It's not a fallacy, if it's true. And you should be saying "More-Logical" instead since no one is claiming that knowledge of math somehow magically makes your quirks, psychoses, and personal relationships smooth out.
Most people wouldn't think to do that. And how many paint ads will you suffer through before you find software that gives a good enough answer for you?
So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel?
Ok, let's see. Israel has an air force. It has a navy. It has an army. The thing here is that those divisions, which supposedly aren't in the Israeli military, are there.
Basically, every military groups its forces by role, region, and mission/purpose, the US just as much as the rest. Relative weight of the groupings can vary as indicated in the post above, but I don't see a lot of significance in that.
So, what's the point of the amateur pop psychology? In this case, we have a joke and laughing. While I'm sure psychologically, that says something rather obvious about Romney, I also find I'm out of give a shit.
And the sad thing is that it apprently works on people.
What's "sad" about that? Laughter is not only a way for a stressed person to relax and compose themselves, it also is a lot more appealing to watch than squirming. What you are saying (whether you realize it or not) is that Romney has turned a human weakness into something of an asset. Imagine that. I would reward such effort with respect rather than obsess over small flaws.
I agree with this. There's an interest excerpt from the constitution for the state of Massachusetts:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
This is precisely what the action of the US military preempts. This is far from the first such abuse, but it should be resisted. Why should a citizen of a peaceful ally, conducting his business legally, even though it be to the disadvantage of the US or the US military, be classified as a "enemy", especially, when it is not within the authority of the US military to make such a designation?
Listen, the only people that see this as a problem had every intention of voting for Obama regardless of anything.
Even if we grant your unfounded opinion, there is a huge difference between intention and action. Obama's biggest problem will be that the people who prefer him to Romney are more likely to sit out the election than vote. Even a baseless scare story can motivate them to go to the booth.
Also, it'll waste a little of Romney's time and set back his message a bit. One time isn't going to do much. But having to spend a considerable portion of your time defusing dumb scare stories can set you back.
And frankly, I think even in the sense you were referring to, dumb scare stories will stick to a fence-sitter.
It's not the most effective of propaganda, but given that it is free, it's definitely worth the cost.
What can be more valuable than a well trained workforce?
A free society. The end of aging and disease. A culture of thinking.
Incompetence? He came into office with the country in shambles, in worse shape than I've seen it in my six decades of living.
Are you trying to claim that there's an excuse somewhere in that sentence for why Obama is incompetent? Competence isn't a measure of how unfair your life is. It's what you do with what you have.
Bush's business experience sure didn't help the company (he was an MBA as well). He inhereted a balanced budget and left office with the highest defecit the nation had ever seen. He went into office during a boom, left with the country near economic depression. And you think Romney, with the same kind of background, would be any better?
Yes, remember this?
So there's another advantage of business experience not for the prospective candidates, but for us, who have to evaluate them.
One merely needs to look at G. W. Bush's business record to see that he didn't do well in business despite large opportunities. Romney just hasn't had that problem. That's a large part of why I have never voted for Bush (Nader 2000, Badnarik 2004).
Similarly, it looks like he treated the people that worked for him generously.
Then why did he famously say "I like firing people"?
Those employees didn't work for him. They worked for the failing companies that Bain Capital took over.
Anyway, by definition you can't really prove somebody was guilty of being "a militant" (whatever that means) without safeguards like evidence, a trial and so on, otherwise you really have no idea if they were or weren't.
Then we're at an impasse since there's no way to collect evidence to the standard of a court trial. First, they are in a foreign country, Pakistan which won't cooperate with the US on the gathering of evidence. Second, whose lives are you going to endanger to collect this evidence and who will die while foes continue to kill during this process? Third, what crime is actually happening by which one could be tried in a court?
As I see it, there are two rival interpretations. First, that the laws of war heavily and unfairly favor established, large military powers like the US. Second, that the Taliban and other "militants" are illegally conducting war and hence, shouldn't have protection, much less some completely unrealistic and unworkable court standard.
