I can remember that day, too, because that day is today. For more on how geeks feel about this laptop, you need look no farther than the "hopping-mad" comments right here in this forum, the same one you posted in.
I've gotten two (free) replacement batteries for my 17" MPB (2008 model), so I totally agree with you. If I hadn't noticed the bulge because I could see the battery, then I would have had a chemical explosion right on top of my second favorite part of my body (first favorite is my brain).
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think Tea Partiers are legitimately opposed to Obama's policies. But, I also think it's true that deep-seeded racism makes them wildly distort and mischaracterize those policies. Then, some or many of them fall back to racism when formulating their critiques: instead of "Obama is a big-government loving bleeding-heart liberal", maybe you near "fucking nigger communist America-hating towelhead". Something like that. In the end it's difficult to separate "racist" from "ignorant twit".
I'm pretty sure you and I said the same thing about Cain (if you read parentheticals), so we see eye-to-eye on that.
The Bradley Effect is premised on voter polls leading into the election, not in exit polls. I mean, okay maybe the exit poll thing you describe is accurate, but the lead polls are the premise for the theory.
There was demonstrably no Bradley Effect with Obama. Zero. The election turned out almost exactly the way it was predicted on the previous day. I personally consider that a gold star for America.
My guess is that it was neither his skin, nor his politics, but rather his party. Sure, in some ways party is a stand-in for politics, but not always, for instance when the South continued to vote for Dems long after the Dems stopped representing the will of the south.
Blacks vote Dem. It's the strongest political-racial bond in American politics today. I'm not complaining about it, because I'm a Dem.
Not that they stopped pandering to racists -- heavens, no -- but they laid a groundwork for the coming day when they have to stuff their hatreds in order to win elections.
Yawn. You have failed to educate yourself before posting. That math has been done many times. The answer is three percent of twelve percent:.0036 percent.
No, the Tea Partiers are racists because they dislike and distrust minorities as classes. Many or most racists don't apply the same biases on an individual level, when they know an individual.
Also, the Tea Party rejected Herman Cain. My guess is that it took them about six days to realize he was black, and then they came to their racist senses. (Not really, after six days they realized he was a jester.)
Uh, that could be true if the Republicans ran a black dude, and the rednecks still voted for him. Until that happens, we can't really know, now can we?
I predict that most of them would, in fact, vote for a black Republican. I think almost all Republicans would have voted for Cain, for instance, if he hadn't been even less qualified than Palin. That doesn't exactly mean that they aren't racists, but that there are things that overwhelm their racism -- and that's nice.
"Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin."
Actually, no it doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all. In fact, it doesn't even suggest that. Try to think a little harder about the question, maybe even incorporate some additional facts into your analysis.
Absolute numbers are meaningless. Blacks always vote 9/10ths for Democrats. The +margin for Obama was three percent, which is less than statistically significant.
I assume you know this, and are just trolling, but still, the record should be noted.
Yeah, both sides have nutjobs, but only the Republicans nominate them for Vice President. Did you see Dennis Kucinich get on the ticket as Vice? No, of course not. Sure, John Edwards might have been slimy, but he wasn't politically ignorant. Sure, Kerry might have been an out-of-touch elitist, but he could name more than zero respectable publications. Sure, Biden says dumb shit from time to time, he didn't equate overseeing the Alaska National Guard with being commander in chief. Palin is an absolutely perfect example of how ignorance now dominates the Republican party's value system. To actually know true things is a liability in that party, which is mind boggling.
Joe Biden has done pretty well as Vice. He's mostly stayed out of the news, which has been a relief to the Dems. Remember that "clean and articulate" comment during the election? Sheesh!
94% of blacks always vote Democratic. In 2008, 97% of blacks voted Democratic -- a 3% margin among blacks, who make up 12% of the population. Three percent of twelve percent is a little less than one half of one percent. (This assumes some things, such as blacks vote in numbers proportional to their population, though I bet they vote in lower numbers than that, which would further shrink the blackness factor.)
