Have you ever heard someone say "they should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them?"
What a bizarre "rhetorical" question.
Yes, I have heard that. I have hear it a lot. In fact I'd say one of the most common comments/positions out there on decriminalizing pot is that it should be treated exactly the same way tobacco is treated, that it should be taxed and regulated and commercialized in exactly the same manner as tobacco.
I'd say that would be pretty well the exact same set of people that care for-Obama/against-McCain on exactly those issues.
A McCain election would be a complete disaster on those issues. It would be infinitely worse than an Obama election, and it would still way worse than an Obama presidency followed by a Biden presidency.
Wait, you're telling me that they taught US intelligence agencies and the National Security guys how to attack the internet with man-in-the-middle attacks and exploits to fool routers into re-directing data to an eavesdropper's network...
and they didn't do anything to end the interception and eavesdropping problem???
Finally! A VP candidate with no bad positions on any of the issues!
Well hell, we should just skip waiting for McCain to drop dead of old age for the VP to move up to president. Whoever is the better half of that ticket! I say we just elect Whoever as President in the first place!
Ummmm.... help me out here.... I looked through the grandparent post trying to find your "one reason", but I was unable to locate it.
Lets see... Obama reluctantly voted for telecom immunity? McCain was not only FOR telecom immunity but some of his staffers were the ones running around lobbying congress to manufacture legislation to grant that immunity in the first place.
Lets see, Obama being anti-tech? They botches this issue on their website, but Obama is FAR FAR more favorable to our side on these issues than McCain.
Lets see, Obama being clueless on tech? Again, yeah they botched this issue on their website, but McCain may as well be Ted Steven's grandpa. McCain LITERALLY needs a few good lessons from Ted Stevens teaching him how to use e-mail.
Lets see, conventions where they don't take real input from the masses? Buahahahahaha. Yeah, McCain is real big on that. Snicker. The closest McCain comes to "taking input" is to run and cover his ass when he gets caught out as pro-life-pandering-bullshit-artist after leaking Tom Ridge for VP.
So ahhh, perhaps you could help me out and be a little more specific? What exactly is the one reason you had in mind to vote republican instead? I must have overlooked it.
No, I said 2008 brings the running average of temperatures for the last century so close to flat
Presuming you mean "last hundred years" there, that statement is so wildly false as to be comical. I have no idea where you're getting your fictional "facts", but I suggest to check with a second source.
Why the drop occurred, be it El Nino, Santa Claus, or Reptile men from the Crab nebula, is not relevant.
Yes it does. You claimed we don't understand the climate. It's a complex system, but we know a lot.
In 1998 we had that insanely high spike in temperatures during the abnormally large El Nino event. We KNEW that temperatures would come back down from that spike when El Nino ended.
We KNOW and EXPECT temperatures to go down during La Nina events like this one. We KNOW that temperatures will go back up when La Nina ends.
your metaphors aren't any better
We know El Nino brings a peak of a wave and that the true current tide level is lower, and we know La Nina brings a trough of the waves and that the true current tide level is higher.
And fundamentally, it doesn't matter if we understand the climate. As I explained last post, and as you completely ignored, it's a trivial irrefutable fact of physics.
(1) Humans have massively increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (2) CO2 has the effect of trapping infrared radiation - i.e. HEAT. (3) Q.E.D. It is proven.
Game over. Physics. End of story. It is only possible to quibble over the size and the interactions and other details.
prove that a) humans did it and that b) it isn't a good thing
Yeah, the standard global warming denialism sequence is: (1) "it's an error by just a few scientists" (2) "ok it's not just a few scientists, but a grand hoax by all scientists" (3) "ok it's real, but not caused by humans" (4) "ok humans are causing it, but it's a GOOD thing"
I fully expect stage 5 to be "ok it causes all sorts of bad things, and it's going exactly as we planned all along!"
Chuckle.
Archeology shows that, historically, warm was always better for humans.
Among other issues, archeology shows that, historically, the western half of the US gets squat rain when it gets warmer and largely desertifies.
It also shows that ALL life gets seriously hosed by rapid change. Barring mega-meteor-class events, the temperature of the earth has never changed even the smallest fraction of the current rate of change. Rapid temperature changes cause rampant and chain extinctions.
To any extent warmer temps are theoretically beneficial to humans, that is totally blown away by the fact that such change is massive DISRUPTIVE and therefore harmful to us. We are hugely invested in the way things are. He have hard learned lessons about what crops grow where, or what is even viable cropland at all, about what areas get rain and which don't, about where we can graze cattle, about where it is good or even safe to live and build. All of which will CHANGE, disruptively. In particular we massively live and build on the coastlines. Not only will rising sea levels begin to directly flood areas, but the higher baseline sea level will expand the range and depth of hurricane flooding. Areas that have NEVER IN HISTORY seen hurricane storm surge flooding will find themselves inundated with no warning, with no preparation for such events, and no experience for such events.
We have no evidence that "global warming" is the prime mover in that [north pole] change.
Gee, you're right. The fact that our thermometers have been reading higher temperatures up there is just a total coincidence.
And just to make sure you don't overlook the point again, the fundamental point of global warming is basic physics. We have massively increased CO2 levels, and CO2 traps infrared radiation - traps heat. Q.E.D. End of debate. You can quibble over details, but denying the fundamental mechanism and effect for global warming is denying basic physics. You may as well be a gravity denialist. The only half-way sane remaining option is to resort to the comically desperate Stage Four on my Denialism Table: "ok humans are causing it, but it's a GOOD thing".
The first words out of your mouth....errr.... out of your keyboard... were an accusation of liberal bias, from a conservative source no less. So I think it not unreasonable for me to suggest the bias is being inserted at your end.
I will admit that there is an alternative to the report being biased.
Interesting how the report-being-right is not even an alternative.
Because it is obviously impossible media are in fact responsible journalists dedicated to providing non-partisan and unbiased news reporting, and that the endless right-wing rants and accusations of bias have been effective in manipulating them to over compensate in the opposite direction.
I sat here watching CNN... watching them run some "media self review" panel... discussing their coverage showing Obama's huge cheering crowds and talking of his "rock star status" and other things... and discussing the media and themselves if they have been giving fair coverage.
38 percent of Obama's supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain's. Sixty-five percent of Obama's backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain's. When Obama speaks he draws big excited crowds, that is a simple fact. To show that fact or mention that fact is accurate unbiased reporting. It is hardly the MEDIA's fault that McCain's support and fanbase is lackluster. And I sat here listening to CNN commentators asking if they were doing anything wrong, debating what, if anything, they should do something to "fix" themselves, to "fix" their coverage.
And then AGAIN I sat here watching CNN run ANOTHER "media self review" panel, again asking if the media has been fair with the huge coverage everyone had of Obama's international trip. As you commented on.