Except for the whole burning up in the atmosphere part. Orbital velocity can be a PITA.
You might recall that the skydiver is allowed to bring a parachute so they don't have to die during each jump they make. The orbital equivalent would be something man-portable, perhaps a combination of heat shield ("thermal protection system") and parachute (something to slow you down without killing you). It's a tough engineering problem not an inevitable trip to the afterlife.
The agency gives you a rating depending on your track record of paying off previous debts.
The rating is a personal detail. It is disingenuous to compare Australian government warrantless searches to private US credit ratings even if Australian credit rating agencies release somewhat less information about you.
Technically, when a car dealer checks my credit file when I apply for finance, they are performing a warrentless check of private data... despite the fact I've given them permission.
Last I checked, a car dealer was a private entity. In the US (which I gather is where you reside), the rules for private entities is vastly different from that of public ones. But even if the car dealer was somehow a law enforcement agency, one doesn't need a warrant when the subject consents to the search. I doubt either would be considered a warrentless search.
A hell of a lot of those checks will be done by the ATO (Australian Tax Office) as investigations against tax cheats. Your bank records are protected by law.
Not all that protected in Australia, if your assertion is correct.
In Ohio, most new generation capacity are natural-gas turbines for peak generation only. I doubt that they are more efficient and certainly not less expensive per kWh than a coal-fired plant running 24/7.
And they don't use them for 24/7 power either. So I guess the owners of those plants agree with you. There's two things to note here. First, those plants are more efficient for what they do. Second, it's worth noting that the same regulatory trends which led to the banning of incandescents also has led to drops in coal power. So there's a bad sort of synergy going on here.
with your logic than it is fine to make suicide bomb which kill 10 people with only 1 US military as a victim. that is 10%.
It's 0% unless that victim just happens to be a "top leader". But if you blew up fifty people, including the President of the US, well, that's pretty effective as such things go.
You have to look at the bigger picture. Energy efficiency improvements postpone new, more efficient, cheaper generating plants which costs real money on your electric bill.
FIFY. There are strategies by which you can save money through using less electricity. But it doesn't make sense to use less electricity at cost to yourself so that you can pay more down the road for that electricity.
'only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.'
Most wars would stop fast, if 2% of casualties from the war were top leaders. It says something impressive both about the targeting ability of the US military and the resilience of the "militants" being targeted.
But to answer your question, "He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation,[29] then at the New York Public Interest Research Group" in 1981.
Let's give three examples. First, it was illegal until 1984 for private companies to launch paying payloads on their own rockets on their own dime. NASA could have encouraged commercial space launch since the 60s. But instead it kept that from happening until things got opened up under Reagan.
Second, E'Prime Aerospace in the 1990s was trying to launch refurbished Peacekeeper missiles. US Congress sold them down the river to the Russians, banning the use of the Peacekeeper for civilian uses in a nuclear treaty (while bizarrely still allowing the use of the Peacekeepers for military uses, hence, why now Orbital Sciences is allowed to use Peacekeepers (renamed the Minotaur IV for DoD payloads). NASA didn't directly sabotage E'Prime, but it never lifted a finger to help them either. And frankly, strong support from NASA would have made the difference.
Finally, there was the oligopoly of private spaceflight in the US from the mid 1980s through to the late 1990s. For that period of time, there was no genuine competition in US launch vehicles. Orbital
Sciences got small payloads. Delta II (under Boeing) larger loads. Then Atlas IV and Titan IV had heavy loads (in civilian and military payloads respectively and owned or operated by Lockheed Martin). Every service provider had their own unique niche, all enforced by NASA.
This ended when the DoD broke the oligopoly up by creating the Evolutionary Expendable Launch Vehicle program which had Boeing competing directly against Lockheed Martin for heavy lift vehicles. While SpaceX may not become a decisive factor in spaceflight, its activities have shook things up.