As for the question about the Bradley effect, I don't buy it. On the day before the election, Nate Silver predicted how many votes each candidate would get, and he nailed it to within one tenth of one percent. So, you can go write some academic papers about blah blah blah, but the vote outcome was exactly precisely what polls said it would be; therefore, there was no Bradley effect.
Indeed. I don't do office apps on my tablet (original Transformer), but I could, because it came with one already installed. Of course, with the Transformer, doing office work on your tablet is sort of the whole point.
I think GP didn't think through his comment very well.
Steve Jobs famously publicly eschewed charity. Whether that was a front for secret charity, I don't know, but unless you do know, the parsimonious conclusions is that he wasn't a charitable person.
I think it is "bad" that people don't pay high taxes on alcohol. (I don't, but let's say.) Thus, I pass a law that people should pay high taxes on alcohol. It is now still up to you for your legal behaviors, and legal behavior means you pay high taxes on alcohol.
Now, there is no difference between what you said and what I said.
But no, really, I totally disagree with you. "Badness" isn't an on-off switch, and to pretend it is does a disservice to society. Badness comes on a scale, so we respond to badness along a scale. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do, to take mildly poor behavior and tweak it with civil fines, education campaigns, and tax incentives, instead of outright criminalization.
And the reason we don't "let them make their decisions and live with the consequences of them", obviously, is because the consequences aren't neatly contained within the skin of the actor. To pretend that one person's bad behavior doesn't affect anyone else is purposeful blindness. I assume you don't really think that way, but merely post that way on internet forums. I know it's catchy to say stuff like that, but it isn't true.
Slashdot Mirror
I can remember that day, too, because that day is today. For more on how geeks feel about this laptop, you need look no farther than the "hopping-mad" comments right here in this forum, the same one you posted in.
I've gotten two (free) replacement batteries for my 17" MPB (2008 model), so I totally agree with you. If I hadn't noticed the bulge because I could see the battery, then I would have had a chemical explosion right on top of my second favorite part of my body (first favorite is my brain).
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think Tea Partiers are legitimately opposed to Obama's policies. But, I also think it's true that deep-seeded racism makes them wildly distort and mischaracterize those policies. Then, some or many of them fall back to racism when formulating their critiques: instead of "Obama is a big-government loving bleeding-heart liberal", maybe you near "fucking nigger communist America-hating towelhead". Something like that. In the end it's difficult to separate "racist" from "ignorant twit".
I'm pretty sure you and I said the same thing about Cain (if you read parentheticals), so we see eye-to-eye on that.
LOL. Prepare to be dingslapped by facts. Oops, I see some people have already started to unload the Truth Truck, so I'll let them handle it.
The Bradley Effect is premised on voter polls leading into the election, not in exit polls. I mean, okay maybe the exit poll thing you describe is accurate, but the lead polls are the premise for the theory.
There was demonstrably no Bradley Effect with Obama. Zero. The election turned out almost exactly the way it was predicted on the previous day. I personally consider that a gold star for America.
My guess is that it was neither his skin, nor his politics, but rather his party. Sure, in some ways party is a stand-in for politics, but not always, for instance when the South continued to vote for Dems long after the Dems stopped representing the will of the south.
Blacks vote Dem. It's the strongest political-racial bond in American politics today. I'm not complaining about it, because I'm a Dem.
Nope.
Got any other questions?
Did you know that the Republicans officially, publicly apologized for the Southern Strategy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Not that they stopped pandering to racists -- heavens, no -- but they laid a groundwork for the coming day when they have to stuff their hatreds in order to win elections.
I realize now that I'm off by two orders of magnitude. It's not half a percent, it's half of a percent of a percent.
Yawn. You have failed to educate yourself before posting. That math has been done many times. The answer is three percent of twelve percent: .0036 percent.
Thank you for asking; now you have your answer.
No, the Tea Partiers are racists because they dislike and distrust minorities as classes. Many or most racists don't apply the same biases on an individual level, when they know an individual.
Also, the Tea Party rejected Herman Cain. My guess is that it took them about six days to realize he was black, and then they came to their racist senses. (Not really, after six days they realized he was a jester.)
