Natural variation averages out over long timeframes.
Unless they don't. That's the problem with making assertions that can be false. Here, variations or in other words, error, can accumulate rather than average out.
Two years is not long enough to determine long term driver behavior once they learn the trick. Plus, we have other evidence that indicates the study is not the last word on the subject.
The Laweiplein Shared Space "squareabout" in the small town of Drachten, highlighted in red, has been the subject of much hype. Many claims are made for a low accident rate here but the evidence does not support this. In fact, this one intersection was the scene of more cyclist crashes and injuries than the conventional Dutch roundabout a few metres to the east. It causes more injuries to cyclists than all twenty-one roundabouts in Assen combined and is the second most dangerous location in Drachten for cyclists.
Blue flags for crashes, yellow where injuries have occurred.
[...]
Many sources, Wikipedia included, include a claim that "yearly accidents were reduced to 1" in the centre of Drachten due to the introduction of Shared Space. This claim does not stand up to much investigation. Even the Laweiplein on its own has double the claimed accident rate for the entire city centre, and that's just one junction. Look at the rest of the city centre, part of which is shown right, and you see many more. The claim of there being just one accident per year simple does not stand up to any analysis at all.
Japan has been xenophobic from the start, they are much farther along in demographic decline, they are doing fine.
Only if by "doing fine" we ignore Japan's massive debts. They have a higher public debt per GDP than anyone else, including such outstanding examples as Zimbabwe or Greece.
More like instead of a powerful government, a powerful ruling class which they fantasize will be them. Unluckily history has shown that there is always a power hungry asshole ready to step into any power vacuum.
Government is not the only source of power. If the public steps up, then there isn't such a vacuum for someone to occupy.
Some Libertarians seem to just want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny or at least tyranny of the rich (them). The famous quote is something like "wanting just enough government to protect them from their slaves"
Yes, I too am deeply concerned about these imaginary libertarians and their imaginary corporate tyranny agenda. My view on this is first, show that it's a problem worth of that level of concern, then we have something to talk about. Currently, I see it as an overblown problem like drugs or terrorism meant more to scare the public into approving certain shifty activities. There's something of an issue there, but it's not serious enough to justify the hype.
if they're disagreeing with you because your championing the right to discriminate and deny freedom to others because of your religion, or think anarchy and might makes right is the best way to go, then you have no case to begin with.
If you had thought about it, you wouldn't have posted that. First, they don't have to post as a well regimented bloc in order to have political relevance. Second, even if they did, it doesn't mean that they aren't free.
This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians.
And that gives them the power to do what again? No matter how much you play on divisions like that, you can't implement blatantly authoritarian schemes. Politics isn't rock climbing here where barely perceptible flaws in the surface allow you to climb arbitrary distances.
Because Trump would push the big red button and not even think twice about it.
Again I see no evidence to support this bullshit. It's one thing to have legitimate concerns about the sanity of a candidate and another to just make up shit.
One such mass shooting (remember by the Australian definition it has to kill more than five people other than the shooter!) since the beginning of the year. It's not a DAILY event.
Ok, I count nine mass killings since 1996, including four involving firearms. So even the starting assertion that mass killings have stopped in Australia is wrong.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this country, not "innocent until public opinion thinks otherwise".
Absolutely not. The whole point of elections is precisely so that the public can do that very sort of thing and judge politicians any way they choose. And it's worth noting here that no indictment of Clinton will move forward unless the US President chooses to allow it to move forward.
Finally, I think Clinton has once again been proven guilty. There is yet again a remarkable disinterest in her so far successful attempts to evade the laws concerning classified information and FOIA requests.
I consider the matter settled. She has committed multiple felonies even if the Obama administration chooses not to indict and convict her for those crimes. We have for example her email instructing an aide to break the law.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if society and the Government (see DOJ, and Congress) doesn't choose to pursue the necessary action required to bring Clinton to the guilty verdict that is purportedly true, expect to be disappointed that the standards of reality that you wish existed, don't.
Here's the problem, buttercup. If Clinton can break these important rules with impunity, then what else will she or her allies break?
If you feel anything more than a slight annoyance by this fact, you just might be the one who has a problem.
Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.
Ok, let's look at your argument.
On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.
In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.
It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.
And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests. I believe that is a felony as well.
So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.
Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.
The original statement was about when the best opportunity is to curb US government power. Opportunity doesn't have to mean it will actually happen. Trump has the opportunity to become the next president. Doesn't mean he will.
You might have noticed way back when that I used the word "IF".
Note that even if China imposes something on the US, technically the US government's power would get curbed. Before, the US government doesn't have to answer to China. Afterwards, they would have to.