And as I explained last post McCain himself had built it up into a huge issue. Obama's critics defined it as an area upon which Obama's campaign would stand or fall. And everyone on both sides and in the middle were tuning in desperate to find out if Obama fell on his face or not. And while the huge coverage presented an opportunity for Obama, the insanely intense media scrutiny was also primed to blow the smallest misstep all out of proportion into a major disaster. And again I sat here listening to CNN commentators asking if they were doing anything wrong, debating what, if anything, they should do to "fix" themselves, to "fix" their coverage.
And those were just the major special segments I saw dedicated entirely to that sort of media self-review. I have seen similar self-commentary scattered in small bits in general coverage. The media is paranoid over the fact that Obama has gotten more raw minutes of coverage (positive and negative minutes, for good reasons) than McCain, and they are paranoid over the allegations of bias. They have been overcompensating. They are afraid to make any routine positive commentary relating to Obama's campaign without digging up negativity to add in for "balance".
Yes, the report is right. The balance of comments on McCain is pretty even, but heavily slanted against Obama. The "liberal bias media" is torpedoing Obama and handing the election to McCain, especially if they keep going at this level. A few weeks ago Obama was leading McCain by a few points in the national polls, now he's trailing McCain by a few points.
the rules themselves may be biased
Biased people can creatively slant rules, but again in this case the people writing the rules have a powerful conservative interest, they would be highly motivated to ensure the rules were, at minimum, fair to their own side.
[or] meaningless
The study and the methodology seem pretty straight forward to me. Everything seems entirely logical, reasonable, and meaningful. I don't see how or why any reasonable and consistent standard would such a big "meaningless" skew in the results.
Do you have any basis whatsoever for rejecting it, other than that you simply dislike
Negative: "You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, 'why'(TM)?" Katie Couric, CBS
To me, if you believe that is an example of negative coverage then you have a liberal bias.
No. It is factually impossible to validly conclude, based on the presented evidence, that that demonstrated any sort of bias.
Bias means treating two sides on an inequal basis.
One of the most common forms of bias is to project the opposite bias into neutral information, a very effective method to dismiss that information and reinforce one's one position without even noticing it happening.
You clearly disliked the results of the study. You clearly searched it looking to find liberal bias in it, to discredit it. You then presented a rather extended chain of logic twisting the quotation into an insult to the IQ of any Obama opponent. You then jumped to the entirely unsupported conclusion that that was evidence of bias - the baseless assumption that Obama-comments and McCain-comments were being categorized according to inequal standards.
The direct meaning of the quote is to dispute the validity of Obama's position and to dispute the reasonableness/validity of reasoning. And like almost any statement it can be further interpreted and colored in a variety of ways by anyone according to their individual bias and inclinations. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about using that sort of direct-level standard for evaluation. In fact I find it difficult to imagine any different standard that would work. Interpreting beyond that direct level of the statements is far to creative a process and involves drawing to many conclusions to allow any consistant objective categorisation.
There is absolutely nothing biased about that example or biased about that standard, if McCain's comments are categorized according to that same standard.
And while I do not have the full list of hours of comments about each candidate and the categorizations for all of them to compare them, here is their Research Methodology page. They establish explicit rules and procedures by which material shall be categorized, analysts are subjected to 150-to-200 hours of training. Furthermore multiple people must be able to independently reach the same categorizations for the same content with a high degree of accuracy in order to establish that the results are objectively consistent valid and unbiased.
So according to all that it sounds like they are following proper scientific procedures. It would be bias itself to dismiss the results as bias absent some other concrete basis to substantiate the bias allegation.
Now if I'm going to stand by the report and defend it, I figure I damn well better look into who is actually behind the study and whether they are in fact as nonpartisan they they claim and as reliable as their scientific methodology appears to indicate.
Well, to be honest I was a bit surprized at what I found on further digging. You were right to be skeptical about about potential bias from organizations claiming to be non-partisan and publishing research research on political topic.
Here's what I found: The seed money for the center was solicited by the Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and friends. Nearly all of their funding comes from a very small group of right-wing foundations that fund a variety of right-wing organizations and right-wing causes.
So to any extent that they are failing to live up to their stated unbiased scientific procedures, such a failure would be OVERWHELMINGLY inclined to go in the direction of conservative bias.
Whoops. You'd have been better off if you hadn't pushed me to go investigate their partisan status. Chuckle.
Chuckle. 5000 people sounds more like a gigantic dance floor to me, than a town:D
I happen to live in the most populous town(*) in the nation. Three quarters of a million people. If we were a city we'd be the 14th most populous city in the country. Rounding up 5000 votes would...probably... be enough to swing the local election for dog catcher. hehe.
(*)Footnote: The Town of Hempstead is subdivided into a number of villages and hamlets effectively about every mile-and-a-half or so, but they are not significantly functional governmental levels.
Anyway.... we've got Cablevision and thus far they have been one of the best of the cable companies. None of which matters to the original issue that for most of the country they are unable to vote with their wallets. It is disingenuous to say that the government should not meddle in these business affairs, disingenuous to suggest that natural free market competition can be relied upon to solve this market's ills. The government is already entangled from the beginning. The government is providing chosen companies with benefits and protections, is in most cases imposing a monopoly market by force of law.
I certainly do sympathize with and side with "the government shouldn't meddle in business affairs" in many cases, but I think this case is one of the clearest possible exceptions. The government itself regulated the market into existence in the first place. The government is responsible for prohibiting competition and for excluding natural free market forces. And when the government does that then the government can and *must* step in to replace those excluded market forces, can and *must* step in to manually remedy market failures and market abuses. Because the government is ultimately responsible for causing/enforcing those market failures and abuses.
And to the extent that these companies "compete" to obtain those local-government-granted monopolies, that competition is much more indirect and of a very different character. It is poor proxy for actual customer competition and actual customer interests. While I consider Cablevision one of the best of US Cable providers, I have little doubt that if all cable companies could reasonably and freely compete everywhere, that competitive forces would dive them all to better serve their customers. Unfortunately running all of that parallel networking across the public phone poles to every home in the nation is not a particularly viable approach.
the fact that 2008 virtually wiped out any direct evidence for global warming
Saying that 2008 is cooler than the last seven or eight years is like standing on a beach watching the waves wash up and down the shore, and at one particular low point between waves commenting that this is the lowest water level in the last 4 minutes, and claiming that that wipes out all evidence of the rising tide.
2008 is still warmer than almost every year of the 20th century. The tide has risen, the "low" point right now is still higher than the tide was an hour ago.
we really don't understand how global climate works
Yes we do. In particular we know that in El Nino years ocean currents trap more ocean heat near the surface, more heat stays in the atmosphere and less heat enters the ocean. The El Nino effect is well known and indisputed.
And we also know that in La Nina years the exact opposite happens, ocean circulation changes, more heat gets circulated down into the ocean and more heat is drawn down out of the atmosphere.