Uh, that could be true if the Republicans ran a black dude, and the rednecks still voted for him. Until that happens, we can't really know, now can we?
I predict that most of them would, in fact, vote for a black Republican. I think almost all Republicans would have voted for Cain, for instance, if he hadn't been even less qualified than Palin. That doesn't exactly mean that they aren't racists, but that there are things that overwhelm their racism -- and that's nice.
"Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin."
Actually, no it doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all. In fact, it doesn't even suggest that. Try to think a little harder about the question, maybe even incorporate some additional facts into your analysis.
Absolute numbers are meaningless. Blacks always vote 9/10ths for Democrats. The +margin for Obama was three percent, which is less than statistically significant.
I assume you know this, and are just trolling, but still, the record should be noted.
Yeah, both sides have nutjobs, but only the Republicans nominate them for Vice President. Did you see Dennis Kucinich get on the ticket as Vice? No, of course not. Sure, John Edwards might have been slimy, but he wasn't politically ignorant. Sure, Kerry might have been an out-of-touch elitist, but he could name more than zero respectable publications. Sure, Biden says dumb shit from time to time, he didn't equate overseeing the Alaska National Guard with being commander in chief. Palin is an absolutely perfect example of how ignorance now dominates the Republican party's value system. To actually know true things is a liability in that party, which is mind boggling.
Joe Biden has done pretty well as Vice. He's mostly stayed out of the news, which has been a relief to the Dems. Remember that "clean and articulate" comment during the election? Sheesh!
Approximately 0.4%.
94% of blacks always vote Democratic. In 2008, 97% of blacks voted Democratic -- a 3% margin among blacks, who make up 12% of the population. Three percent of twelve percent is a little less than one half of one percent. (This assumes some things, such as blacks vote in numbers proportional to their population, though I bet they vote in lower numbers than that, which would further shrink the blackness factor.)
As for the question about the Bradley effect, I don't buy it. On the day before the election, Nate Silver predicted how many votes each candidate would get, and he nailed it to within one tenth of one percent. So, you can go write some academic papers about blah blah blah, but the vote outcome was exactly precisely what polls said it would be; therefore, there was no Bradley effect.
Next question, please.
Yes. And that is a violation of their own terms of service. Hence, the problem related in this article.
Here are those terms: http://m.newegg.com/Info/ReturnPolicyDetail.aspx?policyID=37
Aren't we still boycotting Amazon for the one-click patent? When did the nerdosphere decide to drop that? Am I the only one left?
Whatever, whippersnapper. I scratch ideograms into pads of soft clay.
Indeed. I don't do office apps on my tablet (original Transformer), but I could, because it came with one already installed. Of course, with the Transformer, doing office work on your tablet is sort of the whole point.
I think GP didn't think through his comment very well.
Oh, shit, my bad. I went with the "GDP per capita is second only to Luxembourg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
According to them you are fourth, also behind Qatar and Singapore and maybe one other little country.
If it was our oil, we wouldn't be buying it from them(, wag).
Indeed, give them time! -- time, like say the years 2002 through the present.
Steve Jobs famously publicly eschewed charity. Whether that was a front for secret charity, I don't know, but unless you do know, the parsimonious conclusions is that he wasn't a charitable person.
Think of it like this:
I think it is "bad" that people don't pay high taxes on alcohol. (I don't, but let's say.)
Thus, I pass a law that people should pay high taxes on alcohol.
It is now still up to you for your legal behaviors, and legal behavior means you pay high taxes on alcohol.
Now, there is no difference between what you said and what I said.
But no, really, I totally disagree with you. "Badness" isn't an on-off switch, and to pretend it is does a disservice to society. Badness comes on a scale, so we respond to badness along a scale. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do, to take mildly poor behavior and tweak it with civil fines, education campaigns, and tax incentives, instead of outright criminalization.
And the reason we don't "let them make their decisions and live with the consequences of them", obviously, is because the consequences aren't neatly contained within the skin of the actor. To pretend that one person's bad behavior doesn't affect anyone else is purposeful blindness. I assume you don't really think that way, but merely post that way on internet forums. I know it's catchy to say stuff like that, but it isn't true.