Canditate A: Our society has already taken a dramatic downfall in morals. The only way to resurrect it is by the grace of a book that contains the living, eternal word of God.
Candidate B: We need to allow individuals the freedom to worship as they choose and to adhere to their own moral codes. Living together requires tolerence.
Redundant. Questions 13 - 17 #7 and 13 - 17 #4 will be given the exact same boilderplate answer and it won't acutally answer either question. Both candidates will profess to be Christians, but will claim to be capable of governing fairly people of other faiths. Skip this question.
It's redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
If you must, then use 13 - 17 #1 -- it is the best of the lot.
Redundant. Redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
Redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
How does having countries like Japan who are buying our debt change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
This part of the question is interesting. The first half is nothing more than another invitation for the campaigns to repeat the meaningless drivel they've been saying for years. There is no hope of getting a meaningful answer on social security out of a presidential candidate before an election. The AARP would eat them alive.
Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations.
First, I don't understand what the statistic is talking about -- "100" what? Second, I think it's probably wrong by vastly understating the problem.
The top media corporations in America include Advance Publications, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. You can go here to see who owns what. Where in 1983 it took 50 large corporations to accumulate control of half the media outlets, today 5 corporations control over half the outlets. Don't forget that there are also vastly more outlets today that were two decades ago.
Some examples: Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting unit alone owns 184 radio stations. The infamous Clear Channel puts that to shame with over 1200 radio stations. As Clear Channel notes, there are over 13000 radio stations, not to metion the other types of outlets. The statistic in the question is at least confusing and probably badly wrong.
This is an important topic, but please fact-check the question.
Read the question carefully and you will see that is ambiguous. If you decide to ask it, at least fix it first.
If you were reelected/elected president, what would you do to protect the rights of home-schooled [children] in America [to comprehensive sex education]? In what ways would you help the growing home-school community [to provide necessary education concerning sex and sexually transmitted diseases]?
What is your opinion on sex education in the classroom...?
Why even bother asking? We know what both candidate's positions are. Further, we barely care what they think. This question is too trivial to matter in this election cycle. Neither the republicans or the democrats have shifted even a little on this point in years. Aren't we tired of listening to them say the same thing over and over?
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose,"...
I urge you not to use the above quote. It's fun enough to skewer a supposedly pro-states-rights candidate on his party's love of imposing conservatism at a federal level. Using a slip-of-the-tongue quote like this makes us seem cheap. Please crop the quote to:
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision,"...
...if you had to appoint someone to the Supreme Court today - on this very day - who, specifically, would that person be and why?
You know that neither candidate will come anywhere close to answering this with a name, right? But, I love the question. How about modifying it this way to try to get an answer of some kind:
...in the nature of drafting a fantasy football team, if you had to select your fantasy Supreme Court team from all the past justices, who, specifically, would be your pick(s) and why?
Federal judges are the only people in high federal office who are free to ignore the money in politics as soon as they are appointed. They are the only people who must do what is right, rather than what is popular (or risk being overturned by a higher court). How on earth can this be discouraging to voters? Besides, voters do select judges by virtue of electing the president and senate that appoint them.
The question is a good one, but the specific term "instant-runoff voting" should be replaced with "approval voting or other improved voting methods".
Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) is a particular voting algorithm that produces some unpredicatable (to the voter) results. There are much better methods available, such as approval voting and the Condorcet method.
IRV is little more than a snappy name covering bad math. It makes a lousy poster-child for the movement to adopt an alternative voting method. How bad is the math on IRV? Under certain circumstances, you can benefit your candidate less by ranking him highest than if you had ranked him lower. That is not a result we want adopted. I'm very interested to hear the candidates' responses to this question, but please revise it before we ask it.
6 comments and already half of them are whining about why can't India spend money on education and hospitals.
To be fair, every time the US announces one of its new space initiatives, the naysayers over here pipe up with "why can they spend that money on education and hospitals" for our poor. At which point, the proponents rehash "that the... project could be a money winner in the long run" by developing technology that will benefit everyone.
The argument has become something of a ritual in space program funding here. It can't be unique to the US, can it?
It's no star wars ripoff. WTF is the OP talking about?
Ditto that. Some big differences:
The villian. A ravaging horde kept at bay by a barrier wall (the frontier) is not the same as your own imperial government stomping out the last of the political dissenters.
The hero. The Starfighter is a kid living on obscure planet who is deliberately recruited against his will to save life as he knows it. Luke is a kid living on an obscure planet who stumbles into a bit part in an adventure; only later does he learn that he and his family are the central players.
Once you start believing that every story that is the least bit similar is a ripoff, THEY've won.
---------- ---------- Director: What happen? Computer: This is a copyright infringement suit, Level 3 alert. Screenwriter 1: Somebody set up us the cease and desist letter. Screenwriter 1: We get subpoena! Director: (stands up, in shock) What! Evil Lawyer: "ALL YOUR PLOT ELEMENTS ARE BELONG TO US"... "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO PUBLISH."... "MAKE YOUR ROYALTY PAYMENT. HA HA HA!!" Director: (staring in horror) What you say!! Screenwriter 2: DIRECTOR! Director: Take every "Zig" offshore. Director: For great justice!