When people report on global temperatures they inevitably report on surface atmosphere temps. The temps that we feel. Those reports don't take into account ocean temps. The oceans actually account for MANY TIMES MORE of the heat balance of the earth's climate than the atmosphere does. It takes vastly more heat to raise a cubic mile of water by one degree than it takes to warm a cubic mile of atmosphere by one degree.
There is absolutely nothing unusual or unexpected or not understood about 2008's "cooler" temps. The air temperature is still warmer than most every other year in record history, and we entirely expect temperatures to go up and down in waves with El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and other random climate fluctuations. And on the total climate heat balance, the heat content of the atmosphere and the heat of the ocean, there is no "cooling". It is still a rising tide, just more of the heat balance has shifted to the ocean this year.
Scientists are not stupid and they don't just make random junk up. Someone did a review of nearly a thousand peer reviewed climate research papers. Most explicitly or implicitly acknowledged global warming, some dealt exclusively with prehistoric climate or dealt exclusively with technical methodology and said nothing at all about the current climate, and exactly ZERO of them in any way disputed global warming.
There has been a huge PR effort by oil companies and related industries to confuse and discredit the science, and it even more unfortunately it has gotten entangled with partisan party politics. And even more MORE unfortunately once either party associates itself with any issue it becomes extremely difficult for that party admit it was a mistake to take a position on the issue 20 years ago. There's a PR and social and political uncertainty about global warming, but effectively ZERO question on the peer reviewed science.
And really it's trivial physics anyway. There is no dispute that we have increased CO2 levels, and there is no dispute of the basic physics that CO2 *DOES* trap heat. The earth is already about 50 degrees warmed due to the greenhouse effect of the ordinary atmosphere. Oxygen and water vapor and normal CO2 levels = about 50 degrees warmer than a naked earth. And it is trivial physics that increased CO2 is like a thicker blanket trapping more heat.
Basic trivial indisputable physic of light and radiation - independent of any other effect increased CO2 *will* trap more heat.
Measuring the size of that effect can be challenging, taking into account other interacting effects is challenging, predicting the exact effect on the climate is challenging, but the basic undeniable physics fact is that more CO2 has the effect of trapping more heat. Period. On the basic mechanism there is no confusion, no complexity, no possible doubt. Other things may go on to complicate the picture, but the basic point that human-made CO2 has the effect of trapping heat is trivial in
you can be certain that after a thousand rolls there will be more seven's than any other number
Pffft! This is Slashdot! Most people here know that in seven is not the most common roll.
Seven is only most likely in fairly rare case you're rolling 2d6. In general you're way more likely to roll a five, swinging a bastard sword or somesuch other common 2d4 roll. Like how often do you really roll 2d6? 2d6 yeah sure, I throw a harpoon at a (large class) whale ALL the time. Snark.
I mean, look at the Obama world tour...seriously, it was newsworthy enough for the anchor of every one of the 3 major networks to travel with him?
(1) Yes.
If McCain goes on world tour, think they'll all 3 travel with him?
(2) No.
it is pretty obvious who most of the networks seem to be favoring in coverage...
(3) Not nearly as obvious as you think. A scientific count of positive vs negative news comments shows a slant massively favoring McCain.
As for (1), yes, of course it was a major news event. McCain himself turned it into a Major Election Issue before Obama decided to go on the trip. All of the opponents of Obama were all tuning into the news hoping to see Obama fall on his face, tuning in out of fear that it might go well. And all of the Obama supporters were tuning in out of fear that he might fall on his face, tuning in in hope that he would score major points on the very issue McCain had made a big deal over. People on both sides tuned in in massive numbers to see and analyze in depth every detail, and those unsure in the middle were tuning in to see if Obama passed or flunked in this area considered a critical test of Obama.
The two candidates have different weak or vulnerable spots where they need to proove the are up to the job as president. Obama's biggest test is generally on experience and whether he was ready and able to be Presidential, and in particular McCain had made a huge production that Obama needed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain made it a big point on the whole war issue. This trip focused on a critical issue to the election, focused on a a specific test that could have sunk Obama and decided the entire election right there.
Just like all of the networks sent a team of experts and had huge news coverage of McCain's medical records. McCains heath is a particular test *he* needs to pass if he wants to convince voters he is up to the job.
As for (2), that the networks wouldn't give that sort of coverage to McCain making the same international trip, OF COURSE NOT. Just as the networks wouldn't give major coverage to Obama's medical records turning up reasonably good. No one considers Obama's health a critical issue or critical test, no one expects Obama to fall on his face and lose the election over his medical records. Just as no one consider's McCain's performance on an international trip a critical issue or major test, no one expects McCain to fall on his face and lose the election over such a trip.
As for (3), yes, the coverage been more favorable to McCain. Obama has been getting more total coverage than McCain because Obama is seen as more of an unknown and more questions and more uncertainty, more promise and more risk, whereas people feel more confident they understand who McCain is and what to expect from him. But while Obama has gotten more total coverage, that extra margin has been completely negative. In a study of positive vs negative comments, the comments on Obama were 72% negative vs 28% positive about Obama, 57% negative vs 43% positive on McCain.
Source: Scientific study by nonpartisian Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project.
A quick Google will turn up far more coverage for it. Of course if your primary news source is Fox, I'd hardly be surprised that they neglected to cover that inconvenient tidbit. The fact that the "liberal media" has treated McCain so much more favorably than Obama kinda pokes a huge hole in their biased liberal media dogma, and kinda ruins their justification that it's ok for them to be wildly flagrantly biased because they are merely a "Fair and Balanced" counterbalance to the wild liberal media bias. If they want to play that logic card they would have to give McCain 50% more coverage than Obama but it would have to be 79% unfavorable coverage of McCain while more than doubling their percentage of positive coverage for Obama. That would provide an accurate counterbalance to the bias of the other news networks. Heh.
I agree that the three "Informative" mods on my post is seriously silly, but I'm pretty sure it was just misguided attempts to hack around the fact that +Funny doesn't give Karma points. Thanx for the thought people, but I don't need the points.:)
Again, read up on history and current events. It's sad how ignorant of reality people can be...
People who don't pay attention wouldn't care about political issues and politicians. Wouldn't be angry at Bush.
A decade ago I myself didn't give a rats ass about politicians, they were all Republicrats. One of my relatives was running for a local office, I went and registered independent, I cast the one vote for one person and I didn't touch any of the other levers. Politics was bullshit and I didn't care about one bullshit political party vs some other bullshit political party.
But then Bush came along. Politics is still mostly bullshit, but now I'm paying attention. Because Bush showed me something important. As bullshit as politics is, and as crummy as both parties are, some politicians are a lot worse than others. Bush has seriously fucked over this country domestically, has fucked over this country internationally, and has fucked over this country on terrorism turning victory into defeat.
People who weren't paying attention and reading up on events wouldn't care either way. The reason these people hate Bush is because they HAVE been reading and paying attention. The more angry they are, the more they have been reading and paying attention.
