Fuzzy reasoning is also the hallmark of a non-thinker.
Approximately 29 people a day are killed by other people with guns in the US. Of those, 80% (according to an FBI study in 1998) are possibly illegally owned guns. Ergo, at least 20% of the weapons used are legally owned. So banning gun ownership by law abiding people could potentially save 6 lives a day, or 1800 lives a year.
Christopher Columbus lived in a time when sea travel was well-understood. He traveled a little longer than most others traveled, to an island where there was food and fresh water, and then back again. You could colonize the New World in those days because the New World, while not as developed was still BASICALLY THE SAME as the old world.... Aside from cities and better roads, it was THE SAME.
Actually, the only reason Christopher Columbus survived his journey was sheer luck: He had no reason whatsoever to think the Americas existed, and all the intelligentsia of his day knew that the journey he was proposing (sail west to Asia from Europe) was a fool's errand because the Earth was much larger than Columbus was claiming. If everything had gone as the smart guys had thought it was going to, he and his crew would have died of disease and starvation somewhere around 170W longitude.
Another major reason colonization worked was because there were people living there before the Europeans showed up. For example, without the Arawaks, Columbus and his crew would have had no clue which of the strange plants and animals he was encountering were safe to eat. The Jamestown and Plymouth colonies nearly died of starvation as well, because most of the new arrivals had no knowledge whatsoever of how to farm.
Also, the New World had cities: Tenochtitlan had approximately 200,000 people in the 1500s, which made it a bit larger than Paris, Constantinople, and other major European cities.
One of the truly sad stories about Neil Armstrong post moon-walk: Up until 1994, he was carefully fulfilling all the autograph requests and would spend a couple of hours a day signing his own name. The reason he stopped was because people were requesting autographs (which were basically free + postage) and then selling the signed item for big bucks.
Alright, but apart from better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, a freshwater system, public order and an automobile suspension... what have the Romans done for us?
riches accrue to those who best stimulate human ingenuity and productivity through peaceful trade and development
As nations, yes-ish. As individuals, no.
For example, if I have a great idea for a new technology, and somebody takes my idea and patents it before I do, then they get the riches and I don't, even though I had the ingenuity. Similarly, if I started out broke, and didn't have the funds to go through the process of patenting my idea, then I'm going to have to: - Sell it to somebody who does (and then they get most of the profit and rather than me) - Go to work for somebody who does (and then it's a work for hire and they get almost all the profit) - Take out a business loan (and then the bank gets a significant portion of the profit rather than me, and can steal my idea) - Try to start using the idea as a trade secret (and again, a bank or venture capitalist or something similar gets some of the profits), with a significant risk that somebody else will figure out the same idea, patent it, and then sue me into the ground and thus reap all the profits of the idea.
It's very profitable to take other people's stuff: That's why some people and organizations do just that whenever they think they can get away with it.
That doesn't invalidate my first point in any way whatsoever.
Pretend there is a country with 2 political parties, one called the Snoods and the other called the Whelks, who are being elected to fill a 435-seat Congress. In the last election, 50.3% of the public voted for Snoods, and 49.7% voted for Whelks. If the representation had matched the popular vote, that would have meant that there would be 219 Snoods and 216 Whelks. But in fact, thanks to gerrymandering, there are 201 Snoods and 234 Whelks, meaning that there's an 18-seat discrepancy between the voter's desires and who is actually seated in our Congress. And that makes Congress not representative, because it means that Congress will be trying to implement Whelk policy rather than Snood policy, even though the voters stated a slight preference for Snood policy.
And that argument holds true no matter whether "Snoods" actually means "Democrats" or "Republicans".
If the "torch-bearing mob" you're referring to was Occupy Wall Street, they didn't have any torches or pitchforks, they had signs and chants and meetings which clearly presented no physical threat to the banks. The New York police responded to them by: - pepper-spraying them for the heinous crime of walking down a sidewalk - beating them with batons - In one case, running a guy over with a motorcycle, arresting him for being in the way, and then denying medical treatment of his broken leg - Pushing them into the street and then arresting them for jaywalking - In policing a planned march over the Brooklyn bridge, waited until as many as possible were on the bridge, then blocked both exits and arresting everyone in between - Put an end to the protest by barging in at 3 AM to a public park, beating and kicking the sleeping people who didn't move fast enough, and destroying all the personal property that they could get their hands on - In the aftermath, some of the people known to have been protesting were fired from their jobs
So that's why people avoid protest movements in the US: If it has a chance of changing something, it will be violently suppressed. In one of the related protests in other cities, the police repeatedly pepper-sprayed an 82-year-old woman who hadn't gotten out of the way fast enough, and ended up killing an Iraq War veteran (probably accidentally, but still).
