You're reality averted, and your ignorance is still showing.
Funny. You keep saying that, and yet in all that text you didn't give anything to specifically contradict me. In fact, all the data you listed supports my original claim: Just like I said, California gives more money to the rest of the country than it recieves back from them. Here's the very report you link:
In fiscal year 2002, California's net fiscal outflow to the federal government increased for the eighth consecutive year, with the state's taxpayers sending more in taxes to Washington than were received back in federal government expenditures in the state.
Conversely, when you claimed that high-population states (such as CA) manipulate federal spending to siphon dollars from the rest of the nation, you were wrong. And the fact that you apparently had enough data to know that you were wrong suggests that you were also lying.
No, I think you probably do know what it means. But for rhetorical purposes (such as, prehaps, to impugne the "Democratic" party), you choose to deny the real meaning.
In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions
That definition is impossible for any government to meet, even with modern technology. By that interpretation, there is no such thing as a democracy.
the first person I've seen who opposes abortion yet holds a consistent opinion on it.
Then check out Alan Keyes. His highly self-consistent view is why hardcore Republicans think so highly of him, and also why he can't win general elections.
If you end up dead in a very nasty area it can be easier to resurrect back at the graveyard,
That must be a fairly new change. According to Blizzard's previous annoucements, completing a corpse run will be quite trivial (except in the rare case of extra-special boss monsters). They say it should take no more than 10 minutes at the outside- and then, you can whip out a teleport item if the area is too dangerous to escape from.
5-10 minutes of ghost walking (when you're invisible, invulnerable, and extra-fast) is an insignificant punishment compared to losing 5% xp.
Actually, the vast majority of celestial objects turn out to be precisely spheres,
No known celelstial object is spherical (possible exception of "black holes").
Many are ellipsoidal, if you think that's close enough. But even in the 1500s the insufficiency of circles/spheres to describe the heavens was apparent.
We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly.
That question is meaningless, because your premise is either circular, or flat-out wrong, depending on the definition of "color" used.
If "color" means those things humans call colors, then then it's a truism: we can see everything we can see, because that's what we can see.
But the number of potential colors is unlimited, even within the visual spectrum. The colors we percieve are actually superimposed photonic waveforms produced when light reflects off a surface. (or is emitted by radiation, etc).
If you understand auditory perception, that can be a helpful analogy: although sound is really a 1-dimensional quantity (air pressure varying over time), the variations happen too fast to be tracked directly. So the ear canal contains receptors sensitive to different frequencies of pulsation, which are combined in your brain to make hearing.
Photons are even faster and less plausible to measure individually, so receptors trigger off of different wavelengths, and combine them visually. There's no physical reason for an RGB breakdown; that's just the number of colors which turned out to be most helpful for mammalls to evolve.
So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum
And is the most advanced computer the one that uses the fewest symbols to represent the full range of possible data? Of course not. There's a reason we don't just use ASCII / VT100 terminals, and there's an even better reason why the Altair's binary lightbulb display was so quickly obseleted.
I think a better penalty would be to not allow the user to login for 24 hours after a death vice taking exp.
Not only would that drive away customers, it could even get them named in lawsuits. They accepted money for a gameplaying service, and to intentionally bar a paying customer from said service is probably illegal in many areas.
I don't think you're in any condition to have a fair intellectual argument with me about the nature of the Constitution.
Correct. I have no magical ability to imbue you with common sense, or even to force you to address the topic at hand, instead of going of on your pet peeves.
Nonetheless, for the benefit of any other readers who may get the impression you've won some argument, here's a quick attempt to correct just one of your misconceptions:
You claim that California's prohibition on smoking in bars is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of assembly. Am I right?
The Constituion mentions "freedom of assembly" in Amendment 1, which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble".
The Constitution also contains Amendment 10, stating "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states"
Therefore, the Californian ban on smoking is perfectly Constitutional, since the state is exercising a right reserved to it; Congress has made no law on that subject, since of course, the smoking thing isn't federal after all.
If you couldn't work that out for yourself, then who is it who needs more study before qualifying to discuss constitutionality?
AC: I've read more than once that the number of overvotes for Gore was more than 10x those for Bush? That leads to the question of why so many people in our party are so dumb?
Here's a serious answer for that troll: Did you hear of the "Butterfly" ballot? Take a look. On that ballot, Bush is the first name and Gore is the second name- but although Bush is the first bubble, Gore is the THIRD bubble. Filling in the second bubble actually gives your vote to Pat Buchanan!
So it's not that Republicans were smarter, it's just that their voting input had less opportunity for error (Democrat voters apparently erred about 5% of the time)
Furthermore, Florida Democrats in that county are usually retirees, with degraded eyesight and dexterity.
What you found was *selected excerpts* from a study that isn't available yet on the web.