I just have one question. What sort of asshat plays cheerleader for turning the U.S. into The Torture Nation(tm)? Who cheerleads as this Great and Noble nation is brought down to the level of a slimy sadistic street thug? There are countless ways Bush has harmed this country, plenty of reasons to hate him, but his defense of torture seriously stands out as a one word reason. America is supposed to be BETTER than that, better than those other countries. And right there, just on that one point, Bush has irreparably tarnished everything Great America is supposed to stand for, everything Great America is supposed to be. We're supposed to be the Good Guys. We're supposed to have the high ground dammit. And all we're left with is the PATHETIC and despicable "Well, we're better than the guys that sawed some guy's head off and broadcast the tape". Oh joy... I'm so glad we're a step above that.
The fact that you are here upset and arguing that "Heay, Bush isn't the most evil man on the planet" is absolutely disgusting. Yes, you're right... Bush is NOT the most evil man on the planet. Oh joy. Wonderful. I feel so much better now. The decades we'll spend trying to recover from the damage he's done won't seem so bad because you're right.... he could have been worse. That's like, totally fantabulous.
For everyone who hates Comcast so much go out and try to get a different cable company
Gee, what a wonderful idea.
Well, except for the fact that the government grants and enforces regional cable monopolies. Which meaning the government prohibits me from switching to any other cable company(*), short of physically moving to a new home in some other state.
(*)My regional monopoly cable company is Cablevison rather than Comcast, but the point is the same.
Really? So if you built a commercial network, you would want the FCC to dictate how you police your traffic and what QoS measures you implement?
Right. If you build your private commercial network then I agree with you.
Just so long as you don't do it via a government granted, government enforced effective monopoly. If you expect to do it based on privileged monopoly access building it on top of public telephone poles and public underground lines and other public infrastructure and other governmental benefits and governmental assistance....
well... if that were the case... well then you would be wrong.
If customers don't like it, they need to make it known via their wallets.
No. The government prohibits that. The government granted Cablevision monopoly market rights over my region. In other regions the government has granted Comcast monopoly market rights. I cannot do business with Comcast even if I wanted to. People in other regions cannot do business with Cablevision if that were their preference. The government grants and enforces these regional monopolies.
It is impossible to suggest the government should not meddle when the government is already involved. It is absurd to suggest "natural free market competition" is the solution to market problems when the force of government is prohibiting market competition.
A significant point that often gets overlooked in this issue is that Cable companies and phone companies are generally government granted, government enforced monopolies. For example I personally am under the Cablevision monopoly. I couldn't have Comcast as my ISP even if (for some twisted reason) I did want to do business with them.
State, county, and/or local governments handle the access rights - running the Cable and Phone lines on public telephone poles or underground on public land. A company cannot simply come in and compete against the local Cable or Telephone monopoly. Most people face at best a duopoly, the very limited competition between Cable broadband monopoly vs the Telephone broadband monopoly.
So long as the government is involved in supporting and enforcing these monopoly market conditions it is entirely appropriate for the government to be deeply involved in the market conditions and business behavior. If a company wants monopoly usage of the public infrastructure like this it is entirely appropriate for the government to impose conditions on that usage.
It is appropriate for the government to manage the usage of public infrastructure for the public benefit. When the government meddles in a market to enable or impose a monopoly in that market, it is appropriate and necessary for the government to artificially impose conditions to replace the natural competitive forces that ensure a healthy beneficial marketplace. To replace the natural competitive market forces that are excluded by the artificial government sponsored monopoly.
For example if someone wants to go into business as an ISP that filters out porn and other arbitrary "objectionable" content, then sure, they are welcome to do so. *I* wouldn't want to use that ISP, but some people would want to do so. And that competing alternative is fine, so long as the government isn't handing them a monopoly on the market. If they were one of the Cable companies, and the government was handing them an effective monopoly position on broadband for a region, or even a duopoly position vs the phone company, then that would be a huge problem.
Nope. You missed the joke, which was not about Chinese food. And if it helps, he wasn't blaming the Chinese government for being authoritarian. He was blaming them for false-advertising the girls' ages.
If the national govs want to bend/break their own rules, then IOC has to live with it.
What The Fuck???
This is not a government breaking their own rules, this is cheating and violating the rules of the Olympics.
Um, well what documents would you want for proof?
An official passport stands as presumptively valid documentation of age. However when other documentation turns up, as it has in this case, then sufficient evidence can stand as proof refuting that presumption.
IOC doesn't have an teeth to beat a national government
The IOC can and should at minimum disqualify the underage individuals. In fact I'd say it might even be appropriate to disqualify the entire gymnastic team. And then I would issue an "invitation" to the Chinese government to re-certify the age and other qualifications for all of their competitors... an amnesty period to check for and clear up and other "accidental" errors of this sort. And if they pass this grace period and an investigation turns up multiple additional cases of systematic government sanctioned cheating, then I would seriously consider serious sanction up to and possibly including disqualification of the entire national team. Which makes for a powerful motivation for the Chinese government (and any other government) to unsure any irregularities are voluntarily cleared up during the grace period, and to make damn sure governments don't try to cheat in the future.
it's sad that people can be so utterly ignorant of the realities of this world that they believe George Bush is the epitome of evil.
You're absolutely right. Bush is not the epitome of evil. Aside from getting elected president, I doubt Bush has ever been better than a C+ at much of anything. George Bush is the C+ of evil. The the C+ of lie, cheat and steal. This guy gets a hold of Global Power... and with his C+ of evil all he manages to do is manufacture a small war in a bumfuck country, torture a small handful of people, and swell the ranks of terrorist groups across the globe. Bush hasn't even nuked a city. Nuking a city would rate him at least a B+. Unleashing a genetically engineered racially-targeted plague would get him a solid A+ of evil. Or better yet a racially-targeted plague that also only kills males, so that the women can be spared and "rescued" and impregnated to raise half-white properly Christian babies. THAT would earn him the title Epitome of Evil.
Yep. Bush is not the epitome of evil. Bush is the C+ of evil.
By using Idée's TinEye website you signify your agreement to the following terms and conditions, which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you.
Submission of pornographic or illegal files is strictly prohibited. Do not submit any file that can be construed as pornography or is in violation of any law.
No porn searches?
::Blows a raspberry::
Failure to comply with these terms may result in termination of your TinEye account at any time, without prior notice and at Idée's sole discretion.
Ahhh.... okay.... don't search for porn, or we might not let you search for more porn from that particular account. Gotchya. Hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever heard someone say "they should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them?"
What a bizarre "rhetorical" question.
Yes, I have heard that. I have hear it a lot. In fact I'd say one of the most common comments/positions out there on decriminalizing pot is that it should be treated exactly the same way tobacco is treated, that it should be taxed and regulated and commercialized in exactly the same manner as tobacco.
-
I'd say that would be pretty well the exact same set of people that care for-Obama/against-McCain on exactly those issues.
