I know it's not (quite) legal, but sites like VoteSwap (I think that was what one of them was called) allowed Naderites to vote for Nader in their communities when it was all but known that that district would go to Gore, swapping with a vote for Gore in a community that was assuredly going to Bush. What I'm getting at is that you can't count all of those 3% as having been taken from Gore, because some went to Nader while the Electoral College vote still went to Gore. I would guess that at least 1% of the votes that went to Nader went this way. Source: I did it in San Diego County in 2000.
A unicorn, if it were to exist, would be observable to someone. It would seem reasonable to suggest that something as large as a unicorn would probably have been observed at some point by a reliable person in recent times.
This is a wild-assed assumption.
Hey, why don't I just say, a unicorn that exists outside of our universe and does not want to be observed is inherently unobservable, so it is unreasonable to suggest that if one existed it would probably have been observed.
Rabel is the organizer, not one of the debaters. He's as douchey as Haught, the guy who lost, but he's not the guy making threats. Did...you...R?...TFA?
I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.
Would you feel the same way if you were the innocent person in the example? Or one of your kids?
The Due Process model, in my opinion, is eminently preferable to the Crime Control model (see Herbert L. Packer), but it is hard to understand for those who have trouble taking the role of the other.
If the Christian bible is open to interpretation, then what good is it? Which parts should be interpreted literally? Which whould be thought of as parables or fables? If I was reading a science book and it said that the Earth was supported on the backs of turtles, that would be the end of my reading this science book (except maybe for giggles).
Exodus and Leviticus are ridiculous in current times, and no one would try to dissuade me from eating shellfish or shaving my beard (well, not Christians anyway). Why, then, should I think of the "lay with another man is abomination" part of Leviticus as the "TRUTH", but ignore most of the rest?
I work at a large clinic in Illinois. We use Allscripts for our EHR management, which includes everything from prescriptions, med history, dictation of doctor's notes, every single scanned sheet of medical information that exists about the patient (including from outside sources), task list for nurses and receptionists, you name it. It doesn't always work exactly like you want it to (that's what our systems analyst are for), but it works pretty damn well, and I for one would prefer a doctor or nurse to look me up this way, rather than wait for my doctor from ten years ago to fax or snail over my history. That scares me a lot more.
I thought that the stated reasoning for rejecting higher IQ candidates was because they found that higher IQ candidates were less likely to stay with the career because it wasn't challenging enough? Either way, dumbass cops FTW.
Oh JEEEEEZ lady! We voted Obama into office with a majority popular and electoral vote. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, that's not totalitarian, that's you feeling burned because you lost! And to quote all the assholes I know and love for the last eight years: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUDDY!
Overall makeup may be variable but a certain trait or groups of traits may be more prominent in a particular group.
But are you begging the description by defining the group in terms of those very traits?
And anyway, I am not denying that race is largely a human categorical construct. What I am saying, though, that there is still remains some tendencies towards biological differences within those constructs.
Which is precisely why these constructs exist--to illuminate these differences. I still don't know how you think that these constructs and gropus exist without your inference that they exist.
The whole point of my argument is that categorizing things the way we do does not necessarily reflect reality.
Fact: race is a social construct, or better put, genome variation research does not support the existence of human races (races being defined as genetic subspecies' of humans). Fact: there is more genetic variation within groups thatn there is between groups. This is easily tested: If you are "white," simply go out to a public place, get a "white" person and a "black" person, and all three of you go get DNA tests. There is a high probability that you will share a closer genetic makeup with the "black" person than with the "white" person. I would personally not take offense to the theory that people with a certain amount of melanin share traits, except that it IS NOT TRUE.
For example, you take as given that theere are certain "racial groups" that are more at risk for certain type of diseases. I have to assume that you are referring to sickle-cell anemia, although you might be referrring to Tay-Sachs. Sickle-cell has been shown to correlate with trade routes in Africa, and has no higher occurrence among those with a higher skin melanin content in the regions where it has occurred more frequently.
I don't care if my science comes with a smile, but I insist that it comes with some science.
and installed Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex over the weekend. I had been threatening this for many years now, but every time I tried a distro I ran into problems with my wireless USB network adapter. I found some documentation last week for using ndiswrapper to get it to work, and decided that this would really happen this time. Guess what? Ubuntu figured everything out and set up my wireless adapter without anything extra from me. I am happily using Ubuntu on my older Pentium II box, and I have plans to switch my Dual Core with the nice graphics card and big hard drive in the next month. All I can say is, "Finally!"
Slashdot Mirror
Barely relevant link.
I know it's not (quite) legal, but sites like VoteSwap (I think that was what one of them was called) allowed Naderites to vote for Nader in their communities when it was all but known that that district would go to Gore, swapping with a vote for Gore in a community that was assuredly going to Bush. What I'm getting at is that you can't count all of those 3% as having been taken from Gore, because some went to Nader while the Electoral College vote still went to Gore. I would guess that at least 1% of the votes that went to Nader went this way. Source: I did it in San Diego County in 2000.
