Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
Only in the rich world of today where we confound intelligence with university educations, thereby delaying children during a span of high fertility. That is surely a recent trend. Intelligence correlates with general health, especially in a more rough and tumble world of uncertain nutrition. Above average intelligence is a wonderful positive indicator for mate selection.
Rate selection and number of offspring is not the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that they should provide parking for the whole damn city; just that if they ensured their own capacity and allowed for a little more, things would work out in the long run. It's obvious that previously buildings were allowed without providing adequate parking.
So you think it better that taxpayers foot the bill for the parking infrastructure required by new and larger buildings? If the development exceeds infrastructure capacity it shouldn't be financially viable. That's how the mess got started.
If all this gene achieved was less cardiovascular diseases and higher intelligence, we would (nearly) all have it by now due to selection. So the question is, what else does it do which counterweights this?
Not really. Cardiovascular disease generally kills long after the age of reproduction. The number of people who would have been born if not for parental death by cardiovascular disease is likely pretty small. Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
Buildings are constantly being torn down to make make way for new ones. The planners should require parking garages under new buildings that exceeds the needs of the new building. The problem takes care of itself in a matter of time.
I visit the WSOP every year, and while they accept wire transfers at the Rio cage, nearly every player brings cash -- and not just the main event players. There's thousands of people like myself playing smaller events who have thousands of dollars in cash on them at and en route to the WSOP every year.
So, if you're looking to destroy the value of the currency anyway, why not first give it to someone who is trying to solve the the problem more prosaically?
Generally speaking the murder rate in the US is quite high for a modern, democratic country. States with the death penalty doesn't seem to have any automatic advantage over those that don't. When the death penalty is removed crimes for which it used to be the punishment don't increase.
So yes, the GP's logic was flawed, but his conclusion happens to be the right one.
Perhaps. Look where your argument leads you, though. The threat of death is most certainly the most extreme kind of threat of punishment. If the threat of death is not a deterrent to crime, then no threat of punishment can deter crime.
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
"Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens
If we can not prove specific cases where people actively chose not to commit capital crimes because, and only because, they feared the death penalty then we must dismiss the notion entirely. It simply does not happen unless there is evidence for it.
Reading comprehension fail on your part. I made no such assertion.
Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent.
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
No, my comment was about your first link. It has ANECDOTES about people committing three felonies a day. It does not contain any DATA to support the original claim of "...every person commits two felonies and dozens of misdemeanour's [sic] every day."
And you jump to immediate name calling - such an elegant argument style you have.
Agreed. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and I am thinking of dumping the smartphone for the dumbest of dumb phones, which can only make phone calls and send SMS - and only needs to be charged once a week. I already have one of those as a travel emergency phone; I may switch my main number to it.
That's what I have. Oh, but good luck finding a phone without a camera. I don't think they exist anymore.
They also said that the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of private citizen's to own and carry firearms. That good enough for you that you will demand that your politicians stop trying to pass laws contrary to that opinion?
First, it is arms, not firearms. It does not specify or limit types of arms. However, the constitution does specify a framework for laws and judicial review. Therefore it is reasonable to allow laws to specify or limit types of arms (unless you think your next door neighbor has a right to have nuclear bombs).
Slashdot Mirror
Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
Only in the rich world of today where we confound intelligence with university educations, thereby delaying children during a span of high fertility. That is surely a recent trend. Intelligence correlates with general health, especially in a more rough and tumble world of uncertain nutrition. Above average intelligence is a wonderful positive indicator for mate selection.
Rate selection and number of offspring is not the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that they should provide parking for the whole damn city; just that if they ensured their own capacity and allowed for a little more, things would work out in the long run. It's obvious that previously buildings were allowed without providing adequate parking.
So you think it better that taxpayers foot the bill for the parking infrastructure required by new and larger buildings? If the development exceeds infrastructure capacity it shouldn't be financially viable. That's how the mess got started.
If all this gene achieved was less cardiovascular diseases and higher intelligence, we would (nearly) all have it by now due to selection. So the question is, what else does it do which counterweights this?
Not really. Cardiovascular disease generally kills long after the age of reproduction. The number of people who would have been born if not for parental death by cardiovascular disease is likely pretty small. Also, those with higher intelligence tend to reproduce less.
Buildings are constantly being torn down to make make way for new ones. The planners should require parking garages under new buildings that exceeds the needs of the new building. The problem takes care of itself in a matter of time.
No, your situation has a common queue, which no one will let you jump without a fight. The parking situation does not.
Ultimately, this is an example of government not charging a high enough fee for use of a common public resource.
Or perhaps they're just not providing enough fucking parking places.
I visit the WSOP every year, and while they accept wire transfers at the Rio cage, nearly every player brings cash -- and not just the main event players. There's thousands of people like myself playing smaller events who have thousands of dollars in cash on them at and en route to the WSOP every year.
Hey, can I get a ride with you next year?
Please don't confuse the Foxheads with facts.
So, if you're looking to destroy the value of the currency anyway, why not first give it to someone who is trying to solve the the problem more prosaically?
Or even better, give it to me.
Pick up your guns and start a revolution...
Your IP address has been resolved to your location. A black SUV will be there shortly. Stand by.
Why would anyone bother to write malware for Windows Phone?
Especially since the target audience would be only himself.
Generally speaking the murder rate in the US is quite high for a modern, democratic country. States with the death penalty doesn't seem to have any automatic advantage over those that don't. When the death penalty is removed crimes for which it used to be the punishment don't increase.
So yes, the GP's logic was flawed, but his conclusion happens to be the right one.
Perhaps. Look where your argument leads you, though. The threat of death is most certainly the most extreme kind of threat of punishment. If the threat of death is not a deterrent to crime, then no threat of punishment can deter crime.
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
"Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens
If we can not prove specific cases where people actively chose not to commit capital crimes because, and only because, they feared the death penalty then we must dismiss the notion entirely. It simply does not happen unless there is evidence for it.
Reading comprehension fail on your part. I made no such assertion.
there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
There is also no evidence that it did not encourage people from committing similar crimes.
No shit, Sherlock. I also made no such claim. I only pointed out the OP's flawed logic.
Funny thing. I first read that as:
Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a horse near the top to feed in gas
That's death by methane.
Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent.
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Maybe if they filmed it and put it on youtube, society would at least gain some entertainment value.
Only the government can violate First Amendment rights.
No, my comment was about your first link. It has ANECDOTES about people committing three felonies a day. It does not contain any DATA to support the original claim of "...every person commits two felonies and dozens of misdemeanour's [sic] every day."
And you jump to immediate name calling - such an elegant argument style you have.
Fail. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Keep in mind that every person commits two felonies and dozens of misdemeanour's every day.
[Citation needed]
Women are intimidating and cause stress. Film at 11.
Agreed. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and I am thinking of dumping the smartphone for the dumbest of dumb phones, which can only make phone calls and send SMS - and only needs to be charged once a week. I already have one of those as a travel emergency phone; I may switch my main number to it.
That's what I have. Oh, but good luck finding a phone without a camera. I don't think they exist anymore.
They also said that the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of private citizen's to own and carry firearms. That good enough for you that you will demand that your politicians stop trying to pass laws contrary to that opinion?
First, it is arms, not firearms. It does not specify or limit types of arms. However, the constitution does specify a framework for laws and judicial review. Therefore it is reasonable to allow laws to specify or limit types of arms (unless you think your next door neighbor has a right to have nuclear bombs).