A McCain election would be a complete disaster on those issues. It would be infinitely worse than an Obama election, and it would still way worse than an Obama presidency followed by a Biden presidency.
-
Then you're not cynical enough.
They are politicians. You just underestimated their capacity to tell lies.
-
Wait, you're telling me that they taught US intelligence agencies and the National Security guys how to attack the internet with man-in-the-middle attacks and exploits to fool routers into re-directing data to an eavesdropper's network...
and they didn't do anything to end the interception and eavesdropping problem???
I am shocked.
-
if they can do it without turning the lower floors into slave pens.
That's not necessarily a deal-breaker.
Just so long as I get to live upstairs, of course.
-
Vote McCain/Whoever 2008
Finally! A VP candidate with no bad positions on any of the issues!
Well hell, we should just skip waiting for McCain to drop dead of old age for the VP to move up to president. Whoever is the better half of that ticket! I say we just elect Whoever as President in the first place!
Who's with me? WHOEVER FOR PRESIDENT! Hell yeah!
-
one more reason to vote republican, eh?
Ummmm.... help me out here.... I looked through the grandparent post trying to find your "one reason", but I was unable to locate it.
Lets see... Obama reluctantly voted for telecom immunity?
McCain was not only FOR telecom immunity but some of his staffers were the ones running around lobbying congress to manufacture legislation to grant that immunity in the first place.
Lets see, Obama being anti-tech?
They botches this issue on their website, but Obama is FAR FAR more favorable to our side on these issues than McCain.
Lets see, Obama being clueless on tech?
Again, yeah they botched this issue on their website, but McCain may as well be Ted Steven's grandpa. McCain LITERALLY needs a few good lessons from Ted Stevens teaching him how to use e-mail.
Lets see, conventions where they don't take real input from the masses?
Buahahahahaha. Yeah, McCain is real big on that. Snicker. The closest McCain comes to "taking input" is to run and cover his ass when he gets caught out as pro-life-pandering-bullshit-artist after leaking Tom Ridge for VP.
So ahhh, perhaps you could help me out and be a little more specific? What exactly is the one reason you had in mind to vote republican instead? I must have overlooked it.
-
No, I said 2008 brings the running average of temperatures for the last century so close to flat
Presuming you mean "last hundred years" there, that statement is so wildly false as to be comical. I have no idea where you're getting your fictional "facts", but I suggest to check with a second source.
Why the drop occurred, be it El Nino, Santa Claus, or Reptile men from the Crab nebula, is not relevant.
Yes it does. You claimed we don't understand the climate. It's a complex system, but we know a lot.
In 1998 we had that insanely high spike in temperatures during the abnormally large El Nino event. We KNEW that temperatures would come back down from that spike when El Nino ended.
We KNOW and EXPECT temperatures to go down during La Nina events like this one. We KNOW that temperatures will go back up when La Nina ends.
your metaphors aren't any better
We know El Nino brings a peak of a wave and that the true current tide level is lower, and we know La Nina brings a trough of the waves and that the true current tide level is higher.
And fundamentally, it doesn't matter if we understand the climate. As I explained last post, and as you completely ignored, it's a trivial irrefutable fact of physics.
(1) Humans have massively increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
(2) CO2 has the effect of trapping infrared radiation - i.e. HEAT.
(3) Q.E.D. It is proven.
Game over. Physics. End of story.
It is only possible to quibble over the size and the interactions and other details.
prove that a) humans did it and that b) it isn't a good thing
Yeah, the standard global warming denialism sequence is:
(1) "it's an error by just a few scientists"
(2) "ok it's not just a few scientists, but a grand hoax by all scientists"
(3) "ok it's real, but not caused by humans"
(4) "ok humans are causing it, but it's a GOOD thing"
I fully expect stage 5 to be
"ok it causes all sorts of bad things, and it's going exactly as we planned all along!"
Chuckle.
Archeology shows that, historically, warm was always better for humans.
Among other issues, archeology shows that, historically, the western half of the US gets squat rain when it gets warmer and largely desertifies.
It also shows that ALL life gets seriously hosed by rapid change. Barring mega-meteor-class events, the temperature of the earth has never changed even the smallest fraction of the current rate of change. Rapid temperature changes cause rampant and chain extinctions.
To any extent warmer temps are theoretically beneficial to humans, that is totally blown away by the fact that such change is massive DISRUPTIVE and therefore harmful to us. We are hugely invested in the way things are. He have hard learned lessons about what crops grow where, or what is even viable cropland at all, about what areas get rain and which don't, about where we can graze cattle, about where it is good or even safe to live and build. All of which will CHANGE, disruptively. In particular we massively live and build on the coastlines. Not only will rising sea levels begin to directly flood areas, but the higher baseline sea level will expand the range and depth of hurricane flooding. Areas that have NEVER IN HISTORY seen hurricane storm surge flooding will find themselves inundated with no warning, with no preparation for such events, and no experience for such events.
We have no evidence that "global warming" is the prime mover in that [north pole] change.
Gee, you're right. The fact that our thermometers have been reading higher temperatures up there is just a total coincidence.
And just to make sure you don't overlook the point again, the fundamental point of global warming is basic physics. We have massively increased CO2 levels, and CO2 traps infrared radiation - traps heat. Q.E.D. End of debate. You can quibble over details, but denying the fundamental mechanism and effect for global warming is denying basic physics. You may as well be a gravity denialist. The only half-way sane remaining option is to resort to the comically desperate Stage Four on my Denialism Table: "ok humans are causing it, but it's a GOOD thing".
-
arrogant
The first words out of your mouth ....errr.... out of your keyboard... were an accusation of liberal bias, from a conservative source no less. So I think it not unreasonable for me to suggest the bias is being inserted at your end.
I will admit that there is an alternative to the report being biased.
Interesting how the report-being-right is not even an alternative.
Because it is obviously impossible media are in fact responsible journalists dedicated to providing non-partisan and unbiased news reporting, and that the endless right-wing rants and accusations of bias have been effective in manipulating them to over compensate in the opposite direction.
I sat here watching CNN... watching them run some "media self review" panel... discussing their coverage showing Obama's huge cheering crowds and talking of his "rock star status" and other things... and discussing the media and themselves if they have been giving fair coverage.
38 percent of Obama's supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain's. Sixty-five percent of Obama's backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain's. When Obama speaks he draws big excited crowds, that is a simple fact. To show that fact or mention that fact is accurate unbiased reporting. It is hardly the MEDIA's fault that McCain's support and fanbase is lackluster. And I sat here listening to CNN commentators asking if they were doing anything wrong, debating what, if anything, they should do something to "fix" themselves, to "fix" their coverage.
And then AGAIN I sat here watching CNN run ANOTHER "media self review" panel, again asking if the media has been fair with the huge coverage everyone had of Obama's international trip. As you commented on.