It takes somewhat of a long time to get past all the pronouns, articles, prepositions, to-be verbs, etc. Once we do, we can start to see what things people are talking about.
people (81)
first (86)
down (97)
think (102)
work (103)
years (106), year (122)
right (112)
government (140)
day (141)
man (142)
world (149)
...and it was at that point that the slashdot effect killed the flash app
Well, I thought that Kerry's answers were generally a stark contrast to Bush's.
Nonsuch. There was hardly anything that could be called unambiguous in either set of answers, much less "stark". The following verbage is meaningless in the mouth of a politician: supported, called for, committed, initiated, negotiated, encouraged, improved, assured, believe, considered, consulted, explore, take action, approved, studied, refocus, assist, study, and develop.
If they want my vote, let them talk to me about banned, prohibited, restricted, eliminated, allowed, ordered, funded, taxed, signed, vetoed, and, maybe, voted for.
To be sure, some of the numbers requested are not known exactly. But were the error ranges stated in the results any part of the scoring?
It appeared that the quiz wished us to give an estimate and then state a range of error corresponding to our certainty in our result. Did the quiz instead wish us to state a range of error corresponding to how well we thought humanity can measure the particular number?
A fine quiz, but I hope he throws out his non-UK results by IP before he uses the data. For many of those topics, my poor American brain had no basis for an estimate and knew it.
The data could be improved by adding the a "no-confidence" checkbox to each question in addition to demanding a numeric answer. With this, he could compare whether people's estimates were better or worse where they thought they knew the answer. This would make a nice complement to measuring raw estimating power.
Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing.
Good writing is a matter of technique, not truth. Writing is successful when it communicates to the reader that which was intended by the writer. That intended communication may be fact, position, emotion, or any number of other things. However, the writer need not be in possession of the ultimate "right answer" in order to be writing well. When we teach writing, our goal should be to teach the writer to communicate successfully. How to discover and identify truth is a course of study. We teach the technique of writing so that whenever our good writers find a little truth, we can be sure that we'll recognize it when we read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?
And, if so, please get on with it. You're late for duty.
The responses to this are predicatable.
Canditate A: Our society has already taken a dramatic downfall in morals. The only way to resurrect it is by the grace of a book that contains the living, eternal word of God.
Candidate B: We need to allow individuals the freedom to worship as they choose and to adhere to their own moral codes. Living together requires tolerence.
Redundant. Questions 13 - 17 #7 and 13 - 17 #4 will be given the exact same boilderplate answer and it won't acutally answer either question. Both candidates will profess to be Christians, but will claim to be capable of governing fairly people of other faiths. Skip this question.
Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?
If not, are you willing to send your daughters and your sons to die? If so, why haven't you? If not, why have you sent anyone else's?
It's redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
If you must, then use 13 - 17 #1 -- it is the best of the lot.
Redundant. Redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
Redundant. You will get the exact same response on 18-35 #15, 18-35 #16, and 13 - 17 #1. The response will be campaign boilerplate. We don't need to hear it more than once, if that.
How does having countries like Japan who are buying our debt change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
This part of the question is interesting. The first half is nothing more than another invitation for the campaigns to repeat the meaningless drivel they've been saying for years. There is no hope of getting a meaningful answer on social security out of a presidential candidate before an election. The AARP would eat them alive.
Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations.
First, I don't understand what the statistic is talking about -- "100" what? Second, I think it's probably wrong by vastly understating the problem.
The top media corporations in America include Advance Publications, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. You can go here to see who owns what. Where in 1983 it took 50 large corporations to accumulate control of half the media outlets, today 5 corporations control over half the outlets. Don't forget that there are also vastly more outlets today that were two decades ago.
Some examples: Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting unit alone owns 184 radio stations. The infamous Clear Channel puts that to shame with over 1200 radio stations. As Clear Channel notes, there are over 13000 radio stations, not to metion the other types of outlets. The statistic in the question is at least confusing and probably badly wrong.
This is an important topic, but please fact-check the question.
the world will like me when I win or
the world will like me because I'm not that bully.
Read the question carefully and you will see that is ambiguous. If you decide to ask it, at least fix it first.
If you were reelected/elected president, what would you do to protect the rights of home-schooled [children] in America [to comprehensive sex education]? In what ways would you help the growing home-school community [to provide necessary education concerning sex and sexually transmitted diseases]?
Or is this question not about sex ed?
What is your opinion on sex education in the classroom ...?
Why even bother asking? We know what both candidate's positions are. Further, we barely care what they think. This question is too trivial to matter in this election cycle. Neither the republicans or the democrats have shifted even a little on this point in years. Aren't we tired of listening to them say the same thing over and over?
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose,"...
...the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision,"...