"Technically" is not good enough unless China's government also gets curbed in power. You're not thinking this through at all.
Even if we grant your point, it's kind of orthogonal to mine, which is that putting a miscreant in power, so as to build support for a reduction of the power of the office that the miscreant holds, is a dangerous plan.
Now, you're missing the biggest difference of all. Hitler was chosen so as to destroy the Wiemar Republic. Many of the democratic institutions and checks on power had been destroyed or undermined ever since the Treaty of Versailles (such as the German military immediately finding ways to circumvent the military constraints of the treaty). For example, Hitler wasn't involved in the dissolution of the Free State of Prussia (aside from his SA being involved in street fighting with the Communists that was used as a pretext for the maneuver).
The current US environment isn't even remotely close. Hence, my opinion on what would happen if Trump were to become president.
Another important exception is that Trump hasn't done anything worthy of comparison to Hitler. For example, "Art of the Deal" is no "Mein Kampf". When Trump isn't running for president, he's managing a huge real estate empire. When Hitler wasn't running for Chancellor of the Wiemar Republic, he was starting fights in bars. Without the politics, Trump still is a contributing member of society and has a stake in that society continuing to function. Hitler was, as many other utopian types, willing to burn everything down because he was a heavily marginalized part of society.
I'm not claiming that Trump will be good for the US, but please get a grip.
I'm saying the best time is after they increased their power, the US needs to be firmly slapped down and lose, as spectacularly as possible. Then the people will realize their folly of putting their faith in the state.
Sorry, doing so after a major loss is not the best time, especially if as a result the US gets something imposed by China.
We've past Godwin a few posts up already, so let's go back to the Nazis: they weren't curbed by reform from within. They needed a stern ass kicking.
We got a nice government, West Germany. But we also had a nasty government, East Germany. The problem with your assertion here is the assumption that defeat will result in a more democratic government. My view is that it will result in a government more compatible with the victor, as West Germany was with First World democracies and East Germany was with Second World Communist societies.
If China happens to favor a democratic government at the time, then fine, it works out. But they aren't that society now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the business's job to prepare for outages not the customer's job.
Natural variation averages out over long timeframes.
Unless they don't. That's the problem with making assertions that can be false. Here, variations or in other words, error, can accumulate rather than average out.
The Laweiplein Shared Space "squareabout" in the small town of Drachten, highlighted in red, has been the subject of much hype. Many claims are made for a low accident rate here but the evidence does not support this. In fact, this one intersection was the scene of more cyclist crashes and injuries than the conventional Dutch roundabout a few metres to the east. It causes more injuries to cyclists than all twenty-one roundabouts in Assen combined and is the second most dangerous location in Drachten for cyclists. Blue flags for crashes, yellow where injuries have occurred.
[...]
Many sources, Wikipedia included, include a claim that "yearly accidents were reduced to 1" in the centre of Drachten due to the introduction of Shared Space. This claim does not stand up to much investigation. Even the Laweiplein on its own has double the claimed accident rate for the entire city centre, and that's just one junction. Look at the rest of the city centre, part of which is shown right, and you see many more. The claim of there being just one accident per year simple does not stand up to any analysis at all.
Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take.
That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.
Japan has been xenophobic from the start, they are much farther along in demographic decline, they are doing fine.
Only if by "doing fine" we ignore Japan's massive debts. They have a higher public debt per GDP than anyone else, including such outstanding examples as Zimbabwe or Greece.
More like instead of a powerful government, a powerful ruling class which they fantasize will be them. Unluckily history has shown that there is always a power hungry asshole ready to step into any power vacuum.
Government is not the only source of power. If the public steps up, then there isn't such a vacuum for someone to occupy.
Some Libertarians seem to just want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny or at least tyranny of the rich (them). The famous quote is something like "wanting just enough government to protect them from their slaves"
Yes, I too am deeply concerned about these imaginary libertarians and their imaginary corporate tyranny agenda. My view on this is first, show that it's a problem worth of that level of concern, then we have something to talk about. Currently, I see it as an overblown problem like drugs or terrorism meant more to scare the public into approving certain shifty activities. There's something of an issue there, but it's not serious enough to justify the hype.
You are asking the grandparent post to provide an example of a negative.
That is a reasonable thing to request since the post in question implied that such examples existed.
if they're disagreeing with you because your championing the right to discriminate and deny freedom to others because of your religion, or think anarchy and might makes right is the best way to go, then you have no case to begin with.
"IF".
If you had thought about it, you wouldn't have posted that. First, they don't have to post as a well regimented bloc in order to have political relevance. Second, even if they did, it doesn't mean that they aren't free.
This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians.