And as I explained last post McCain himself had built it up into a huge issue. Obama's critics defined it as an area upon which Obama's campaign would stand or fall. And everyone on both sides and in the middle were tuning in desperate to find out if Obama fell on his face or not. And while the huge coverage presented an opportunity for Obama, the insanely intense media scrutiny was also primed to blow the smallest misstep all out of proportion into a major disaster. And again I sat here listening to CNN commentators asking if they were doing anything wrong, debating what, if anything, they should do to "fix" themselves, to "fix" their coverage.
And those were just the major special segments I saw dedicated entirely to that sort of media self-review. I have seen similar self-commentary scattered in small bits in general coverage. The media is paranoid over the fact that Obama has gotten more raw minutes of coverage (positive and negative minutes, for good reasons) than McCain, and they are paranoid over the allegations of bias. They have been overcompensating. They are afraid to make any routine positive commentary relating to Obama's campaign without digging up negativity to add in for "balance".
Yes, the report is right. The balance of comments on McCain is pretty even, but heavily slanted against Obama. The "liberal bias media" is torpedoing Obama and handing the election to McCain, especially if they keep going at this level. A few weeks ago Obama was leading McCain by a few points in the national polls, now he's trailing McCain by a few points.
the rules themselves may be biased
Biased people can creatively slant rules, but again in this case the people writing the rules have a powerful conservative interest, they would be highly motivated to ensure the rules were, at minimum, fair to their own side.
[or] meaningless
The study and the methodology seem pretty straight forward to me. Everything seems entirely logical, reasonable, and meaningful. I don't see how or why any reasonable and consistent standard would such a big "meaningless" skew in the results.
Do you have any basis whatsoever for rejecting it, other than that you simply dislike
Wow! Cool! Me too! I have 5 different inkblots for logging into five different systems.
All five passwords are "Boobies".
-
To me, if you believe that is an example of negative coverage then you have a liberal bias.
No. It is factually impossible to validly conclude, based on the presented evidence, that that demonstrated any sort of bias.
Bias means treating two sides on an inequal basis.
One of the most common forms of bias is to project the opposite bias into neutral information, a very effective method to dismiss that information and reinforce one's one position without even noticing it happening.
You clearly disliked the results of the study. You clearly searched it looking to find liberal bias in it, to discredit it. You then presented a rather extended chain of logic twisting the quotation into an insult to the IQ of any Obama opponent. You then jumped to the entirely unsupported conclusion that that was evidence of bias - the baseless assumption that Obama-comments and McCain-comments were being categorized according to inequal standards.
The direct meaning of the quote is to dispute the validity of Obama's position and to dispute the reasonableness/validity of reasoning. And like almost any statement it can be further interpreted and colored in a variety of ways by anyone according to their individual bias and inclinations. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about using that sort of direct-level standard for evaluation. In fact I find it difficult to imagine any different standard that would work. Interpreting beyond that direct level of the statements is far to creative a process and involves drawing to many conclusions to allow any consistant objective categorisation.
There is absolutely nothing biased about that example or biased about that standard, if McCain's comments are categorized according to that same standard.
And while I do not have the full list of hours of comments about each candidate and the categorizations for all of them to compare them, here is their Research Methodology page. They establish explicit rules and procedures by which material shall be categorized, analysts are subjected to 150-to-200 hours of training. Furthermore multiple people must be able to independently reach the same categorizations for the same content with a high degree of accuracy in order to establish that the results are objectively consistent valid and unbiased.
So according to all that it sounds like they are following proper scientific procedures. It would be bias itself to dismiss the results as bias absent some other concrete basis to substantiate the bias allegation.
Now if I'm going to stand by the report and defend it, I figure I damn well better look into who is actually behind the study and whether they are in fact as nonpartisan they they claim and as reliable as their scientific methodology appears to indicate.
Well, to be honest I was a bit surprized at what I found on further digging. You were right to be skeptical about about potential bias from organizations claiming to be non-partisan and publishing research research on political topic.
Here's what I found:
The seed money for the center was solicited by the Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and friends. Nearly all of their funding comes from a very small group of right-wing foundations that fund a variety of right-wing organizations and right-wing causes.
So to any extent that they are failing to live up to their stated unbiased scientific procedures, such a failure would be OVERWHELMINGLY inclined to go in the direction of conservative bias.
Whoops. You'd have been better off if you hadn't pushed me to go investigate their partisan status. Chuckle.
-
For a town of say 5,000 people
Chuckle. 5000 people sounds more like a gigantic dance floor to me, than a town :D
I happen to live in the most populous town(*) in the nation. Three quarters of a million people. If we were a city we'd be the 14th most populous city in the country. Rounding up 5000 votes would ...probably... be enough to swing the local election for dog catcher. hehe.
(*)Footnote: The Town of Hempstead is subdivided into a number of villages and hamlets effectively about every mile-and-a-half or so, but they are not significantly functional governmental levels.
Anyway.... we've got Cablevision and thus far they have been one of the best of the cable companies. None of which matters to the original issue that for most of the country they are unable to vote with their wallets. It is disingenuous to say that the government should not meddle in these business affairs, disingenuous to suggest that natural free market competition can be relied upon to solve this market's ills. The government is already entangled from the beginning. The government is providing chosen companies with benefits and protections, is in most cases imposing a monopoly market by force of law.
I certainly do sympathize with and side with "the government shouldn't meddle in business affairs" in many cases, but I think this case is one of the clearest possible exceptions. The government itself regulated the market into existence in the first place. The government is responsible for prohibiting competition and for excluding natural free market forces. And when the government does that then the government can and *must* step in to replace those excluded market forces, can and *must* step in to manually remedy market failures and market abuses. Because the government is ultimately responsible for causing/enforcing those market failures and abuses.
And to the extent that these companies "compete" to obtain those local-government-granted monopolies, that competition is much more indirect and of a very different character. It is poor proxy for actual customer competition and actual customer interests. While I consider Cablevision one of the best of US Cable providers, I have little doubt that if all cable companies could reasonably and freely compete everywhere, that competitive forces would dive them all to better serve their customers. Unfortunately running all of that parallel networking across the public phone poles to every home in the nation is not a particularly viable approach.
-
the fact that 2008 virtually wiped out any direct evidence for global warming
Saying that 2008 is cooler than the last seven or eight years is like standing on a beach watching the waves wash up and down the shore, and at one particular low point between waves commenting that this is the lowest water level in the last 4 minutes, and claiming that that wipes out all evidence of the rising tide.
2008 is still warmer than almost every year of the 20th century. The tide has risen, the "low" point right now is still higher than the tide was an hour ago.
we really don't understand how global climate works
Yes we do.
In particular we know that in El Nino years ocean currents trap more ocean heat near the surface, more heat stays in the atmosphere and less heat enters the ocean. The El Nino effect is well known and indisputed.
And we also know that in La Nina years the exact opposite happens, ocean circulation changes, more heat gets circulated down into the ocean and more heat is drawn down out of the atmosphere.