These are three concrete ways NASA hindered private spaceflight.
How does working for a business enhanse one's capability to work in government?
First of all, one has to justify one's work on the basis of value produced. In contrast, your example of "community organizing" just mentioned a few processes ("helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization") with no curiosity about how well those processes did. Since you ask, it's worth noting that you haven't established that Obama has ever had a job helping people. He's had a job that gave the appearance of helping people and enabled him eventually to become US President, but that doesn't sound as caring and selfless when it's put that way.
Romney's history with Bain Capital shows that he was very good for Bain Capital and made them a lot of money. So there's one group right there helped - the investors that Romney was working for. Similarly, it looks like he treated the people that worked for him generously.
The businesses that Bain Capital took over might not feel the love, but when they're at that stage of near bankruptcy, there usually won't be a happy ending for everyone no matter what happens.
This brings us to the second advantage of business. A variety of work experiences that are useful to a president. Here, Romney managed a large staff, made frequent and often ruthless decisions, and dwelt for a time under stress and pressure. That's all useful experience for his later job as governor of Massachusetts and his attempt at the US Presidency.
It's worth noting here that we have a window into Romney's behavior and motives that isn't as well defined with Obama. But what I can say is that the few contracts and deals that Obama has been involved in are remarkably self-serving such as generous real estate and book deals, or comfortable academic positions. And Obama despite that modest history of dealings, has several occasions where he's broken a contract or verbal promises.
Romney has a history not only of honoring his business contracts, but of going well out of his way to help his employees with their problems.
So there's another advantage of business experience not for the prospective candidates, but for us, who have to evaluate them.
Ultimately, when we compare Obama and Romney, we see that Obama's work experience might have familiarized him with some of the political issues of the day, it has done nothing to help prepare him for running a government. This is reflected in the general incompetence of his administration.
Romney's experience is directly applicable to running any large organization of people.
Blogs can indeed be notorious for the egos and bizarre behavior of their owners. I've been on the wrong side of that before.
As to voting for Putin, his tenure in the KGB (and the relatively high rank he had when he left) makes him damaged goods as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't vote for him just on that basis alone.
I admit that that background might make great training for dealing with oligarchs and crime lords, but anyone who thrives on such a soul-killing job probably shouldn't be anywhere near a position of genuine power. Oh well, the genie is out of that bottle and isn't going to be stuffed back in.
This process is not at all "inefficient". It is slow, and deliberately so. Nobody involved would want it any faster. If anything, people would probably feel better if it was even slower.
Here's an example of how it's inefficient. Has the NSA already compromised whatever will end up being the SHA-3 selection? Keep in mind that if a government agency builds a hashing algorithm with a hidden flaw (here, being inefficient is not the same as being unable to do something) before the contest starts, then it's a relatively simple matter to bias the contest to select that algorithm (unless the flaw is so obvious that it is caught during the contest). The NIST after all serves the same boss as the US Intelligence community. The selection process so far doesn't tell us whether such a flaw exists or not, but merely that it would be difficult to find.
Such conflicts of interest are a common cause of inefficiency in government activities. My view is that a healthier and of course, more efficient approach would be to select a few final contenders and then put out a large prize, say on the order of tens of millions of dollars to break the algorithms. The contest then becomes a lot more objective and if there is an NSA exploit hidden in there, there's now some incentive for certain people to ferret it out.
College should prepare them for future employment.
Wrong. That's the job of a vocational school.
In theory, college is a vocational school with a considerable degree of education and some sort of certification process. In practice, the education side can be anything from a relatively pure, solid education to amateur level indoctrination, and the vocational side can range from world-changing to useless. As I see it, speaking only of the educational aspects of college might mean that you didn't pick up enough of them while you were in college.
Slashdot Mirror
always uses the Math-Makes-you-Logical fallacy.
