The *information* on the form cannot be used as evidence. Okay, let's take that as true (it may not be; I'm not a lawyer).
If you don't fill out the form, you have provided no information, so it's a foregone conclusion that it can't be used against you.
But the blank form itself, with your name and address on the mailing label, could be evidence. A blank form is of course different than the information on a filled-in form. That seems pretty obvious, so obvious that I'm sure you already thought of it. So what were you saying?
What interest does the federal government have in the location of schools?
Lots and lots of interest. Reference the federal DOE.
Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? or did you honestly not know that the federal government is (and should be) part of America's education system?
The constitutional purpose of the census is to count people, not to figure out who rents vs. who owns their homes, or what their age/race distribution is.
You sounds very knowledgeable. Where did you study constitutional law?
Whether or not he should be a rep is up to the voters, not some arbitrary pop quiz about his constituents. If you think a representative should automatically know population, racial, economic, and demographic details about each neighborhood in his district, then you have an absurd standard for representation. If you are serious, then you must never have been able to vote for anybody in your whole life.
And thus, you must not be serious. You are either kidding us, or kidding yourself. I'll hope for the former.
Don't be ridiculous. Knowing racial identity helps both Neilson and the Government do their jobs. Someday in the distant future we might live in a post-racial society, and when that far-off day arrives, then your point (and the others of your ilk) will make sense. Good luck living that long.
Well, okay I agree, except that the "working stiffs who just want to feed their families" *ARE* the federal government. If you beef the feds, those are the actual humans who you beef.
Why collect race data unless you plan to give one race(doesn't matter which) preferential treatment? If you don't plan on providing differential services based on race, why would you care what my race is?
Yeah, it's in order to provide services with respect to race. I wouldn't use the word "preferential", but I suppose "differential" might apply. So?
Government needn't be any more color blind than society. There are lots of legitimate governmental racial policies, along with some illegitimate ones.
I am not at all seeing your point. How does A1S2 of the Constitution prohibit asking demographic information?
Did you forget to quote an extra clause which says "and don't ask about race, because that doesn't jive with my preconceived notions of what the Constitution should say, even though it doesn't"?
They could, or the Federally mandated study could help. Either way would be fine. Actually, gosh, it seems a lot easier and nicer to just get the extra data while we are asking other questions. So, I'll go with that option, but either would be okay I suppose.
The test itself, not the administrator. Traditional intelligence tests are based in Western notions of knowledge and intelligence -- that's a common criticism of the tests. But perhaps the test of which you speak is not the kind at which that criticism is directed.
Again, that's just my notion. I'm open to argumentation; I don't have much of a preconceived conclusion, and I don't want anybody to construe my notion as an assertion of settled fact.
Really? You think irrelevant? I think it goes straight to the definition of democracy. Surely you agree that a dictatorship could not be fairly called a "democracy with one voter". How few voters do you (you personally, Risen) require before you allow something to be called a democracy? Obviously, different people and different countries at different periods of history have different experiences with the notion of self-rule.
But you are right that the directness of direct democracy refers to the voters voting on end-product legislation itself, instead of voting for an intermediary, such as a representative.
We might, if we find an gigantic amount of evidence which contradicts the large amount of evidence we already have showing the opposite route. That's pretty unlikely, but hey, anything is possible.
You have made an error by suggesting that the "holly" (holy) rollers base their beliefs or assertions on facts or evidence; they do not; they base their beliefs and assertions on "faith", which means belief specifically contrary to evidence. You don't need faith to believe something which is supported by the evidence.
I'm not a scientist, but I would figure that, to explain the lower average African score, the cultural underpinnings of the intelligence test outweighs the nutrition of the examinees.
Okay, that's a pretty good straw man. Let me try one: if only 5 out of 100 games don't make good use of motion control, then that means the motion control is an essential part of an innovative paradigm.
Yay! Neither of us said anything of substance because we both used straw men arguments based on unrealistic fabricated hypothetical situations!
I don't play with my Wii very often, and I prefer the classic-type games because my childhood concurred with original Nintendo, but I completely disagree that the motion control doesn't offer something new. Also, even though I don't play them very often myself, I also disagree with your implied assertion that only one percent of Wii games use motion sensing in a cool way.
It should do whatever users and devs both want. There is no arbitrary limit to what the OS should do; any boundary a person could claim on what counts as an OS is arbitrary.
Maybe you and I aren't interested in integrated Twitter, but apparently others are.
Slashdot Mirror
That seemed like a very reasonable thing to do, until Rush said it.
I'm confused.
The *information* on the form cannot be used as evidence. Okay, let's take that as true (it may not be; I'm not a lawyer).
If you don't fill out the form, you have provided no information, so it's a foregone conclusion that it can't be used against you.