I urge you not to use the above quote. It's fun enough to skewer a supposedly pro-states-rights candidate on his party's love of imposing conservatism at a federal level. Using a slip-of-the-tongue quote like this makes us seem cheap. Please crop the quote to:
...if you had to appoint someone to the Supreme Court today - on this very day - who, specifically, would that person be and why?
...in the nature of drafting a fantasy football team, if you had to select your fantasy Supreme Court team from all the past justices, who, specifically, would be your pick(s) and why?
You know that neither candidate will come anywhere close to answering this with a name, right? But, I love the question. How about modifying it this way to try to get an answer of some kind:
Federal judges are the only people in high federal office who are free to ignore the money in politics as soon as they are appointed. They are the only people who must do what is right, rather than what is popular (or risk being overturned by a higher court). How on earth can this be discouraging to voters? Besides, voters do select judges by virtue of electing the president and senate that appoint them.
Please drop this lousy question.
The question is a good one, but the specific term "instant-runoff voting" should be replaced with "approval voting or other improved voting methods".
Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) is a particular voting algorithm that produces some unpredicatable (to the voter) results. There are much better methods available, such as approval voting and the Condorcet method.
IRV is little more than a snappy name covering bad math. It makes a lousy poster-child for the movement to adopt an alternative voting method. How bad is the math on IRV? Under certain circumstances, you can benefit your candidate less by ranking him highest than if you had ranked him lower. That is not a result we want adopted. I'm very interested to hear the candidates' responses to this question, but please revise it before we ask it.
6 comments and already half of them are whining about why can't India spend money on education and hospitals.
... project could be a money winner in the long run" by developing technology that will benefit everyone.
To be fair, every time the US announces one of its new space initiatives, the naysayers over here pipe up with "why can they spend that money on education and hospitals" for our poor. At which point, the proponents rehash "that the
The argument has become something of a ritual in space program funding here. It can't be unique to the US, can it?
Ditto that. Some big differences:
The villian. A ravaging horde kept at bay by a barrier wall (the frontier) is not the same as your own imperial government stomping out the last of the political dissenters.
The hero. The Starfighter is a kid living on obscure planet who is deliberately recruited against his will to save life as he knows it. Luke is a kid living on an obscure planet who stumbles into a bit part in an adventure; only later does he learn that he and his family are the central players.
... "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO PUBLISH." ... "MAKE YOUR ROYALTY PAYMENT. HA HA HA!!"
Once you start believing that every story that is the least bit similar is a ripoff, THEY've won.
----------
----------
Director: What happen?
Computer: This is a copyright infringement suit, Level 3 alert.
Screenwriter 1: Somebody set up us the cease and desist letter.
Screenwriter 1: We get subpoena!
Director: (stands up, in shock) What!
Evil Lawyer: "ALL YOUR PLOT ELEMENTS ARE BELONG TO US"
Director: (staring in horror) What you say!!
Screenwriter 2: DIRECTOR!
Director: Take every "Zig" offshore.
Director: For great justice!
people (81)
first (86)
down (97)
think (102)
work (103)
years (106), year (122)
right (112)
government (140)
day (141)
man (142)
world (149)
With closed source software, the client must depend on the vendor's procedures for security compliance.
With open source, it's always possible to perform an audit yourself or hire some one to do so. You can decide what procedures to follow to do this.
If you expected software to be secure without verifying that systematic security tests had been done by someone, you may be in for a rude shock.
Duh.
Well, I thought that Kerry's answers were generally a stark contrast to Bush's.
Nonsuch. There was hardly anything that could be called unambiguous in either set of answers, much less "stark". The following verbage is meaningless in the mouth of a politician: supported, called for, committed, initiated, negotiated, encouraged, improved, assured, believe, considered, consulted, explore, take action, approved, studied, refocus, assist, study, and develop.
If they want my vote, let them talk to me about banned, prohibited, restricted, eliminated, allowed, ordered, funded, taxed, signed, vetoed, and, maybe, voted for.
To be sure, some of the numbers requested are not known exactly. But were the error ranges stated in the results any part of the scoring?
It appeared that the quiz wished us to give an estimate and then state a range of error corresponding to our certainty in our result. Did the quiz instead wish us to state a range of error corresponding to how well we thought humanity can measure the particular number?
A fine quiz, but I hope he throws out his non-UK results by IP before he uses the data. For many of those topics, my poor American brain had no basis for an estimate and knew it.
The data could be improved by adding the a "no-confidence" checkbox to each question in addition to demanding a numeric answer. With this, he could compare whether people's estimates were better or worse where they thought they knew the answer. This would make a nice complement to measuring raw estimating power.
"BSD Unix"
That would be a Bearded Satanic Devil and the castrati who serve him?
Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing.
Good writing is a matter of technique, not truth. Writing is successful when it communicates to the reader that which was intended by the writer. That intended communication may be fact, position, emotion, or any number of other things. However, the writer need not be in possession of the ultimate "right answer" in order to be writing well. When we teach writing, our goal should be to teach the writer to communicate successfully. How to discover and identify truth is a course of study. We teach the technique of writing so that whenever our good writers find a little truth, we can be sure that we'll recognize it when we read it.