No. An "executive summary" is different from selected exercepts. It you don't believe that conclusion, you can go get the study and debunk it.
None of this stuff is earth-shatteringly new. These calculations have been common knowledge for all credible political scientists for decades at least. The Wall Street Journal publishes these figures annually, among many other places you could find them.
Since you still haven't got the hang of Google yet, here's a more detailed PDF
How can you trust results from a study where you can't examine the numbers behind the conclusions?
It's fairly simple to verify any specific figure on that page by referencing first the CBO for the total taxes paid, and then the Census for the state-targeted expenditures.
However... You are *still* mistaken as to what the legal definition of "public" is.
No. Once again, you're the one that's still wrong. There are laws that specifically call out certain business categories as "public", restaurants and theaters amoung them.
barring any other constraining regulations the natural state of things is for a business to be private and can include or exclude people for any reason.
And barring the force of gravity, I can jump over the moon.
You're still wrong; you cannot "Legally exclude someone from your business for any reason at all". If you're making statements that only apply in nonexistant fantasylands called "natural state", then please qualify remarks that will otherwise be nonsensical.
If you enjoy those regulations so much... try to get them put into the constitution.
That's a meaningless comment. Just see the 10th amendment.
I can hardly believe what a fucked up job our education system is doing with civics and political science.
Every newspaper article I have ever read says the outcome of the recount done byt the NYT
Instead of reading articles about other articles, why not read the actual article:
the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.
In other words, a full recount of all ballots in Florida would've made Albert Gore the USA's President.
All the ballots were later counted by several (liberal) mainstream newspapers and Bush won in every scenario.
Wrong. 1. The Wall Street Journal was amoung those newspapers. (It isn't liberal) 2. Out of the 24 scenarios they considered, Gore won most of them. 3. The scenarios that counted the most votes Gore won. Bush only won if (a) recounting stopped after just a few counties, or (b) a large number of votes were disgarded as spoiled.
So in the final consideration, although the recounts Gore asked for wouldn't have made him the winner, a full, correct counting of the whole state would've. The only reason nobody's made a big deal about this result is that it was released on September 13, 2001.
When their belief, custom and behaviors include mistreating and killing people, or protecting those who do, I tend to agree.
President Bush doesn't agree with that. In his campaign he specifically said that humanitarian atrocities were not a sufficient reason to attack a foreign government. And his term in office bears that out.
Exactly, like declaring things vegetables when they really are fruits,
Technically fruits are vegetables, in the same sense that humans are animals... "vegetable", in biology, is any plant (or part of one). The culinary definition for vegetable is more specific, and excludes most fruits. But traditionally, chefs have categorized tomatoes with vegetables because of how it is used in food.
The person responding to your original post is totally wrong.
Nope. I'm right, he's wrong, and you're wrong too (for supporting him).
An AC has already answered, so I'll just copy her link.
If it were possible to exclude people from your business for "any reason", then you could exclude all blacks, asians, and Irish... and that will land you in major legal trouble. You might recall that in 1965 the National Guard enforced against arbitrary exclusion...
Businesses are *not* public entities, either in the literal physical way or in the more figurative organizational way.
Wrong. Many businesses are public- including all those that accept uninvited customers walking in off the street, which includes most shops. Also, all restaurants, gasoline stations, and movie theaters are explicitly labelled as public entities.
If you want to have a restaraunt which is NOT a public entity, then you must define it as a private club, which means maintaining a membership list of allowed customers.
This is the part where specific laws constrain the behaviors of businesses. I believe these constraints to be largely unconstitutional but the Supreme Court doesn't... so what can you do.
So, you knew you were wrong the whole time, and yet you still claimed I was wrong?? Just because you think yourself a better jurist than the USA Supreme Court, doesn't mean you can spread falsehoods about the current state of USA law.
The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
That is completely untrue. Go ahead and search the Constitution for "marriage", "marry", or even just "marr". It's not in there.
Maybe you meant "dictionary" instead of "constitution"? But that doesn't have much legal weight, because laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.
I sincerely hope and expect that such astounding Internet Ignorance will swiftly be eliminated from our gene pool.
I found it with Google.com in under 7 seconds. That's 13 seconds less than the mandatory post-delay imposed on slashdot comments.
Furthermore, to be unaware of the famous paradox that Republican states get the most benefit from Democrat-linked "big government" programs... actually, I suppose that's the typical reality-aversion of the American electorate.
Slashdot Mirror
The earth is as spherical as a billiard ball.
False. The earth is smoother than a billiard, but less spherical.