A perfect reflection of the people that voted for them.
Actually, it demonstrably isn't. Some reasons why: 1. Gerrymandering. For example, the party that got the most votes won't hold the most seats in Congress come the next term. 2. This is a lame duck session. So it's actually a reflection of the electorate from 2 years ago, not the current electorate. 3. The "money primary", where candidates must impress potential donors to even have a chance of impressing the electorate, ensures that proposals that might hurt large donors are never even considered.
There are many opinions widely held by the American public that are nowhere near actually getting through Congress. For instance, a majority of Americans would approve the federal legalization of marijuana, but such a proposal has never even come close to getting a floor vote in Congress.
Same tactics from the producers, but also same behavior from consumers who have to know if something is popular before adopting it. I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.
But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?
Actually, we have no idea how tilted the odds are against life. What we do know: - On the conditions that existed on Earth in its early history, forming organic compounds was more-or-less inevitable. - Life exists on Earth under really unusual conditions, like highly acidic underground lakes. - There's some evidence (but no conclusive proof) of there once having been microbes on Mars.
It's quite possible life is rare. It's also quite possible life is common. We simply have no way of knowing one way or the other right now.
Yes, this "fiscal cliff" is all misleading the public, and both sides play their parts.
I agree, it most definitely is. Because well over half of Americans think that going over the fiscal cliff will increase the deficit, when in fact the exact opposite will occur: Taxes go up, spending is cut, deficit problem mitigated significantly. If your goal is reducing the deficit, you should be rooting for them to not come to any kind of deal.
Now, there are some folks (mostly younger Republicans) who claim to be in favor of reducing the deficit, but are really after the complete elimination of pretty much all domestic agencies, particularly Social Security and Medicare, and don't give a damn about the deficit. How you can identify those people is that they include tax cuts in their "deficit reduction" plans. And in case you're wondering, the Laffer Curve argument that tax cuts increase revenue has been shown repeatedly to be incorrect up to about 70% tax rates.
The reason Turing was persecuted by the state, though, and the reason that a lot of people don't want to recognize him even now, is that he was privately homosexual. For many, that outweighs being key to defeating the Nazis, which is simply a shame.
This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.
Although, as this vote demonstrates, it's not evenly divided: The sane ones were 3 of the 47 Republicans, 19 of the 51 Democrats, and 1 of the 2 independents. 4 ducked their job responsibilities entirely. According to this vote, your best bet for sanity is electing an socialist-leaning independent, followed by a liberal Democrat, followed by a libertarian-leaning Republican. Centrist Democrats and conservative Republicans will happily vote to screw you over.
Why are you leaving the judiciary out of this? We have cases that come up before the court trying to stop this stuff, and the Solicitor General just says "state secrets privilege!" and the court says "Too bad citizens, we can't allow this case to continue, even if you might be right on the merits".
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
The "bipartisan consensus" viewpoint in Washington DC has these basic views: 1. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and DoD are completely trustworthy organizations that can be given complete control over the lives of US citizens. 2. Large corporations, especially big business, are the cornerstone of the American economy. To keep the economy going, do exactly what the CEOs of these corporations say to do. 3. Political protesters are either a totally pointless annoyance, or a Threat to America. 4. Taxes are penalties. 5. People in charge are in charge because they're better in every way than the people who aren't in charge.
Of course: The US has basically been at war since 1941. It's also officially been in a state of emergency since September 2001, because presidents can do things in a state of emergency that they otherwise can't.
Another good example of a government under continuous emergency: Egypt was officially in a state of emergency from 1967 through May of this year.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuzzy reasoning is also the hallmark of a non-thinker.
Approximately 29 people a day are killed by other people with guns in the US. Of those, 80% (according to an FBI study in 1998) are possibly illegally owned guns. Ergo, at least 20% of the weapons used are legally owned. So banning gun ownership by law abiding people could potentially save 6 lives a day, or 1800 lives a year.
Christopher Columbus lived in a time when sea travel was well-understood. He traveled a little longer than most others traveled, to an island where there was food and fresh water, and then back again. You could colonize the New World in those days because the New World, while not as developed was still BASICALLY THE SAME as the old world.... Aside from cities and better roads, it was THE SAME.
