An often misstated (but flexible enough to still work) quote from Ernest Rutherford is "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid."
That was just Ernest trying to explain how all that time he spent talking to barmaids he was actually working.
No, and nobody (that I saw anyway) implied that. They just use different methods than everyone else. In particular, they rely almost exclusively on land-lines, which younger folk are less and less likely to have every year.
The issue here isn't that Rassmussen's methods are dishonest. It is that the politicians who purposely find the one pollster whose methods make them look best and quote it exclusively are being dishonest. The old saw is "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics."
There have actually been quite a few reports on FiveThirtyEight.com, DailyKos, and (I understand) more websites I don't regularly read about the Rasmussen bias. More than I really care to dig up links for, frankly.
When you compare them with other polls on the same things, they are an outlier. A consistently more favorable to conservatives outlier. That doesn't mean they are wrong. It could be that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
The explanation for this isn't generally malice, its just a matter of method. They rely almost exclusively on land-line polling. Most other organizations try to include cellphone polling somehow. Every year more more (generally younger) people drop their land-lines and go exclusively with cellphones. That means every year Rasmussen's demographic sample gets older and older. This favors conservatives.
However, conservatives are also more likely to vote most years than young liberals. Also, Rasmussen does try to correct for their skew a bit. So again, Rassmusen could be right. It doesn't seem likely to me, but that could be wishful thinking on my part.
representing a broad cross-section of people who still have landlines
That's a fairly accurate description of Rassumsen, but most other pollers try to reach cellphone users somehow, and try to do things to make up for the demographic skewing inherent in selecting those who chose to talk to pollsters (skewed female, I believe).
This is probably why Rassmusen has been just about the least accurate (non-internet) poll around for the last few years. Much worse than R2K. The resulting conservative skewing also explains why Rassmusen has become the Republican's favorite pollster. Any time you hear a Republican quoting poll numbers, the absolute first thing you should do is check to see if they are getting their numbers from Rassumusen.
You have an interesting way of blaming "the education system" by pointing out (correctly I think) that it had nothing to do with it. Truly an impressive feat of logic.
However, I think you are quite correct in saying the best place to start looking is in the home.
Not that I think it is anything racial. I'm sure there are tons of lazy asians. It's just that they all stayed home in Asia. What we get here in the US is the folks who were motivated enough to make a better life that they actually managed to move their families halfway around the world. Should it be a huge suprise that they end up instilling a bit of this gumption in their kids?
He wasn't comparing it to 3G. He was comparing it to a cable modem. What he's saying is that anybody who does gaming had better not switch from cable or DSL to Sprint's 4G just yet.
Yeah, that's quite true. I play soccer with a couple in fact.
However, classical Mayan civilization actually had writing. By the time Europian explorers "discovered" them, there was lots of old written material lying around, but nobody still living in the area knew how to read any of it. The culture in that area at the time was quite illiterate. Going from literacy to illiteracy qualifies as a cultural collapse to most folks.
Of course, given the Spanish's attitude towards the codexes (they considered them abominations, and destroyed every one they could), it wouldn't exactly have been conductive to personal health to admit to being able to read them...
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
No. We have a two-party system as a natural (if unintended) side-effect of the political system set out in the Constitution. There is just no way for a third party to get any political power whatsoever in our system. Without any possibility of political power, you don't really have a party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "brainwashing".
The proof is right there in our history. There have been quite a few times when new parties formed, but every time one of the two old parties died as a result. Two parties is the equilibrium point in our system.
If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place.
That was actually another little-noticed effect of Citizens United. The fetters are now off of wealthy individuals as well as companies, as long as they aren't giving directly to parties or campaigns. But there are no realy limits on what their "independent" groups can say or when they can say it. So effectively they can run a shadow campaign with all the anonomous money from any source they desire. It doesn't even have to be money earned in the USA...
People aren't whining about the effects on realeasing wealthy individuals not because it isn't horrible, but because the implications of freeing up corporate money is potentially far worse.
An odd bit of moral contortion here, where you feel large bombs must be justified, while simply having tens of thousands of your guys walking up to their people and slitting their throats or blowing their brains out with small arms is just fine.
