The point I'm trying to make is that they may have figured something out.
That marriage is bad?
All you can say from the data is that they get married less often, but once married, they tend to get divorced at the same rate as those in the South.
The data makes no guesses or has no indications whythose in fewer liberal states get married in the first place. It just says they do Another set of data would be needed for the reasons.
If the same percentage of people getting married and end up getting divorced is the same in both regions...then it says that both regions proportionally get into bad marriages. The only difference is that liberal states tend marry less often. But again, of those that get married, about the same proportion getting divorced is the same as those in the South.
The Boston Globe was recently guilty of misinterpreting scientific data. They claimed that Massachusetts and other liberal blue states had lower divorce rates than the rest of the nation.
It was a popular story, and was picked up by many many others around the internet. But the study was flawed. They thought the data was saying one thing, but it never was. The divorce rate data they used had the amount of divorces per 1000 in the state. Not divorce rates as a percentage of marriage rates, which is necessary to make the claims they made. So of course Massachusetts will have a low divorce rate per 1000, because they have a low marriage rate per 1000.
Unfortunately, this concept never dawned on the mathematically inept Globe. They ran the story, and it has been recycled over and over since. So now, many people incorrectly hold to the notion that their states marriages are stronger and divorce less than other opposing states.
One final note. A few of us tried to figure out correct divorce rates compared to marriage rates. The data out there isn't perfect...but it appears that Massachusetts divorce rate is about the same as most Southern states.
You made a short and very incomplete post, and I mocked it.
That's why.
Yes, I often make short posts. I do so to try to make simple points. But your completely immature reply and mocking of my short post while at the same time misjudging me and my view of the entire situation is what got you foe'd.
And I foe people often. I do so usually not by political view, it's usually by their ability to be mature and courteous in debate and in conversation.
One other question for you: Do you use the list of foes to censor what you read?
Nope. In fact, I have turned up flamebait and troll mods, because they often have good points as well.
Another typical article approved by michael. One sided and biased.
One important part he left out was the Senate vote against the Kyoto treaty, which was 95-0. That's right, not a single Senator, no matter how liberal, voted for it. I think that says something about structure of the treaty rather than the concept of the treaty.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark??
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
That's the country on the top of the list. The truth is its worse than in the U.S.
The article is about free press...not free speech. I would think that America would beat most European countries in that respect.
Show me where I said it was "Bush bashing", partisan, or a call to have Bush replaced. Please, show me. Again, like I mentioned, the reason the story appeared on Slashdot 3 times is because michael is heavily anti-Bush, and he flat out admits his bias.
I defy you to find Nobel laureates who reject this Restoring Scientific Integrity paper
I actually did find well written, long, and plausible response written by several political professionals (don't know if it included Nobel laureates or not, but generally, far and away, more papers are written to attack than defend). I I also don't care to look it up again for you. You wrongly judged me from a short, simple comment, so I do not consider you to be a rational enough to understand a complex issue. So why bother?
And saying Bush is against Science is absurd. That's like saying Bush is against the economy or against children. You only show how ignorantly blinded by anger you are with such a statement.
No. He said "As long as China doesn't attack, he supports the one-China policy. If China does attack, then he'll defend Taiwan." That's not a flip-flop, thats a two line policy statement.
George Bush, April 21, 2000: "Our nation will help Taiwan defend itself," he said. "At the same time, we support the one-China policy, and we expect the dispute to be resolved peacefully." Bush also said he would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan from any Chinese attack http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.tai wan.03/
However, this was in pre 9/11 days, and our relations with China are much better now than in 2000. So perhaps this question needs to be asked again?
Re:BLS's own "U-6" includes those who gave up
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Although this belief is widespread and has at times been reported as factual in the mainstream media, the truth of the matter is that unemployment statistics are gathered through a process of sampling a representative number of households; they are not arrived by counting the number of unemployment insurance claims made during a particular month. Data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households, is used for this purpose. From this data, an extrapolation is made about the unemployment status of the country as a whole.
Conservative bias in Google news? It's just an aggregate..it picks up news from all sides of the spectrum. Because of that, it also displays left leaning sites like Salon, and extreme left-leaning blogs such as dailykos.com.
But then, I suspect the reason this article was approved is because it appeals to michael's left leaning bias, which he unapologetically admits he has. As he said: "I'm trying to dispel all notion that I'm unbiased, or that I'll be presenting everything in an entirely unbiased fashion. If my biases totally offend you, you might want to go right now to your user preferences and check the box to block stories posted by me."
They do an excellent job. The free version is very nice, and the full version is $3-$4 a month. The free version has lots of programmed stations already in, and it uses your tastes and ratings to constantly build your own radio station. This isn't a shameless plug...I just really like it. The variety in the music I want to hear makes perfect background music while at work.