Funny. You keep saying that, and yet in all that text you didn't give anything to specifically contradict me. In fact, all the data you listed supports my original claim: Just like I said, California gives more money to the rest of the country than it recieves back from them. Here's the very report you link:
Conversely, when you claimed that high-population states (such as CA) manipulate federal spending to siphon dollars from the rest of the nation, you were wrong. And the fact that you apparently had enough data to know that you were wrong suggests that you were also lying.
I don't know the meaning of "democracy?"
No, I think you probably do know what it means. But for rhetorical purposes (such as, prehaps, to impugne the "Democratic" party), you choose to deny the real meaning.
In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions
That definition is impossible for any government to meet, even with modern technology. By that interpretation, there is no such thing as a democracy.
Anyhow, have fun arguing with your dictionary!
the first person I've seen who opposes abortion yet holds a consistent opinion on it.
Then check out Alan Keyes. His highly self-consistent view is why hardcore Republicans think so highly of him, and also why he can't win general elections.
If you end up dead in a very nasty area it can be easier to resurrect back at the graveyard,
That must be a fairly new change. According to Blizzard's previous annoucements, completing a corpse run will be quite trivial (except in the rare case of extra-special boss monsters). They say it should take no more than 10 minutes at the outside- and then, you can whip out a teleport item if the area is too dangerous to escape from.
5-10 minutes of ghost walking (when you're invisible, invulnerable, and extra-fast) is an insignificant punishment compared to losing 5% xp.
Actually, the vast majority of celestial objects turn out to be precisely spheres,
No known celelstial object is spherical (possible exception of "black holes").
Many are ellipsoidal, if you think that's close enough. But even in the 1500s the insufficiency of circles/spheres to describe the heavens was apparent.
We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly.
That question is meaningless, because your premise is either circular, or flat-out wrong, depending on the definition of "color" used.
If "color" means those things humans call colors, then then it's a truism: we can see everything we can see, because that's what we can see.
But the number of potential colors is unlimited, even within the visual spectrum. The colors we percieve are actually superimposed photonic waveforms produced when light reflects off a surface. (or is emitted by radiation, etc).
If you understand auditory perception, that can be a helpful analogy: although sound is really a 1-dimensional quantity (air pressure varying over time), the variations happen too fast to be tracked directly. So the ear canal contains receptors sensitive to different frequencies of pulsation, which are combined in your brain to make hearing.
Photons are even faster and less plausible to measure individually, so receptors trigger off of different wavelengths, and combine them visually. There's no physical reason for an RGB breakdown; that's just the number of colors which turned out to be most helpful for mammalls to evolve.
So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum
And is the most advanced computer the one that uses the fewest symbols to represent the full range of possible data? Of course not. There's a reason we don't just use ASCII / VT100 terminals, and there's an even better reason why the Altair's binary lightbulb display was so quickly obseleted.
I think a better penalty would be to not allow the user to login for 24 hours after a death vice taking exp.
Not only would that drive away customers, it could even get them named in lawsuits. They accepted money for a gameplaying service, and to intentionally bar a paying customer from said service is probably illegal in many areas.
Both of them take time. How are they fundamentally different?
Both 3 and 98 are numbers. How are they fundamentally different?
Suppose they let you ressurect yourself instandly by pushing F6. That takes time too! How is it fundamentally different?
There are some missions that you can fail by preventing the bad guys from destroying something glowing.
Really? There are "reverse psychology" missions, where the only way to win is NOT to attack the villian?
If you destroy the glowing thing, instead of letting the bad guy do it, do you still win?
Hey, they came out around the same time,
No they didn't. COH came out last year, WOW may come out sometime in the future. 2003 is not around the same as 2005
Furthermore, it wasn't a new feature when WOW added it, either. Ultima Online did that same kind of XP-rate-limiter years ago.
Correct. I have no magical ability to imbue you with common sense, or even to force you to address the topic at hand, instead of going of on your pet peeves.
Nonetheless, for the benefit of any other readers who may get the impression you've won some argument, here's a quick attempt to correct just one of your misconceptions:
If you couldn't work that out for yourself, then who is it who needs more study before qualifying to discuss constitutionality?
He is not a conservative or liberal.
Wrong. Osama bin Laden is, by all measures, a conservative.
By comparison, Jesus Christ was a liberal.
AC: I've read more than once that the number of overvotes for Gore was more than 10x those for Bush? That leads to the question of why so many people in our party are so dumb?
Here's a serious answer for that troll: Did you hear of the "Butterfly" ballot? Take a look. On that ballot, Bush is the first name and Gore is the second name- but although Bush is the first bubble, Gore is the THIRD bubble. Filling in the second bubble actually gives your vote to Pat Buchanan!
So it's not that Republicans were smarter, it's just that their voting input had less opportunity for error (Democrat voters apparently erred about 5% of the time)
Furthermore, Florida Democrats in that county are usually retirees, with degraded eyesight and dexterity.