It's not a fallacy, if it's true. And you should be saying "More-Logical" instead since no one is claiming that knowledge of math somehow magically makes your quirks, psychoses, and personal relationships smooth out.
most people would probably just prefer to google
Most people wouldn't think to do that. And how many paint ads will you suffer through before you find software that gives a good enough answer for you?
If your customers don't use SI prefixes (for example, car buyers in the US), then that right there is a "more correct" reason.
It would make for a more interesting election though.
So why not just get rid of all these different services, and have a unified service, like Israel?
Ok, let's see. Israel has an air force. It has a navy. It has an army. The thing here is that those divisions, which supposedly aren't in the Israeli military, are there.
Basically, every military groups its forces by role, region, and mission/purpose, the US just as much as the rest. Relative weight of the groupings can vary as indicated in the post above, but I don't see a lot of significance in that.
And the sad thing is that it apprently works on people.
What's "sad" about that? Laughter is not only a way for a stressed person to relax and compose themselves, it also is a lot more appealing to watch than squirming. What you are saying (whether you realize it or not) is that Romney has turned a human weakness into something of an asset. Imagine that. I would reward such effort with respect rather than obsess over small flaws.
They're making it up as they go along.
I agree with this. There's an interest excerpt from the constitution for the state of Massachusetts:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
This is precisely what the action of the US military preempts. This is far from the first such abuse, but it should be resisted. Why should a citizen of a peaceful ally, conducting his business legally, even though it be to the disadvantage of the US or the US military, be classified as a "enemy", especially, when it is not within the authority of the US military to make such a designation?
Listen, the only people that see this as a problem had every intention of voting for Obama regardless of anything.
Even if we grant your unfounded opinion, there is a huge difference between intention and action. Obama's biggest problem will be that the people who prefer him to Romney are more likely to sit out the election than vote. Even a baseless scare story can motivate them to go to the booth.
Also, it'll waste a little of Romney's time and set back his message a bit. One time isn't going to do much. But having to spend a considerable portion of your time defusing dumb scare stories can set you back.
And frankly, I think even in the sense you were referring to, dumb scare stories will stick to a fence-sitter.
It's not the most effective of propaganda, but given that it is free, it's definitely worth the cost.
What can be more valuable than a well trained workforce?
A free society. The end of aging and disease. A culture of thinking.
Incompetence? He came into office with the country in shambles, in worse shape than I've seen it in my six decades of living.
Are you trying to claim that there's an excuse somewhere in that sentence for why Obama is incompetent? Competence isn't a measure of how unfair your life is. It's what you do with what you have.
Bush's business experience sure didn't help the company (he was an MBA as well). He inhereted a balanced budget and left office with the highest defecit the nation had ever seen. He went into office during a boom, left with the country near economic depression. And you think Romney, with the same kind of background, would be any better?
Yes, remember this?
So there's another advantage of business experience not for the prospective candidates, but for us, who have to evaluate them.
One merely needs to look at G. W. Bush's business record to see that he didn't do well in business despite large opportunities. Romney just hasn't had that problem. That's a large part of why I have never voted for Bush (Nader 2000, Badnarik 2004).
Similarly, it looks like he treated the people that worked for him generously.
Then why did he famously say "I like firing people"?
Those employees didn't work for him. They worked for the failing companies that Bain Capital took over.
Anyway, by definition you can't really prove somebody was guilty of being "a militant" (whatever that means) without safeguards like evidence, a trial and so on, otherwise you really have no idea if they were or weren't.
Then we're at an impasse since there's no way to collect evidence to the standard of a court trial. First, they are in a foreign country, Pakistan which won't cooperate with the US on the gathering of evidence. Second, whose lives are you going to endanger to collect this evidence and who will die while foes continue to kill during this process? Third, what crime is actually happening by which one could be tried in a court?
As I see it, there are two rival interpretations. First, that the laws of war heavily and unfairly favor established, large military powers like the US. Second, that the Taliban and other "militants" are illegally conducting war and hence, shouldn't have protection, much less some completely unrealistic and unworkable court standard.
