, wrong, incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.
You know; either way.
~Loyal
That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
Bangladesh is listed as 132 (out of 177) on the Heritage Foundation's 2013 index of economic freedom, which awards it the category of "Mostly Unfree." It's not quite as free as Tajikistan, but a little more free than Cameroon. It's not exactly a libertarian Utopia.
~Loyal
1) Fiat currency is good.
It has it's advantages, but it has it's disadvantages as well.
2) Government debt is the foundation of an economy.
So, you're saying that under anarchy there's no such thing as an economy? You're saying that a government without debt can only happen when the economy has been eliminated?
3) Greed is the cause of inflation.
So, that would mean that they're about ten thousand times greedier in Zimbabwe as they are in, say, the United States of America? That USAans are positively altruistic in comparison? That a wave of altruism swept America and the world in 1929?
4) You're lazy. If you want details, grow a pair and read.
No, I'm drunk. But in the morning I'll be sober.
~Loyal
That's like saying that Canadian Tire Money [wikipedia.org] is money because there are shops (and not just Canadian Tire) that will accept it as currency.
Actually, an economist would say that Canadian Tire Money (learned something new today) is money. Economists define money as "anything that separates the act of buying from the act of selling." For example, in post-WW2 Germany, currency restrictions made cigarettes and Cognac money. People would exchange what they wanted to buy, in one case gasoline, for cigarettes. The gasoline salesman didn't want the cigarettes for smoking; in fact she didn't want cigarettes at all. She simply wanted the things she could buy with cigarettes. Cigarettes were used from small purchases, and Cognac was used for large ones.
~Loyal