War is really just highly organized mass murder. When you actively engage in it, you really don't have the right to bitch about the results. Japan would have happily bombed the US if they could have (and rightly so). As Clint Eastwood said, "son, we all have it coming."
Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly.
Actually, back in the 70's I used to hear that exact argument. Many things about our world have changed in the last 40 years, but people are still just as stupid as ever.
Why is that? There is nothing odious about a company choosing to move their production to the place they feel
In a normal country, that logic would make perfect sense. However, China has no Rule of Law. If the government woke up tomorrow and decided they didn't want that $25 billion leaving the country, they are perfectly free to just take it for themselves. So publicising that you are removing assets from their country, presumably never to return, would not be a smart move.
I honestly don't understand why every company doesn't do this. What's with the jones everybody has for China? Sure, they have a lot of people, but India will have more in a few years, and is on a much better course.
China has no Rule of Law, so anything useful any company builds there will just be taken someday by the government (or one of their cronies). They have already been arbirarily arresting foriegn businessmen. Why anybody would want to try to do business there is beyond me.
India has the same (or better) upside growth potential, will have a larger population, and actually has Rule of Law.
This will be quite helpful for Hewlett-Packard (formerly DEC) support staff. Since 1980 they routinely bring their own scratch monkeys on support trips.
Slashdot Mirror
An often misstated (but flexible enough to still work) quote from Ernest Rutherford is "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid."
That was just Ernest trying to explain how all that time he spent talking to barmaids he was actually working.
Occasionally it pays off to be smart...
OK, so then what do we call the artists formerly known as The Tubes?
No, and nobody (that I saw anyway) implied that. They just use different methods than everyone else. In particular, they rely almost exclusively on land-lines, which younger folk are less and less likely to have every year.
The issue here isn't that Rassmussen's methods are dishonest. It is that the politicians who purposely find the one pollster whose methods make them look best and quote it exclusively are being dishonest. The old saw is "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics."
There have actually been quite a few reports on FiveThirtyEight.com, DailyKos, and (I understand) more websites I don't regularly read about the Rasmussen bias. More than I really care to dig up links for, frankly.
When you compare them with other polls on the same things, they are an outlier. A consistently more favorable to conservatives outlier. That doesn't mean they are wrong. It could be that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
The explanation for this isn't generally malice, its just a matter of method. They rely almost exclusively on land-line polling. Most other organizations try to include cellphone polling somehow. Every year more more (generally younger) people drop their land-lines and go exclusively with cellphones. That means every year Rasmussen's demographic sample gets older and older. This favors conservatives. However, conservatives are also more likely to vote most years than young liberals. Also, Rasmussen does try to correct for their skew a bit. So again, Rassmusen could be right. It doesn't seem likely to me, but that could be wishful thinking on my part.
representing a broad cross-section of people who still have landlines
That's a fairly accurate description of Rassumsen, but most other pollers try to reach cellphone users somehow, and try to do things to make up for the demographic skewing inherent in selecting those who chose to talk to pollsters (skewed female, I believe).
This is probably why Rassmusen has been just about the least accurate (non-internet) poll around for the last few years. Much worse than R2K. The resulting conservative skewing also explains why Rassmusen has become the Republican's favorite pollster. Any time you hear a Republican quoting poll numbers, the absolute first thing you should do is check to see if they are getting their numbers from Rassumusen.
You have an interesting way of blaming "the education system" by pointing out (correctly I think) that it had nothing to do with it. Truly an impressive feat of logic.
However, I think you are quite correct in saying the best place to start looking is in the home.
Not that I think it is anything racial. I'm sure there are tons of lazy asians. It's just that they all stayed home in Asia. What we get here in the US is the folks who were motivated enough to make a better life that they actually managed to move their families halfway around the world. Should it be a huge suprise that they end up instilling a bit of this gumption in their kids?
Ada
The new Evo 4G phone offers simultaneous voice and data, but only in 4G areas. That would seem to back you up.
Going to college doesn't make one smart.
...and being smart won't make you successful either. Some of the dumbest folks I know are some of the weathiest. So what's your point?