And that gives them the power to do what again? No matter how much you play on divisions like that, you can't implement blatantly authoritarian schemes. Politics isn't rock climbing here where barely perceptible flaws in the surface allow you to climb arbitrary distances.
Because Trump would push the big red button and not even think twice about it.
Again I see no evidence to support this bullshit. It's one thing to have legitimate concerns about the sanity of a candidate and another to just make up shit.
It's a DAILY event in America
One such mass shooting (remember by the Australian definition it has to kill more than five people other than the shooter!) since the beginning of the year. It's not a DAILY event.
Ok, I count nine mass killings since 1996, including four involving firearms. So even the starting assertion that mass killings have stopped in Australia is wrong.
Bring it. It's a waste of your time, but I'm willing to show you why once you've gone through the effort.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this country, not "innocent until public opinion thinks otherwise".
Absolutely not. The whole point of elections is precisely so that the public can do that very sort of thing and judge politicians any way they choose. And it's worth noting here that no indictment of Clinton will move forward unless the US President chooses to allow it to move forward.
Finally, I think Clinton has once again been proven guilty. There is yet again a remarkable disinterest in her so far successful attempts to evade the laws concerning classified information and FOIA requests.
If you can't prove she committed a crime
I consider the matter settled. She has committed multiple felonies even if the Obama administration chooses not to indict and convict her for those crimes. We have for example her email instructing an aide to break the law.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if society and the Government (see DOJ, and Congress) doesn't choose to pursue the necessary action required to bring Clinton to the guilty verdict that is purportedly true, expect to be disappointed that the standards of reality that you wish existed, don't.
Here's the problem, buttercup. If Clinton can break these important rules with impunity, then what else will she or her allies break?
If you feel anything more than a slight annoyance by this fact, you just might be the one who has a problem.
Being jaded is not a virtue.
Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.
Ok, let's look at your argument.
On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.
In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.
It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.
And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests. I believe that is a felony as well.
So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.
Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.
because he is batshit fucking insane.
Really? Even if we were to believe that, what makes him any crazier than Clinton?
The original statement was about when the best opportunity is to curb US government power. Opportunity doesn't have to mean it will actually happen. Trump has the opportunity to become the next president. Doesn't mean he will.
You might have noticed way back when that I used the word "IF".
Note that even if China imposes something on the US, technically the US government's power would get curbed. Before, the US government doesn't have to answer to China. Afterwards, they would have to.
"Technically" is not good enough unless China's government also gets curbed in power. You're not thinking this through at all.
Even if we grant your point, it's kind of orthogonal to mine, which is that putting a miscreant in power, so as to build support for a reduction of the power of the office that the miscreant holds, is a dangerous plan.
Now, you're missing the biggest difference of all. Hitler was chosen so as to destroy the Wiemar Republic. Many of the democratic institutions and checks on power had been destroyed or undermined ever since the Treaty of Versailles (such as the German military immediately finding ways to circumvent the military constraints of the treaty). For example, Hitler wasn't involved in the dissolution of the Free State of Prussia (aside from his SA being involved in street fighting with the Communists that was used as a pretext for the maneuver).
The current US environment isn't even remotely close. Hence, my opinion on what would happen if Trump were to become president.
Another important exception is that Trump hasn't done anything worthy of comparison to Hitler. For example, "Art of the Deal" is no "Mein Kampf". When Trump isn't running for president, he's managing a huge real estate empire. When Hitler wasn't running for Chancellor of the Wiemar Republic, he was starting fights in bars. Without the politics, Trump still is a contributing member of society and has a stake in that society continuing to function. Hitler was, as many other utopian types, willing to burn everything down because he was a heavily marginalized part of society.
I'm not claiming that Trump will be good for the US, but please get a grip.
If the raw data, like the numbers recently released from a NASA satellite show cooling
Then the data shows cooling and models should hopefully have that taken into account.
then they should be repressed. We already have proof that people will misuse them.
Supressing evidence is a strong indication to me that you should be a burger-flipper not a scientist.
I'm saying the best time is after they increased their power, the US needs to be firmly slapped down and lose, as spectacularly as possible. Then the people will realize their folly of putting their faith in the state.
Sorry, doing so after a major loss is not the best time, especially if as a result the US gets something imposed by China.
We've past Godwin a few posts up already, so let's go back to the Nazis: they weren't curbed by reform from within. They needed a stern ass kicking.
We got a nice government, West Germany. But we also had a nasty government, East Germany. The problem with your assertion here is the assumption that defeat will result in a more democratic government. My view is that it will result in a government more compatible with the victor, as West Germany was with First World democracies and East Germany was with Second World Communist societies.
If China happens to favor a democratic government at the time, then fine, it works out. But they aren't that society now.