TrollBridge's point is that the purpose of schools isn't to make money, it is to educate students. Forcing schools to depend on sports in order to raise funding turns them into sports team businesses, which is contrary to their original purpose and sometimes conflicts with it. Consider the example of a gambling treatment center forced to hold a lottery to generate funding. Perhaps schools should concentrate on their mission instead of polluting it with fundraising, in whatever form that takes.
The number of people with college degrees that voted for Bush was below 30%, while the number of people with only a high school degree that voted for Bush was above 65%. Also, education does not determine whether or not someone is stupid.
So wait, let's work on these figures. If the US ranked 28 out of 40, that means that out of a 100 percent we'd be scored as a (2/40) + (8/40) = (1/20) + (1/5) = 1/25 = the top 4%!
Also consider that if 2/3rds of Koreans think they aren't good at math, and only 1/3rd of Americans think this, and Koreans are in the top three, that means that the US should be half as good, or ranked number six. This DOESN'T MATCH the 28th ranking!!!!! This is highschool math, people! Check your numbers!
I really enjoyed reading your post and I thought it was well thought out. One thing that you didn't address is brought up in other places in this discussion, which is whether government should be supplying the service at all.
As macroeconomics theory states, it makes sense to look towards a tax in several cases, one of which is when the marginal costs (MC; the incremental cost to add a single additional consumer to an existing service) is much less than the average cost (AC; the total cost for the service divided by the total number of users). In other words, the fixed costs for a particular service is very high compared to the marginal costs.
This is a good rule to use in evaluating the practicality of a tax, but how do we decide which "practical" solutions should be conducted by the government, and which shouldn't? Satellite television is another model with a very high fixed cost and a very low incremental cost. Should the government provide satellite television service? What criteria do you think we should apply to a service (after your aforementioned mathematical criteria) to decide whether the government should supply it? Or do you think that the government should supply every service that meets your model?
I am genuinely curious because you seem to have thought about this in a quantitative way that makes sense to me.
Of course tagging children has nothing to do with their safety. Anyone who says so is a liar or an idiot.
I consider this to be one of the more refreshingly honest things I've read on Slashdot recently. It seems that everyone believes this, more or less, but only Obsessive has been frank enough to come out and say it.
RFID is different from all previous forms of identification because it's the only one which can be reliably read from a distance without your consent.
Some other types of ID that can be read at a distance without your consent are: armbands, prison uniforms, and the letter H emblazoned on your forehead.
When I used these types of quotes with my Christian peer, he replied that certain parts of the Old Testament no longer apply because Christ died for our sins. This pretty much works for any apparent incongruity between Old/New. Another is that God planted ambiguity in the Bible to encourage faith and creativity, as opposed to slavish obedience. Personally I think that someone once said that "We are all geniuses when it comes to self-rationalisation." The least creative people I know can be super-creative when coming up with elaborate hypotheses.
I left out Borrow Heavily. Your correction implies that you will one day be able to pay off the borrowing. I guess all of the US citizens will find out, won't we?
The point that I am trying to make is that politics and logic are different animals.
please explain how this:
Berkeley has a fine school and all, but don't you think that it's liberal reputation (deserved or not) might provide the argument that the research is partisan?
makes the first point. Possibilities:
You meant to make the first point, but didn't, implying that you chose your words poorly.
You never meant to make the first point, in which case your first post was wrong by your own admission.
I have nothing against bitter condemnation of elites; it is practically a national pastime. Not everyone got to attend a selective college. I just wish that a/. article on a statistical analysis of potential voting fraud could be attached to a discussion of the same, rather than a collection of tangential or irrelevant posts. Maybe I'm just idealistic.
The only nerve you touched is the one about how annoying it is when people throw in statements just to say something, or to muddy the issue.
And because it is fun:
Statement: There may have been voter fraud in FL.
Reply: Lesbians are getting married.
Without turning to my Flamewar section of the Slashdot manual....