But the blank form itself, with your name and address on the mailing label, could be evidence. A blank form is of course different than the information on a filled-in form. That seems pretty obvious, so obvious that I'm sure you already thought of it. So what were you saying?
What interest does the federal government have in the location of schools?
Lots and lots of interest. Reference the federal DOE.
Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? or did you honestly not know that the federal government is (and should be) part of America's education system?
The constitutional purpose of the census is to count people, not to figure out who rents vs. who owns their homes, or what their age/race distribution is.
You sounds very knowledgeable. Where did you study constitutional law?
So then, you do agree that a conservative advocated rounding up Arabs, or do you not agree?
Good for you! You sure showed them who's boss, huh? Wow, you are such a leader, really standing up for goodness and righteousness!
Whether or not he should be a rep is up to the voters, not some arbitrary pop quiz about his constituents. If you think a representative should automatically know population, racial, economic, and demographic details about each neighborhood in his district, then you have an absurd standard for representation. If you are serious, then you must never have been able to vote for anybody in your whole life.
And thus, you must not be serious. You are either kidding us, or kidding yourself. I'll hope for the former.
Don't be ridiculous. Knowing racial identity helps both Neilson and the Government do their jobs. Someday in the distant future we might live in a post-racial society, and when that far-off day arrives, then your point (and the others of your ilk) will make sense. Good luck living that long.
I'm sure you are joking, because nobody could be so silly -- excellent jest, sir!
Well, okay I agree, except that the "working stiffs who just want to feed their families" *ARE* the federal government. If you beef the feds, those are the actual humans who you beef.
There is no explicit Constitutional right to privacy
It's right there in Amendment 9. It is so obvious that it LITERALLY went without saying.
Why collect race data unless you plan to give one race(doesn't matter which) preferential treatment? If you don't plan on providing differential services based on race, why would you care what my race is?
Yeah, it's in order to provide services with respect to race. I wouldn't use the word "preferential", but I suppose "differential" might apply. So?
Government needn't be any more color blind than society. There are lots of legitimate governmental racial policies, along with some illegitimate ones.
Boy oh boy you sure showed them!!!! Be proud of yourself, man!!!
I am not at all seeing your point. How does A1S2 of the Constitution prohibit asking demographic information?
Did you forget to quote an extra clause which says "and don't ask about race, because that doesn't jive with my preconceived notions of what the Constitution should say, even though it doesn't"?
They could, or the Federally mandated study could help. Either way would be fine. Actually, gosh, it seems a lot easier and nicer to just get the extra data while we are asking other questions. So, I'll go with that option, but either would be okay I suppose.
The test itself, not the administrator. Traditional intelligence tests are based in Western notions of knowledge and intelligence -- that's a common criticism of the tests. But perhaps the test of which you speak is not the kind at which that criticism is directed.
Again, that's just my notion. I'm open to argumentation; I don't have much of a preconceived conclusion, and I don't want anybody to construe my notion as an assertion of settled fact.
Really? You think irrelevant? I think it goes straight to the definition of democracy. Surely you agree that a dictatorship could not be fairly called a "democracy with one voter". How few voters do you (you personally, Risen) require before you allow something to be called a democracy? Obviously, different people and different countries at different periods of history have different experiences with the notion of self-rule.
But you are right that the directness of direct democracy refers to the voters voting on end-product legislation itself, instead of voting for an intermediary, such as a representative.
We might, if we find an gigantic amount of evidence which contradicts the large amount of evidence we already have showing the opposite route. That's pretty unlikely, but hey, anything is possible.
You have made an error by suggesting that the "holly" (holy) rollers base their beliefs or assertions on facts or evidence; they do not; they base their beliefs and assertions on "faith", which means belief specifically contrary to evidence. You don't need faith to believe something which is supported by the evidence.
I'm not a scientist, but I would figure that, to explain the lower average African score, the cultural underpinnings of the intelligence test outweighs the nutrition of the examinees.
"Her's"! Ha! That's awesome!
Okay, that's a pretty good straw man. Let me try one: if only 5 out of 100 games don't make good use of motion control, then that means the motion control is an essential part of an innovative paradigm.
Yay! Neither of us said anything of substance because we both used straw men arguments based on unrealistic fabricated hypothetical situations!
I don't play with my Wii very often, and I prefer the classic-type games because my childhood concurred with original Nintendo, but I completely disagree that the motion control doesn't offer something new. Also, even though I don't play them very often myself, I also disagree with your implied assertion that only one percent of Wii games use motion sensing in a cool way.
It should do whatever users and devs both want. There is no arbitrary limit to what the OS should do; any boundary a person could claim on what counts as an OS is arbitrary.
Maybe you and I aren't interested in integrated Twitter, but apparently others are.
Wait, did you equate pushing buttons with swinging arms? Do you honestly think that motion sensing is a gimmick layer over pressing buttons?
Either you missed his joke, or I'm missing yours.