They believe that ..., and that Sarah Palin should be president. That is how I was raised.
In their defence, Sarah Palin probably would have made a much better President back then. It takes time to grow that stupid.
He wasn't comparing it to 3G. He was comparing it to a cable modem. What he's saying is that anybody who does gaming had better not switch from cable or DSL to Sprint's 4G just yet.
You can also pick up your EVO two days earlier if you get it from Best Buy. Now is it worth it?
Not for me. I'm getting it from my local Sprint Store. But I had to ask. :-)
The thing that really sucks about this is that Civiliation has always been my go to game when my internet connection is down.
Next they will take away HOMM, and I'll be stuck talking to my family or something when internet goes down. (shudder)
Yeah, that's quite true. I play soccer with a couple in fact.
However, classical Mayan civilization actually had writing. By the time Europian explorers "discovered" them, there was lots of old written material lying around, but nobody still living in the area knew how to read any of it. The culture in that area at the time was quite illiterate. Going from literacy to illiteracy qualifies as a cultural collapse to most folks.
Of course, given the Spanish's attitude towards the codexes (they considered them abominations, and destroyed every one they could), it wouldn't exactly have been conductive to personal health to admit to being able to read them...
They Egyptian culture never "went under". They just got conqured a lot. Sort of like China, but on a smaller scale.
The police in Burma and Iran who fired on unarmed protesters were just doing their jobs too. That doesn't make it right.
No, you won't find any reference to a "two party system" in the constitution or anywhere in U.S. law. We have a defacto two party system only because too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe there is no third (or 4th-nth) option.
No. We have a two-party system as a natural (if unintended) side-effect of the political system set out in the Constitution. There is just no way for a third party to get any political power whatsoever in our system. Without any possibility of political power, you don't really have a party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "brainwashing".
The proof is right there in our history. There have been quite a few times when new parties formed, but every time one of the two old parties died as a result. Two parties is the equilibrium point in our system.
If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place.
That was actually another little-noticed effect of Citizens United. The fetters are now off of wealthy individuals as well as companies, as long as they aren't giving directly to parties or campaigns. But there are no realy limits on what their "independent" groups can say or when they can say it. So effectively they can run a shadow campaign with all the anonomous money from any source they desire. It doesn't even have to be money earned in the USA...
People aren't whining about the effects on realeasing wealthy individuals not because it isn't horrible, but because the implications of freeing up corporate money is potentially far worse.
An odd bit of moral contortion here, where you feel large bombs must be justified, while simply having tens of thousands of your guys walking up to their people and slitting their throats or blowing their brains out with small arms is just fine.
War is really just highly organized mass murder. When you actively engage in it, you really don't have the right to bitch about the results. Japan would have happily bombed the US if they could have (and rightly so). As Clint Eastwood said, "son, we all have it coming."
Frankly, the dude I feel sorry for was the poor bastard who survived after we nuked him twice
Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly.
Actually, back in the 70's I used to hear that exact argument. Many things about our world have changed in the last 40 years, but people are still just as stupid as ever.
In Ultima (I) you could end up space traveling.
Boy, that takes me back....1982, I believe.
Why is that? There is nothing odious about a company choosing to move their production to the place they feel
In a normal country, that logic would make perfect sense. However, China has no Rule of Law. If the government woke up tomorrow and decided they didn't want that $25 billion leaving the country, they are perfectly free to just take it for themselves. So publicising that you are removing assets from their country, presumably never to return, would not be a smart move.
I honestly don't understand why every company doesn't do this. What's with the jones everybody has for China? Sure, they have a lot of people, but India will have more in a few years, and is on a much better course.
China has no Rule of Law, so anything useful any company builds there will just be taken someday by the government (or one of their cronies). They have already been arbirarily arresting foriegn businessmen. Why anybody would want to try to do business there is beyond me.
India has the same (or better) upside growth potential, will have a larger population, and actually has Rule of Law.
This will be quite helpful for Hewlett-Packard (formerly DEC) support staff. Since 1980 they routinely bring their own scratch monkeys on support trips.