While ignoring them would probably be less stressful and perhaps more productive, somehow it just seems wrong, a bit like surrender.
Heh, it's on the same level as surrendering from playing tic-tac-toe. Debating with js7a on an internet forum format makes it so that nobody can ever really "win".
This is because internet is a hopeless medium to discuss things with js7a. It allows js7a to be evasive.
Debating online literally would be eternal with him. Perhaps the only successful way to debate with js7a is to be same room as him for several hours, picking out just one of his flawed arguments, and hammering him to death on that flaw over and over and over. He doubtlessly will try to change the topic or act like he didn't hear what you say, but perhaps if you hammer one point to death, asking him why he keeps ignoring what you say...perhaps then, *maybe*, you may hear him say "Ok, I was wrong". But that's being fairly optimistic.
Welcome to the interesting world of trying to debate with js7a. It never ends. If he was a troll, he'd be a genius, but sadly, he's dead serious. His debates are a constant cycle of extreme stubbornness, one sidedness, blatantly obvious stupitidy, and attempting to appear smart by linking to sites that never help his cause.
Because of these 4 qualities, he comes out thinking he's an all knowing intellectual with all the answers, while the rest of the world is amazed beyond all understanding at how utterly immature and ignorant one person can be. If you want to see a fun sample of us unsuccessfuly trying really hard to get js7a to realize that his debating style is seriously flawed...read the comments in pudges journal.
Slashdot Mirror
The point I'm trying to make is that they may have figured something out.
That marriage is bad?
All you can say from the data is that they get married less often, but once married, they tend to get divorced at the same rate as those in the South.
The data makes no guesses or has no indications whythose in fewer liberal states get married in the first place. It just says they do Another set of data would be needed for the reasons.
No.
If the same percentage of people getting married and end up getting divorced is the same in both regions...then it says that both regions proportionally get into bad marriages. The only difference is that liberal states tend marry less often. But again, of those that get married, about the same proportion getting divorced is the same as those in the South.
The Boston Globe was recently guilty of misinterpreting scientific data. They claimed that Massachusetts and other liberal blue states had lower divorce rates than the rest of the nation.
It was a popular story, and was picked up by many many others around the internet. But the study was flawed. They thought the data was saying one thing, but it never was. The divorce rate data they used had the amount of divorces per 1000 in the state. Not divorce rates as a percentage of marriage rates, which is necessary to make the claims they made. So of course Massachusetts will have a low divorce rate per 1000, because they have a low marriage rate per 1000.
Unfortunately, this concept never dawned on the mathematically inept Globe. They ran the story, and it has been recycled over and over since. So now, many people incorrectly hold to the notion that their states marriages are stronger and divorce less than other opposing states.
One final note. A few of us tried to figure out correct divorce rates compared to marriage rates. The data out there isn't perfect...but it appears that Massachusetts divorce rate is about the same as most Southern states.
The article only mentions disarming satellites in space, which I presume would happen from the ground.
Does this violate the treaty? I was under the impression that the treaty only discusses putting weapons in space.
You made a short and very incomplete post, and I mocked it.
That's why.
Yes, I often make short posts. I do so to try to make simple points. But your completely immature reply and mocking of my short post while at the same time misjudging me and my view of the entire situation is what got you foe'd.
And I foe people often. I do so usually not by political view, it's usually by their ability to be mature and courteous in debate and in conversation.
One other question for you: Do you use the list of foes to censor what you read?
Nope. In fact, I have turned up flamebait and troll mods, because they often have good points as well.
So you are saying that every other country Idiot. I said "often".
Treat...heh, that was a fun typo.
And what does the fact that most countries other than the US joined the treaty say about its structure?
That the treat is often in other countries financial interests to join, while it puts unfair strain on the USA.
I think it's time for USA to take responsibility for all the global pollution it causes and admit the long term consequences.
We have been for a long time now. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html
I find it very sad that USA still refuses to ratify the Kyoto treaty
No, the treaty is just horribly flawed.
Another typical article approved by michael. One sided and biased.
One important part he left out was the Senate vote against the Kyoto treaty, which was 95-0. That's right, not a single Senator, no matter how liberal, voted for it. I think that says something about structure of the treaty rather than the concept of the treaty.
That's the country on the top of the list. The truth is its worse than in the U.S.
The article is about free press...not free speech. I would think that America would beat most European countries in that respect.
Slashdot recently added a "Politics" section. That's where this belongs. I didn't see any science in the article at allM
Note the editor who approved the story. That will explain it all.
Late reply.