Actually, the only reason Christopher Columbus survived his journey was sheer luck: He had no reason whatsoever to think the Americas existed, and all the intelligentsia of his day knew that the journey he was proposing (sail west to Asia from Europe) was a fool's errand because the Earth was much larger than Columbus was claiming. If everything had gone as the smart guys had thought it was going to, he and his crew would have died of disease and starvation somewhere around 170W longitude.
Another major reason colonization worked was because there were people living there before the Europeans showed up. For example, without the Arawaks, Columbus and his crew would have had no clue which of the strange plants and animals he was encountering were safe to eat. The Jamestown and Plymouth colonies nearly died of starvation as well, because most of the new arrivals had no knowledge whatsoever of how to farm.
Also, the New World had cities: Tenochtitlan had approximately 200,000 people in the 1500s, which made it a bit larger than Paris, Constantinople, and other major European cities.
One of the truly sad stories about Neil Armstrong post moon-walk: Up until 1994, he was carefully fulfilling all the autograph requests and would spend a couple of hours a day signing his own name. The reason he stopped was because people were requesting autographs (which were basically free + postage) and then selling the signed item for big bucks.
We don't need a law, we just need to have wider adoption of RFC 3514, "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header".
They're just assuming that since so many Americans can't figure out imperial, there's no way the Chinese would have a chance!
Alright, but apart from better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, a freshwater system, public order and an automobile suspension... what have the Romans done for us?
For what it's worth, I'm neither a Democrat or Republican - I have no dog in that fight. In my view, the correct way to handle redistricting is something along the lines of shortest-splitline or University of Illinois' mathematical districts.
riches accrue to those who best stimulate human ingenuity and productivity through peaceful trade and development
As nations, yes-ish. As individuals, no.
For example, if I have a great idea for a new technology, and somebody takes my idea and patents it before I do, then they get the riches and I don't, even though I had the ingenuity. Similarly, if I started out broke, and didn't have the funds to go through the process of patenting my idea, then I'm going to have to:
- Sell it to somebody who does (and then they get most of the profit and rather than me)
- Go to work for somebody who does (and then it's a work for hire and they get almost all the profit)
- Take out a business loan (and then the bank gets a significant portion of the profit rather than me, and can steal my idea)
- Try to start using the idea as a trade secret (and again, a bank or venture capitalist or something similar gets some of the profits), with a significant risk that somebody else will figure out the same idea, patent it, and then sue me into the ground and thus reap all the profits of the idea.
It's very profitable to take other people's stuff: That's why some people and organizations do just that whenever they think they can get away with it.
I'm just basing that assertion on poll numbers like these: Public Policy Polling, Gallup.
That doesn't invalidate my first point in any way whatsoever.
Pretend there is a country with 2 political parties, one called the Snoods and the other called the Whelks, who are being elected to fill a 435-seat Congress. In the last election, 50.3% of the public voted for Snoods, and 49.7% voted for Whelks. If the representation had matched the popular vote, that would have meant that there would be 219 Snoods and 216 Whelks. But in fact, thanks to gerrymandering, there are 201 Snoods and 234 Whelks, meaning that there's an 18-seat discrepancy between the voter's desires and who is actually seated in our Congress. And that makes Congress not representative, because it means that Congress will be trying to implement Whelk policy rather than Snood policy, even though the voters stated a slight preference for Snood policy.
And that argument holds true no matter whether "Snoods" actually means "Democrats" or "Republicans".
If the "torch-bearing mob" you're referring to was Occupy Wall Street, they didn't have any torches or pitchforks, they had signs and chants and meetings which clearly presented no physical threat to the banks. The New York police responded to them by:
- pepper-spraying them for the heinous crime of walking down a sidewalk
- beating them with batons
- In one case, running a guy over with a motorcycle, arresting him for being in the way, and then denying medical treatment of his broken leg
- Pushing them into the street and then arresting them for jaywalking
- In policing a planned march over the Brooklyn bridge, waited until as many as possible were on the bridge, then blocked both exits and arresting everyone in between
- Put an end to the protest by barging in at 3 AM to a public park, beating and kicking the sleeping people who didn't move fast enough, and destroying all the personal property that they could get their hands on
- In the aftermath, some of the people known to have been protesting were fired from their jobs
So that's why people avoid protest movements in the US: If it has a chance of changing something, it will be violently suppressed. In one of the related protests in other cities, the police repeatedly pepper-sprayed an 82-year-old woman who hadn't gotten out of the way fast enough, and ended up killing an Iraq War veteran (probably accidentally, but still).