Except for the whole burning up in the atmosphere part. Orbital velocity can be a PITA.
You might recall that the skydiver is allowed to bring a parachute so they don't have to die during each jump they make. The orbital equivalent would be something man-portable, perhaps a combination of heat shield ("thermal protection system") and parachute (something to slow you down without killing you). It's a tough engineering problem not an inevitable trip to the afterlife.
The agency gives you a rating depending on your track record of paying off previous debts.
The rating is a personal detail. It is disingenuous to compare Australian government warrantless searches to private US credit ratings even if Australian credit rating agencies release somewhat less information about you.
Technically, when a car dealer checks my credit file when I apply for finance, they are performing a warrentless check of private data... despite the fact I've given them permission.
Last I checked, a car dealer was a private entity. In the US (which I gather is where you reside), the rules for private entities is vastly different from that of public ones. But even if the car dealer was somehow a law enforcement agency, one doesn't need a warrant when the subject consents to the search. I doubt either would be considered a warrentless search.
A hell of a lot of those checks will be done by the ATO (Australian Tax Office) as investigations against tax cheats. Your bank records are protected by law.
Not all that protected in Australia, if your assertion is correct.
Gee, you think? Why not say something like:
"guns, bullets unpopular with shooting victims and their relatives."
Because that wasn't what I wished to say.
In Ohio, most new generation capacity are natural-gas turbines for peak generation only. I doubt that they are more efficient and certainly not less expensive per kWh than a coal-fired plant running 24/7.
And they don't use them for 24/7 power either. So I guess the owners of those plants agree with you. There's two things to note here. First, those plants are more efficient for what they do. Second, it's worth noting that the same regulatory trends which led to the banning of incandescents also has led to drops in coal power. So there's a bad sort of synergy going on here.
with your logic than it is fine to make suicide bomb which kill 10 people with only 1 US military as a victim. that is 10%.
It's 0% unless that victim just happens to be a "top leader". But if you blew up fifty people, including the President of the US, well, that's pretty effective as such things go.
You have to look at the bigger picture. Energy efficiency improvements postpone new, more efficient, cheaper generating plants which costs real money on your electric bill.
FIFY. There are strategies by which you can save money through using less electricity. But it doesn't make sense to use less electricity at cost to yourself so that you can pay more down the road for that electricity.
'only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.'
Most wars would stop fast, if 2% of casualties from the war were top leaders. It says something impressive both about the targeting ability of the US military and the resilience of the "militants" being targeted.
There's no reason for the one way trip from the ISS being as final as the one way trip to Mars.
But to answer your question, "He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation,[29] then at the New York Public Interest Research Group" in 1981.
Once, thirty years ago. My point precisely.
Let's give three examples. First, it was illegal until 1984 for private companies to launch paying payloads on their own rockets on their own dime. NASA could have encouraged commercial space launch since the 60s. But instead it kept that from happening until things got opened up under Reagan.
Second, E'Prime Aerospace in the 1990s was trying to launch refurbished Peacekeeper missiles. US Congress sold them down the river to the Russians, banning the use of the Peacekeeper for civilian uses in a nuclear treaty (while bizarrely still allowing the use of the Peacekeepers for military uses, hence, why now Orbital Sciences is allowed to use Peacekeepers (renamed the Minotaur IV for DoD payloads). NASA didn't directly sabotage E'Prime, but it never lifted a finger to help them either. And frankly, strong support from NASA would have made the difference.
Finally, there was the oligopoly of private spaceflight in the US from the mid 1980s through to the late 1990s. For that period of time, there was no genuine competition in US launch vehicles. Orbital Sciences got small payloads. Delta II (under Boeing) larger loads. Then Atlas IV and Titan IV had heavy loads (in civilian and military payloads respectively and owned or operated by Lockheed Martin). Every service provider had their own unique niche, all enforced by NASA.