When people report on global temperatures they inevitably report on surface atmosphere temps. The temps that we feel. Those reports don't take into account ocean temps. The oceans actually account for MANY TIMES MORE of the heat balance of the earth's climate than the atmosphere does. It takes vastly more heat to raise a cubic mile of water by one degree than it takes to warm a cubic mile of atmosphere by one degree.
There is absolutely nothing unusual or unexpected or not understood about 2008's "cooler" temps. The air temperature is still warmer than most every other year in record history, and we entirely expect temperatures to go up and down in waves with El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and other random climate fluctuations. And on the total climate heat balance, the heat content of the atmosphere and the heat of the ocean, there is no "cooling". It is still a rising tide, just more of the heat balance has shifted to the ocean this year.
Scientists are not stupid and they don't just make random junk up. Someone did a review of nearly a thousand peer reviewed climate research papers. Most explicitly or implicitly acknowledged global warming, some dealt exclusively with prehistoric climate or dealt exclusively with technical methodology and said nothing at all about the current climate, and exactly ZERO of them in any way disputed global warming.
There has been a huge PR effort by oil companies and related industries to confuse and discredit the science, and it even more unfortunately it has gotten entangled with partisan party politics. And even more MORE unfortunately once either party associates itself with any issue it becomes extremely difficult for that party admit it was a mistake to take a position on the issue 20 years ago. There's a PR and social and political uncertainty about global warming, but effectively ZERO question on the peer reviewed science.
And really it's trivial physics anyway. There is no dispute that we have increased CO2 levels, and there is no dispute of the basic physics that CO2 *DOES* trap heat. The earth is already about 50 degrees warmed due to the greenhouse effect of the ordinary atmosphere. Oxygen and water vapor and normal CO2 levels = about 50 degrees warmer than a naked earth. And it is trivial physics that increased CO2 is like a thicker blanket trapping more heat.
Basic trivial indisputable physic of light and radiation - independent of any other effect increased CO2 *will* trap more heat.
Measuring the size of that effect can be challenging, taking into account other interacting effects is challenging, predicting the exact effect on the climate is challenging, but the basic undeniable physics fact is that more CO2 has the effect of trapping more heat. Period. On the basic mechanism there is no confusion, no complexity, no possible doubt. Other things may go on to complicate the picture, but the basic point that human-made CO2 has the effect of trapping heat is trivial in
you can be certain that after a thousand rolls there will be more seven's than any other number
Pffft! This is Slashdot! Most people here know that in seven is not the most common roll.
Seven is only most likely in fairly rare case you're rolling 2d6. In general you're way more likely to roll a five, swinging a bastard sword or somesuch other common 2d4 roll. Like how often do you really roll 2d6? 2d6 yeah sure, I throw a harpoon at a (large class) whale ALL the time. Snark.
-
I mean, look at the Obama world tour...seriously, it was newsworthy enough for the anchor of every one of the 3 major networks to travel with him?
(1) Yes.
If McCain goes on world tour, think they'll all 3 travel with him?
(2) No.
it is pretty obvious who most of the networks seem to be favoring in coverage...
(3) Not nearly as obvious as you think. A scientific count of positive vs negative news comments shows a slant massively favoring McCain.
As for (1), yes, of course it was a major news event. McCain himself turned it into a Major Election Issue before Obama decided to go on the trip. All of the opponents of Obama were all tuning into the news hoping to see Obama fall on his face, tuning in out of fear that it might go well. And all of the Obama supporters were tuning in out of fear that he might fall on his face, tuning in in hope that he would score major points on the very issue McCain had made a big deal over. People on both sides tuned in in massive numbers to see and analyze in depth every detail, and those unsure in the middle were tuning in to see if Obama passed or flunked in this area considered a critical test of Obama.
The two candidates have different weak or vulnerable spots where they need to proove the are up to the job as president. Obama's biggest test is generally on experience and whether he was ready and able to be Presidential, and in particular McCain had made a huge production that Obama needed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain made it a big point on the whole war issue. This trip focused on a critical issue to the election, focused on a a specific test that could have sunk Obama and decided the entire election right there.
Just like all of the networks sent a team of experts and had huge news coverage of McCain's medical records. McCains heath is a particular test *he* needs to pass if he wants to convince voters he is up to the job.
As for (2), that the networks wouldn't give that sort of coverage to McCain making the same international trip, OF COURSE NOT. Just as the networks wouldn't give major coverage to Obama's medical records turning up reasonably good. No one considers Obama's health a critical issue or critical test, no one expects Obama to fall on his face and lose the election over his medical records. Just as no one consider's McCain's performance on an international trip a critical issue or major test, no one expects McCain to fall on his face and lose the election over such a trip.
As for (3), yes, the coverage been more favorable to McCain. Obama has been getting more total coverage than McCain because Obama is seen as more of an unknown and more questions and more uncertainty, more promise and more risk, whereas people feel more confident they understand who McCain is and what to expect from him. But while Obama has gotten more total coverage, that extra margin has been completely negative. In a study of positive vs negative comments, the comments on Obama were 72% negative vs 28% positive about Obama, 57% negative vs 43% positive on McCain.
Source:
Scientific study by nonpartisian Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project.
A quick Google will turn up far more coverage for it. Of course if your primary news source is Fox, I'd hardly be surprised that they neglected to cover that inconvenient tidbit. The fact that the "liberal media" has treated McCain so much more favorably than Obama kinda pokes a huge hole in their biased liberal media dogma, and kinda ruins their justification that it's ok for them to be wildly flagrantly biased because they are merely a "Fair and Balanced" counterbalance to the wild liberal media bias. If they want to play that logic card they would have to give McCain 50% more coverage than Obama but it would have to be 79% unfavorable coverage of McCain while more than doubling their percentage of positive coverage for Obama. That would provide an accurate counterbalance to the bias of the other news networks. Heh.
-
I agree that the three "Informative" mods on my post is seriously silly, but I'm pretty sure it was just misguided attempts to hack around the fact that +Funny doesn't give Karma points. Thanx for the thought people, but I don't need the points. :)
Again, read up on history and current events. It's sad how ignorant of reality people can be...
People who don't pay attention wouldn't care about political issues and politicians. Wouldn't be angry at Bush.
A decade ago I myself didn't give a rats ass about politicians, they were all Republicrats. One of my relatives was running for a local office, I went and registered independent, I cast the one vote for one person and I didn't touch any of the other levers. Politics was bullshit and I didn't care about one bullshit political party vs some other bullshit political party.
But then Bush came along.
Politics is still mostly bullshit, but now I'm paying attention. Because Bush showed me something important. As bullshit as politics is, and as crummy as both parties are, some politicians are a lot worse than others. Bush has seriously fucked over this country domestically, has fucked over this country internationally, and has fucked over this country on terrorism turning victory into defeat.