A perfect reflection of the people that voted for them.
Actually, it demonstrably isn't. Some reasons why:
1. Gerrymandering. For example, the party that got the most votes won't hold the most seats in Congress come the next term.
2. This is a lame duck session. So it's actually a reflection of the electorate from 2 years ago, not the current electorate.
3. The "money primary", where candidates must impress potential donors to even have a chance of impressing the electorate, ensures that proposals that might hurt large donors are never even considered.
There are many opinions widely held by the American public that are nowhere near actually getting through Congress. For instance, a majority of Americans would approve the federal legalization of marijuana, but such a proposal has never even come close to getting a floor vote in Congress.
Same tactics from the producers, but also same behavior from consumers who have to know if something is popular before adopting it.
I suggest not looking at counters when choosing stuff for yourself.
But millions of people look at what's popular when choosing what to buy, and they can't all be wrong, right?
But, before beginning their journey home, NASA received a report from the pair saying they had spotted a UFO.
And of course, the UFO conspiracy theorists have taken this report seriously ever since.
Actually, we have no idea how tilted the odds are against life. What we do know:
- On the conditions that existed on Earth in its early history, forming organic compounds was more-or-less inevitable.
- Life exists on Earth under really unusual conditions, like highly acidic underground lakes.
- There's some evidence (but no conclusive proof) of there once having been microbes on Mars.
It's quite possible life is rare. It's also quite possible life is common. We simply have no way of knowing one way or the other right now.
Yes, this "fiscal cliff" is all misleading the public, and both sides play their parts.
I agree, it most definitely is. Because well over half of Americans think that going over the fiscal cliff will increase the deficit, when in fact the exact opposite will occur: Taxes go up, spending is cut, deficit problem mitigated significantly. If your goal is reducing the deficit, you should be rooting for them to not come to any kind of deal.
Now, there are some folks (mostly younger Republicans) who claim to be in favor of reducing the deficit, but are really after the complete elimination of pretty much all domestic agencies, particularly Social Security and Medicare, and don't give a damn about the deficit. How you can identify those people is that they include tax cuts in their "deficit reduction" plans. And in case you're wondering, the Laffer Curve argument that tax cuts increase revenue has been shown repeatedly to be incorrect up to about 70% tax rates.
The reason Turing was persecuted by the state, though, and the reason that a lot of people don't want to recognize him even now, is that he was privately homosexual. For many, that outweighs being key to defeating the Nazis, which is simply a shame.
Because you're misreading the first line: That's not the convention date, that's a reference to a similar convention 8 years earlier.
Actually, Egypt's state of emergency ended in May, several months after Mubarak had been kicked out.
This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.
Although, as this vote demonstrates, it's not evenly divided: The sane ones were 3 of the 47 Republicans, 19 of the 51 Democrats, and 1 of the 2 independents. 4 ducked their job responsibilities entirely. According to this vote, your best bet for sanity is electing an socialist-leaning independent, followed by a liberal Democrat, followed by a libertarian-leaning Republican. Centrist Democrats and conservative Republicans will happily vote to screw you over.
Why are you leaving the judiciary out of this? We have cases that come up before the court trying to stop this stuff, and the Solicitor General just says "state secrets privilege!" and the court says "Too bad citizens, we can't allow this case to continue, even if you might be right on the merits".
(Morrill Tariff caused the US Civil War)
No it didn't. Slavery and the fear that Abraham Lincoln would put an end to it caused the US Civil War. Don't believe me, believe the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union which was passed by the South Carolina convention days after they voted to secede:
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
The "bipartisan consensus" viewpoint in Washington DC has these basic views:
1. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and DoD are completely trustworthy organizations that can be given complete control over the lives of US citizens.
2. Large corporations, especially big business, are the cornerstone of the American economy. To keep the economy going, do exactly what the CEOs of these corporations say to do.
3. Political protesters are either a totally pointless annoyance, or a Threat to America.
4. Taxes are penalties.
5. People in charge are in charge because they're better in every way than the people who aren't in charge.
Of course: The US has basically been at war since 1941. It's also officially been in a state of emergency since September 2001, because presidents can do things in a state of emergency that they otherwise can't.
Another good example of a government under continuous emergency: Egypt was officially in a state of emergency from 1967 through May of this year.
I'm thinking it through, but my argument is all about how voting with your dollars is necessary but not sufficient to change how an industry behaves.