Forcing your kids to view PP presentations is child abuse.
My favorite use for LSD is tripping balls.
Hey, you gotta admit, Hitler killed Hitler, so he wasn't ALL bad.
/I'm logically an anti-Semite and love Hitler.
A unicorn, if it were to exist, would be observable to someone. It would seem reasonable to suggest that something as large as a unicorn would probably have been observed at some point by a reliable person in recent times.
This is a wild-assed assumption.
Hey, why don't I just say, a unicorn that exists outside of our universe and does not want to be observed is inherently unobservable, so it is unreasonable to suggest that if one existed it would probably have been observed.
Rabel is the organizer, not one of the debaters. He's as douchey as Haught, the guy who lost, but he's not the guy making threats. Did...you...R?...TFA?
giggity
He doesn't have time to add commas, because he's too busy saving us!
It just don't pay to post.
For all intents and purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That raises the question, "Who cares?"
FTFY
/ Whom is still a word.
// I care.
/// Grammar Nazi for life yo.
Oh, wait, wrong website. My bad.
I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.
Would you feel the same way if you were the innocent person in the example? Or one of your kids?
The Due Process model, in my opinion, is eminently preferable to the Crime Control model (see Herbert L. Packer), but it is hard to understand for those who have trouble taking the role of the other.
Are we talking money, or just a large stock of zit cream and porn?
You do know that you can get porn for free now, right?
Frito? Is that you?
What do you think about your god's genitals? You said he when referring to...him, so I'm wondering, do you think it's a big-un?
(Call me a troll, but I'm really interested in the answer)
If the Christian bible is open to interpretation, then what good is it? Which parts should be interpreted literally? Which whould be thought of as parables or fables? If I was reading a science book and it said that the Earth was supported on the backs of turtles, that would be the end of my reading this science book (except maybe for giggles).
Exodus and Leviticus are ridiculous in current times, and no one would try to dissuade me from eating shellfish or shaving my beard (well, not Christians anyway). Why, then, should I think of the "lay with another man is abomination" part of Leviticus as the "TRUTH", but ignore most of the rest?
I'm cutting the rant here. Peace be with you.
I work at a large clinic in Illinois. We use Allscripts for our EHR management, which includes everything from prescriptions, med history, dictation of doctor's notes, every single scanned sheet of medical information that exists about the patient (including from outside sources), task list for nurses and receptionists, you name it. It doesn't always work exactly like you want it to (that's what our systems analyst are for), but it works pretty damn well, and I for one would prefer a doctor or nurse to look me up this way, rather than wait for my doctor from ten years ago to fax or snail over my history. That scares me a lot more.
Can someone tell me how one improves or protects the appearance or odor of one's brain? If not, why use the word cosmetic?
I thought that the stated reasoning for rejecting higher IQ candidates was because they found that higher IQ candidates were less likely to stay with the career because it wasn't challenging enough? Either way, dumbass cops FTW.
Oh JEEEEEZ lady! We voted Obama into office with a majority popular and electoral vote. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, that's not totalitarian, that's you feeling burned because you lost! And to quote all the assholes I know and love for the last eight years: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUDDY!
I want a t-shirt with "Who is The Coon?" silk-screened on it.
Overall makeup may be variable but a certain trait or groups of traits may be more prominent in a particular group.
But are you begging the description by defining the group in terms of those very traits?
And anyway, I am not denying that race is largely a human categorical construct. What I am saying, though, that there is still remains some tendencies towards biological differences within those constructs.
Which is precisely why these constructs exist--to illuminate these differences. I still don't know how you think that these constructs and gropus exist without your inference that they exist.
The whole point of my argument is that categorizing things the way we do does not necessarily reflect reality.
That was also the point of my argument.
Fact: race is a social construct, or better put, genome variation research does not support the existence of human races (races being defined as genetic subspecies' of humans). Fact: there is more genetic variation within groups thatn there is between groups. This is easily tested: If you are "white," simply go out to a public place, get a "white" person and a "black" person, and all three of you go get DNA tests. There is a high probability that you will share a closer genetic makeup with the "black" person than with the "white" person. I would personally not take offense to the theory that people with a certain amount of melanin share traits, except that it IS NOT TRUE.
For example, you take as given that theere are certain "racial groups" that are more at risk for certain type of diseases. I have to assume that you are referring to sickle-cell anemia, although you might be referrring to Tay-Sachs. Sickle-cell has been shown to correlate with trade routes in Africa, and has no higher occurrence among those with a higher skin melanin content in the regions where it has occurred more frequently.
I don't care if my science comes with a smile, but I insist that it comes with some science.
and installed Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex over the weekend. I had been threatening this for many years now, but every time I tried a distro I ran into problems with my wireless USB network adapter. I found some documentation last week for using ndiswrapper to get it to work, and decided that this would really happen this time. Guess what? Ubuntu figured everything out and set up my wireless adapter without anything extra from me. I am happily using Ubuntu on my older Pentium II box, and I have plans to switch my Dual Core with the nice graphics card and big hard drive in the next month. All I can say is, "Finally!"