Show me where I said it was "Bush bashing", partisan, or a call to have Bush replaced. Please, show me. Again, like I mentioned, the reason the story appeared on Slashdot 3 times is because michael is heavily anti-Bush, and he flat out admits his bias.
I defy you to find Nobel laureates who reject this Restoring Scientific Integrity paper
I actually did find well written, long, and plausible response written by several political professionals (don't know if it included Nobel laureates or not, but generally, far and away, more papers are written to attack than defend). I I also don't care to look it up again for you. You wrongly judged me from a short, simple comment, so I do not consider you to be a rational enough to understand a complex issue. So why bother?
And saying Bush is against Science is absurd. That's like saying Bush is against the economy or against children. You only show how ignorantly blinded by anger you are with such a statement.
...allegedly wrote...
Is this the part where I get to assume it's already fact?
This is at least the third Slashdot story on scientists
All approve by michael, who is vehemently anti-Bush and does not apologize for spreading his bias to Slashdot.
including some 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients
Even they can be partisan. I'm sure there are just as many who support Bush.
No. He said "As long as China doesn't attack, he supports the one-China policy. If China does attack, then he'll defend Taiwan." That's not a flip-flop, thats a two line policy statement.
Oops, that's April 21, 2001
and what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?
i wan.03/
George Bush, April 21, 2000: "Our nation will help Taiwan defend itself," he said. "At the same time, we support the one-China policy, and we expect the dispute to be resolved peacefully." Bush also said he would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan from any Chinese attack http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.ta
However, this was in pre 9/11 days, and our relations with China are much better now than in 2000. So perhaps this question needs to be asked again?
I searched around some more for other U-3 through U-6 employment figures. This site and it's accompanying U-6 graph were very helpful. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/7/13239/74113
Thanks for the link, out of all the responses to my parent post, this was the most insightful.
They don't count people who're no longer collecting unemployment and have simply given up.
That's not correct. From http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.htm
Although this belief is widespread and has at times been reported as factual in the mainstream media, the truth of the matter is that unemployment statistics are gathered through a process of sampling a representative number of households; they are not arrived by counting the number of unemployment insurance claims made during a particular month. Data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households, is used for this purpose. From this data, an extrapolation is made about the unemployment status of the country as a whole.
Conservative bias in Google news? It's just an aggregate..it picks up news from all sides of the spectrum. Because of that, it also displays left leaning sites like Salon, and extreme left-leaning blogs such as dailykos.com.
But then, I suspect the reason this article was approved is because it appeals to michael's left leaning bias, which he unapologetically admits he has. As he said: "I'm trying to dispel all notion that I'm unbiased, or that I'll be presenting everything in an entirely unbiased fashion. If my biases totally offend you, you might want to go right now to your user preferences and check the box to block stories posted by me."
They do an excellent job. The free version is very nice, and the full version is $3-$4 a month. The free version has lots of programmed stations already in, and it uses your tastes and ratings to constantly build your own radio station. This isn't a shameless plug...I just really like it. The variety in the music I want to hear makes perfect background music while at work.
The downside is that it only works with IE. Boo!
While ignoring them would probably be less stressful and perhaps more productive, somehow it just seems wrong, a bit like surrender.
Heh, it's on the same level as surrendering from playing tic-tac-toe. Debating with js7a on an internet forum format makes it so that nobody can ever really "win".
This is because internet is a hopeless medium to discuss things with js7a. It allows js7a to be evasive.
Debating online literally would be eternal with him. Perhaps the only successful way to debate with js7a is to be same room as him for several hours, picking out just one of his flawed arguments, and hammering him to death on that flaw over and over and over. He doubtlessly will try to change the topic or act like he didn't hear what you say, but perhaps if you hammer one point to death, asking him why he keeps ignoring what you say...perhaps then, *maybe*, you may hear him say "Ok, I was wrong". But that's being fairly optimistic.
jdbolick,
Welcome to the interesting world of trying to debate with js7a. It never ends. If he was a troll, he'd be a genius, but sadly, he's dead serious. His debates are a constant cycle of extreme stubbornness, one sidedness, blatantly obvious stupitidy, and attempting to appear smart by linking to sites that never help his cause.
Because of these 4 qualities, he comes out thinking he's an all knowing intellectual with all the answers, while the rest of the world is amazed beyond all understanding at how utterly immature and ignorant one person can be. If you want to see a fun sample of us unsuccessfuly trying really hard to get js7a to realize that his debating style is seriously flawed...read the comments in pudges journal.
http://slashdot.org/~pudge/journal/61317
If you think it's frustrating trying to discuss anything with js7a...be thankful you only got this far....it gets *much* worse.