If you want to make the point that politics and logic are separate, go ahead. You just kind of stated it without support in this thread, but if that's a "point" then fine. My problem was with the grandparent post, and that's what I was trying to explain. If you have a different point to make, go to. Otherwise, admit that the first post was wrong (or poorly worded) and move on. Quo erat nauseum.
If you are familaiar with logical fallacies, why would the partisanship of a statistical study be an issue? If a democrat says that 2+2=4, would you say that the statement is partisan? My point is that such a statement is irrelevant to the math. The only reason to introduce such a statement is to impugn the reputation of the institution.
A good example (simplified) might be:
DEM: If you spend more than you have in revenue, you either have to raise taxes or reduce spending.
REP: That's a partisan critique.
The only reason that the REP would say such a thing is in order to draw attention away from the statement that the DEM is making.
My problem with your statement, mikeophile, is that it is at best irrelevant to the discussion and at worst an ad hominem attack. I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will revise my critique to say that your comment is only irrelevant, not disingenuous.
I think someone else above made this point: The real issue isn't whether or not Bush won. The real issue is whether we can trust our mechanism of democracy (the ballot box). If we can't, then we don't really live in a democracy, do we (or even a republic for the pedantic)?
I would like to point some facts out:
Manufacturers of electronic voting gear had the Opportunity to rig the vote
They had the Motive to rig the vote
They had the Means to rig the vote
So why do we have a system that allows a company with the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to rig the vote to use software that is unaccountable, and not to provide a backup papertrail? I would be glad to have Bush as prez if I knew for a fact that the vote was counted right, but I don't know that, and NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE on this thread. That is scary.
Also, do people think that voter fraud on this level is implausible? Please understand that it has happened before in this country, and if it happened before why can't it happen today?
The electors don't caste their votes until Dec. They would change the ballot of electors that FL sends to the College, and the new ones would vote for Kerry. I don't think his concession would have anything to do with it, legally. If they vote for him, he'll serve.
A liberal reputation does not "prove" anything about the argument. Read up on "ad hominem" logical fallacies. Their evidence is publicly available and the research paper makes a statistical analysis. If you want to attack their conclusion, please make a comment relevant to the analysis or its assumptions.
There are many "kinds" of atheism. Some atheists say that they know God doesn't exist. Personally I just don't care. I'm an atheist because I'm "not a theist," which is what atheism literally means. A god that operates within the constraints modern christians have given him (can't do anything, can't know anything, no observable evidence of any kind) is uninteresting to me. At least the Greek gods had sex.
My understanding is that each of the types of cones in our eyes creates data that is analyzed in a different portion of the brain. If our eyes could pick up seven colours, we still might be only able to process three of those, unless you start fooling around with the brain genes which I don't recommend.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent should have been titled "America should be like me."
TrollBridge's point is that the purpose of schools isn't to make money, it is to educate students. Forcing schools to depend on sports in order to raise funding turns them into sports team businesses, which is contrary to their original purpose and sometimes conflicts with it. Consider the example of a gambling treatment center forced to hold a lottery to generate funding. Perhaps schools should concentrate on their mission instead of polluting it with fundraising, in whatever form that takes.
The number of people with college degrees that voted for Bush was below 30%, while the number of people with only a high school degree that voted for Bush was above 65%. Also, education does not determine whether or not someone is stupid.
Also consider that if 2/3rds of Koreans think they aren't good at math, and only 1/3rd of Americans think this, and Koreans are in the top three, that means that the US should be half as good, or ranked number six. This DOESN'T MATCH the 28th ranking!!!!! This is highschool math, people! Check your numbers!
That's ridiculous.... One ten pound baby is more than enough of a meal.
I'm glad I'm a gamma!
This is a good rule to use in evaluating the practicality of a tax, but how do we decide which "practical" solutions should be conducted by the government, and which shouldn't? Satellite television is another model with a very high fixed cost and a very low incremental cost. Should the government provide satellite television service? What criteria do you think we should apply to a service (after your aforementioned mathematical criteria) to decide whether the government should supply it? Or do you think that the government should supply every service that meets your model?