This ended when the DoD broke the oligopoly up by creating the Evolutionary Expendable Launch Vehicle program which had Boeing competing directly against Lockheed Martin for heavy lift vehicles. While SpaceX may not become a decisive factor in spaceflight, its activities have shook things up.
These are three concrete ways NASA hindered private spaceflight.
How does working for a business enhanse one's capability to work in government?
First of all, one has to justify one's work on the basis of value produced. In contrast, your example of "community organizing" just mentioned a few processes ("helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization") with no curiosity about how well those processes did. Since you ask, it's worth noting that you haven't established that Obama has ever had a job helping people. He's had a job that gave the appearance of helping people and enabled him eventually to become US President, but that doesn't sound as caring and selfless when it's put that way.
Romney's history with Bain Capital shows that he was very good for Bain Capital and made them a lot of money. So there's one group right there helped - the investors that Romney was working for. Similarly, it looks like he treated the people that worked for him generously.
The businesses that Bain Capital took over might not feel the love, but when they're at that stage of near bankruptcy, there usually won't be a happy ending for everyone no matter what happens.
This brings us to the second advantage of business. A variety of work experiences that are useful to a president. Here, Romney managed a large staff, made frequent and often ruthless decisions, and dwelt for a time under stress and pressure. That's all useful experience for his later job as governor of Massachusetts and his attempt at the US Presidency.
It's worth noting here that we have a window into Romney's behavior and motives that isn't as well defined with Obama. But what I can say is that the few contracts and deals that Obama has been involved in are remarkably self-serving such as generous real estate and book deals, or comfortable academic positions. And Obama despite that modest history of dealings, has several occasions where he's broken a contract or verbal promises.
Romney has a history not only of honoring his business contracts, but of going well out of his way to help his employees with their problems.
So there's another advantage of business experience not for the prospective candidates, but for us, who have to evaluate them.
Ultimately, when we compare Obama and Romney, we see that Obama's work experience might have familiarized him with some of the political issues of the day, it has done nothing to help prepare him for running a government. This is reflected in the general incompetence of his administration.
Romney's experience is directly applicable to running any large organization of people.
Blogs can indeed be notorious for the egos and bizarre behavior of their owners. I've been on the wrong side of that before.
As to voting for Putin, his tenure in the KGB (and the relatively high rank he had when he left) makes him damaged goods as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't vote for him just on that basis alone.
I admit that that background might make great training for dealing with oligarchs and crime lords, but anyone who thrives on such a soul-killing job probably shouldn't be anywhere near a position of genuine power. Oh well, the genie is out of that bottle and isn't going to be stuffed back in.
This process is not at all "inefficient". It is slow, and deliberately so. Nobody involved would want it any faster. If anything, people would probably feel better if it was even slower.
Here's an example of how it's inefficient. Has the NSA already compromised whatever will end up being the SHA-3 selection? Keep in mind that if a government agency builds a hashing algorithm with a hidden flaw (here, being inefficient is not the same as being unable to do something) before the contest starts, then it's a relatively simple matter to bias the contest to select that algorithm (unless the flaw is so obvious that it is caught during the contest). The NIST after all serves the same boss as the US Intelligence community. The selection process so far doesn't tell us whether such a flaw exists or not, but merely that it would be difficult to find.
Such conflicts of interest are a common cause of inefficiency in government activities. My view is that a healthier and of course, more efficient approach would be to select a few final contenders and then put out a large prize, say on the order of tens of millions of dollars to break the algorithms. The contest then becomes a lot more objective and if there is an NSA exploit hidden in there, there's now some incentive for certain people to ferret it out.
College should prepare them for future employment.
Wrong. That's the job of a vocational school.
In theory, college is a vocational school with a considerable degree of education and some sort of certification process. In practice, the education side can be anything from a relatively pure, solid education to amateur level indoctrination, and the vocational side can range from world-changing to useless. As I see it, speaking only of the educational aspects of college might mean that you didn't pick up enough of them while you were in college.