What you found was *selected excerpts* from a study that isn't available yet on the web.
No. An "executive summary" is different from selected exercepts. It you don't believe that conclusion, you can go get the study and debunk it.
None of this stuff is earth-shatteringly new. These calculations have been common knowledge for all credible political scientists for decades at least. The Wall Street Journal publishes these figures annually, among many other places you could find them.
Since you still haven't got the hang of Google yet, here's a more detailed PDF
How can you trust results from a study where you can't examine the numbers behind the conclusions?
It's fairly simple to verify any specific figure on that page by referencing first the CBO for the total taxes paid, and then the Census for the state-targeted expenditures.
However... You are *still* mistaken as to what the legal definition of "public" is.
No. Once again, you're the one that's still wrong. There are laws that specifically call out certain business categories as "public", restaurants and theaters amoung them.
barring any other constraining regulations the natural state of things is for a business to be private and can include or exclude people for any reason.
And barring the force of gravity, I can jump over the moon.
You're still wrong; you cannot "Legally exclude someone from your business for any reason at all". If you're making statements that only apply in nonexistant fantasylands called "natural state", then please qualify remarks that will otherwise be nonsensical.
If you enjoy those regulations so much... try to get them put into the constitution.
That's a meaningless comment. Just see the 10th amendment.
I can hardly believe what a fucked up job our education system is doing with civics and political science.
Said the guy who thinks he's got a
Instead of reading articles about other articles, why not read the actual article:
In other words, a full recount of all ballots in Florida would've made Albert Gore the USA's President.
All the ballots were later counted by several (liberal) mainstream newspapers and Bush won in every scenario.
Wrong.
1. The Wall Street Journal was amoung those newspapers. (It isn't liberal)
2. Out of the 24 scenarios they considered, Gore won most of them.
3. The scenarios that counted the most votes Gore won. Bush only won if (a) recounting stopped after just a few counties, or (b) a large number of votes were disgarded as spoiled.
So in the final consideration, although the recounts Gore asked for wouldn't have made him the winner, a full, correct counting of the whole state would've. The only reason nobody's made a big deal about this result is that it was released on September 13, 2001.
When their belief, custom and behaviors include mistreating and killing people, or protecting those who do, I tend to agree.
President Bush doesn't agree with that. In his campaign he specifically said that humanitarian atrocities were not a sufficient reason to attack a foreign government. And his term in office bears that out.
Exactly, like declaring things vegetables when they really are fruits,
Technically fruits are vegetables, in the same sense that humans are animals... "vegetable", in biology, is any plant (or part of one). The culinary definition for vegetable is more specific, and excludes most fruits. But traditionally, chefs have categorized tomatoes with vegetables because of how it is used in food.
What post-1776 legislation are you referring to that changes this? Chapter and verse, please.
There are others, but this is the most prominent.
The person responding to your original post is totally wrong.
Nope. I'm right, he's wrong, and you're wrong too (for supporting him).
An AC has already answered, so I'll just copy her link.
If it were possible to exclude people from your business for "any reason", then you could exclude all blacks, asians, and Irish... and that will land you in major legal trouble. You might recall that in 1965 the National Guard enforced against arbitrary exclusion...
Businesses are *not* public entities, either in the literal physical way or in the more figurative organizational way.
Wrong. Many businesses are public- including all those that accept uninvited customers walking in off the street, which includes most shops. Also, all restaurants, gasoline stations, and movie theaters are explicitly labelled as public entities.
If you want to have a restaraunt which is NOT a public entity, then you must define it as a private club, which means maintaining a membership list of allowed customers.
This is the part where specific laws constrain the behaviors of businesses. I believe these constraints to be largely unconstitutional but the Supreme Court doesn't... so what can you do.
So, you knew you were wrong the whole time, and yet you still claimed I was wrong?? Just because you think yourself a better jurist than the USA Supreme Court, doesn't mean you can spread falsehoods about the current state of USA law.
The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
That is completely untrue. Go ahead and search the Constitution for "marriage", "marry", or even just "marr". It's not in there.
Maybe you meant "dictionary" instead of "constitution"? But that doesn't have much legal weight, because laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.
Members of the public are admitted strictly by invitation of the rightful occupier -- and can be excluded for any reason they like.
No, they can't be.
Since you admitted you don't know anything about USA laws, why did you go and invent a lie about them?
Sources?
I sincerely hope and expect that such astounding Internet Ignorance will swiftly be eliminated from our gene pool.
I found it with Google.com in under 7 seconds. That's 13 seconds less than the mandatory post-delay imposed on slashdot comments.
Furthermore, to be unaware of the famous paradox that Republican states get the most benefit from Democrat-linked "big government" programs... actually, I suppose that's the typical reality-aversion of the American electorate.