I am genuinely curious because you seem to have thought about this in a quantitative way that makes sense to me.
The ones I know, the ones who have actually had cow shit on their boots, heartily detest all things Democratic and progressive.
*raises hand* Can the cow shit be store-bought?
When I used these types of quotes with my Christian peer, he replied that certain parts of the Old Testament no longer apply because Christ died for our sins. This pretty much works for any apparent incongruity between Old/New. Another is that God planted ambiguity in the Bible to encourage faith and creativity, as opposed to slavish obedience. Personally I think that someone once said that "We are all geniuses when it comes to self-rationalisation." The least creative people I know can be super-creative when coming up with elaborate hypotheses.
What I want to know is how to get the girl INSIDE the LED Floodlight.
Yes.
I don't see where they assume fraud. Since the paper is linked, perhaps you could provide a citation?
I left out Borrow Heavily. Your correction implies that you will one day be able to pay off the borrowing. I guess all of the US citizens will find out, won't we?
please explain how this:
makes the first point. Possibilities:
I have nothing against bitter condemnation of elites; it is practically a national pastime. Not everyone got to attend a selective college. I just wish that a /. article on a statistical analysis of potential voting fraud could be attached to a discussion of the same, rather than a collection of tangential or irrelevant posts. Maybe I'm just idealistic.
The only nerve you touched is the one about how annoying it is when people throw in statements just to say something, or to muddy the issue.
And because it is fun:
Statement: There may have been voter fraud in FL.
Reply: Lesbians are getting married.
If you want to make the point that politics and logic are separate, go ahead. You just kind of stated it without support in this thread, but if that's a "point" then fine. My problem was with the grandparent post, and that's what I was trying to explain. If you have a different point to make, go to. Otherwise, admit that the first post was wrong (or poorly worded) and move on. Quo erat nauseum.
A good example (simplified) might be:
DEM: If you spend more than you have in revenue, you either have to raise taxes or reduce spending.
REP: That's a partisan critique.
The only reason that the REP would say such a thing is in order to draw attention away from the statement that the DEM is making.
My problem with your statement, mikeophile, is that it is at best irrelevant to the discussion and at worst an ad hominem attack. I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will revise my critique to say that your comment is only irrelevant, not disingenuous.
I would like to point some facts out:
So why do we have a system that allows a company with the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to rig the vote to use software that is unaccountable, and not to provide a backup papertrail? I would be glad to have Bush as prez if I knew for a fact that the vote was counted right, but I don't know that, and NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE on this thread. That is scary.
Also, do people think that voter fraud on this level is implausible? Please understand that it has happened before in this country, and if it happened before why can't it happen today?
The electors don't caste their votes until Dec. They would change the ballot of electors that FL sends to the College, and the new ones would vote for Kerry. I don't think his concession would have anything to do with it, legally. If they vote for him, he'll serve.
A liberal reputation does not "prove" anything about the argument. Read up on "ad hominem" logical fallacies. Their evidence is publicly available and the research paper makes a statistical analysis. If you want to attack their conclusion, please make a comment relevant to the analysis or its assumptions.
There are many "kinds" of atheism. Some atheists say that they know God doesn't exist. Personally I just don't care. I'm an atheist because I'm "not a theist," which is what atheism literally means. A god that operates within the constraints modern christians have given him (can't do anything, can't know anything, no observable evidence of any kind) is uninteresting to me. At least the Greek gods had sex.
My understanding is that each of the types of cones in our eyes creates data that is analyzed in a different portion of the brain. If our eyes could pick up seven colours, we still might be only able to process three of those, unless you start fooling around with the brain genes which I don't recommend.
that, and the vast anti-mac conspiracy where publishers will actually REFUSE money from customers who own apple computers.
May I suggest Dubya, who wants to go to Mars anyway?