People who weren't paying attention and reading up on events wouldn't care either way. The reason these people hate Bush is because they HAVE been reading and paying attention. The more angry they are, the more they have been reading and paying attention.
I just have one question. What sort of asshat plays cheerleader for turning the U.S. into The Torture Nation(tm)? Who cheerleads as this Great and Noble nation is brought down to the level of a slimy sadistic street thug? There are countless ways Bush has harmed this country, plenty of reasons to hate him, but his defense of torture seriously stands out as a one word reason. America is supposed to be BETTER than that, better than those other countries. And right there, just on that one point, Bush has irreparably tarnished everything Great America is supposed to stand for, everything Great America is supposed to be. We're supposed to be the Good Guys. We're supposed to have the high ground dammit. And all we're left with is the PATHETIC and despicable "Well, we're better than the guys that sawed some guy's head off and broadcast the tape". Oh joy... I'm so glad we're a step above that.
The fact that you are here upset and arguing that "Heay, Bush isn't the most evil man on the planet" is absolutely disgusting. Yes, you're right... Bush is NOT the most evil man on the planet. Oh joy. Wonderful. I feel so much better now. The decades we'll spend trying to recover from the damage he's done won't seem so bad because you're right.... he could have been worse. That's like, totally fantabulous.
-
For everyone who hates Comcast so much go out and try to get a different cable company
Gee, what a wonderful idea.
Well, except for the fact that the government grants and enforces regional cable monopolies. Which meaning the government prohibits me from switching to any other cable company(*), short of physically moving to a new home in some other state.
(*)My regional monopoly cable company is Cablevison rather than Comcast, but the point is the same.
-
Really? So if you built a commercial network, you would want the FCC to dictate how you police your traffic and what QoS measures you implement?
Right. If you build your private commercial network then I agree with you.
Just so long as you don't do it via a government granted, government enforced effective monopoly.
If you expect to do it based on privileged monopoly access building it on top of public telephone poles and public underground lines and other public infrastructure and other governmental benefits and governmental assistance....
well... if that were the case... well then you would be wrong.
If customers don't like it, they need to make it known via their wallets.
No. The government prohibits that. The government granted Cablevision monopoly market rights over my region. In other regions the government has granted Comcast monopoly market rights. I cannot do business with Comcast even if I wanted to. People in other regions cannot do business with Cablevision if that were their preference. The government grants and enforces these regional monopolies.
It is impossible to suggest the government should not meddle when the government is already involved. It is absurd to suggest "natural free market competition" is the solution to market problems when the force of government is prohibiting market competition.
-
A significant point that often gets overlooked in this issue is that Cable companies and phone companies are generally government granted, government enforced monopolies. For example I personally am under the Cablevision monopoly. I couldn't have Comcast as my ISP even if (for some twisted reason) I did want to do business with them.
State, county, and/or local governments handle the access rights - running the Cable and Phone lines on public telephone poles or underground on public land. A company cannot simply come in and compete against the local Cable or Telephone monopoly. Most people face at best a duopoly, the very limited competition between Cable broadband monopoly vs the Telephone broadband monopoly.
So long as the government is involved in supporting and enforcing these monopoly market conditions it is entirely appropriate for the government to be deeply involved in the market conditions and business behavior. If a company wants monopoly usage of the public infrastructure like this it is entirely appropriate for the government to impose conditions on that usage.
It is appropriate for the government to manage the usage of public infrastructure for the public benefit. When the government meddles in a market to enable or impose a monopoly in that market, it is appropriate and necessary for the government to artificially impose conditions to replace the natural competitive forces that ensure a healthy beneficial marketplace. To replace the natural competitive market forces that are excluded by the artificial government sponsored monopoly.
For example if someone wants to go into business as an ISP that filters out porn and other arbitrary "objectionable" content, then sure, they are welcome to do so. *I* wouldn't want to use that ISP, but some people would want to do so. And that competing alternative is fine, so long as the government isn't handing them a monopoly on the market. If they were one of the Cable companies, and the government was handing them an effective monopoly position on broadband for a region, or even a duopoly position vs the phone company, then that would be a huge problem.
-
If you're eating Chinese food...
Nope. You missed the joke, which was not about Chinese food.
And if it helps, he wasn't blaming the Chinese government for being authoritarian. He was blaming them for false-advertising the girls' ages.
-
You missed the context of the thread, they weren't talking about medals or anything of the sort. Go look at the original post.
-
Like he said, it's like weight classes in boxing.
It's only against the rules if you're more than about three years out of her age division.
-
If the national govs want to bend/break their own rules, then IOC has to live with it.
What
The
Fuck???
This is not a government breaking their own rules, this is cheating and violating the rules of the Olympics.
Um, well what documents would you want for proof?
An official passport stands as presumptively valid documentation of age.
However when other documentation turns up, as it has in this case, then sufficient evidence can stand as proof refuting that presumption.
IOC doesn't have an teeth to beat a national government
The IOC can and should at minimum disqualify the underage individuals. In fact I'd say it might even be appropriate to disqualify the entire gymnastic team. And then I would issue an "invitation" to the Chinese government to re-certify the age and other qualifications for all of their competitors... an amnesty period to check for and clear up and other "accidental" errors of this sort. And if they pass this grace period and an investigation turns up multiple additional cases of systematic government sanctioned cheating, then I would seriously consider serious sanction up to and possibly including disqualification of the entire national team. Which makes for a powerful motivation for the Chinese government (and any other government) to unsure any irregularities are voluntarily cleared up during the grace period, and to make damn sure governments don't try to cheat in the future.
-
it's sad that people can be so utterly ignorant of the realities of this world that they believe George Bush is the epitome of evil.
You're absolutely right. Bush is not the epitome of evil.
Aside from getting elected president, I doubt Bush has ever been better than a C+ at much of anything. George Bush is the C+ of evil. The the C+ of lie, cheat and steal. This guy gets a hold of Global Power... and with his C+ of evil all he manages to do is manufacture a small war in a bumfuck country, torture a small handful of people, and swell the ranks of terrorist groups across the globe. Bush hasn't even nuked a city. Nuking a city would rate him at least a B+. Unleashing a genetically engineered racially-targeted plague would get him a solid A+ of evil. Or better yet a racially-targeted plague that also only kills males, so that the women can be spared and "rescued" and impregnated to raise half-white properly Christian babies. THAT would earn him the title Epitome of Evil.
Yep. Bush is not the epitome of evil. Bush is the C+ of evil.
-
By using Idée's TinEye website you signify your agreement to the following terms and conditions, which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you.
Submission of pornographic or illegal files is strictly prohibited. Do not submit any file that can be construed as pornography or is in violation of any law.
No porn searches?
Failure to comply with these terms may result in termination of your TinEye account at any time, without prior notice and at Idée's sole discretion.
Ahhh.... okay.... don't search for porn, or we might not let you search for more porn from that particular account. Gotchya. Hehe.
-