http://www.nccdglobal.org/site... Not directly, but using that as a starting point, and following some of their cites, and you'll land on it, or something close to it.
What's wrong with this fact is that it implicitly assumes that you throw a dice to see whether you need to use the gun in self-defence and another dice to see whether you'll be shot by your toddler
If you can't identify factors that affect the odds, assuming the average for everyone is the most statistically valid assumption. If you disagree, then provide a study or proof of my wrongness. Part of the odds is that they are valid for the population, even when wrong. If you don't understand that, go take some statistics classes and come back when you grasp the basics. A normal curve for the odds for the population mean that, by definition, you are usually wrong, but that the average comes back to the mean/median (which match for a normal curve).
These are individual factors and while an average statistic is interesting, it won't say much about your personal situation. It might be that in your particular case, you're better of with a gun. Even only if it makes you sleep better.
Your "personal situation" doesn't actually affect the odds. You haven't proided any facts (substantiated or otherwise) but appealed to emotion. Like was said, fact-based arguments favor the Liberal, and the factless emotional arguments are the tool of the conservatives.
The data indicates that Blacks commit crimes less than whites, but that prison correlates with crime more than white does, so the racism of the system handing out more and longer sentences to Blacks shows statistics that have Blacks offending more. Correct for SES, and Blacks commit more crimes. Correct for recidivism and Blacks offend less.
Democrats don't want to destroy Appalachian culture. They just want to destroy the global damage caused by coal mining and burning. If the Appalachian culture was built around goats or sheep herding, the Democrats wouldn't have any issue with them.
That's what Google does. When the search engine classifies based on use, and the world is liberal-biased, then the results will be liberal-biased.
The one thing that they didn't correct for is searching for things that have liberal and conservative biases. Search for "SJW BLM" and tell me if the results are liberal or conservative. The look I did showed very conservative results. Try again with "crooked hillary" and tell me the results. If conservatives use a different language in doing searches, then the results they see will match what they are looking for. If Liberals use more neutral-sounding searches, then neutral-sounding searches will be more liberal.
The study (only 4-people, lack of variety in search terms) is obviously limited.
Like stats about the uselessness of gun control, for example.
What's wrong about the fact: If you have a gun and a toddler in your house, you are more likely to be shot by your toddler than to fire the gun in self defense.
Go on, prove it wrong. Tell me how it's not true. Yes, I know the non-fact based argument that most "self defense" uses are brandishing, not firing. But I've not found anyone that can find (objective, factual) fault in the fact presented.
I calculated the votes if everyone in CA voted for A and everyone in MT voted for B, the percent of "win" would be the same under current EC system as a purely popular (but weighted) system. Though, the other problem I "made" and didn't think of until after I wrote that (having just come up with it on the spot), is that the electors are done in a way that makes it clear at a national level who the winner is, without need to recount. The "states" cast their votes on December 19, and arguments within the state as to the winner will not affect the timing or selection process.
Not in the US system. A minority government may have to make promises to get the votes to get their president in, but none of those promises are binding. The MMP systems that get the 3rd parties seats in the House and/or Senate, require the minority government keep their promises, or they just become the minority party, and the government isn't their anymore.
A system keeping the number of electors, but selecting them from national votes (weighted or not) would have given Jill and Gary 20+ electoral votes between them. Not sure exactly where they'd come from from the major parties, but it could have forced a runoff in the House of Representatives.
Weighting the rural vote seems unrelated to your comments on 3rd parties, so I don't understand how that's related to the issue.
That isn't fair. Per person, Alaska receives the most money from the federal government. Per land area, Alaska receives the least. So is it a leach, draining large amounts of money for a few people, or inexpensive, with the smallest budget, for the state with more coastline than the rest of the US combined.
The fact that there's such a divide between people and area is why there was proportional representation, one vote per person (and a portion of a vote for the size of the area per person in that area). Dropping the parenthetical will help the Democrats win elections, that much is obvious, but will it properly represent the interests of the nation?
"Screw the nation, I want my party to win" seems to be the popular answer.
Often X isn't Z, but some other factors (often racist bigots) force X to be Z, then complain that X is Z.
Note the much higher conviction rate of Blacks than whites for the same crime, then when Blacks are sentenced to longer prison sentences for the same crimes, bigots complain that Blacks are filling up the jails. If the sentencing wasn't racist, then X wouldn't equal Z, and X shouldn't equal Z, but bigots force X to equal Z, then complain about it.
Why is it that nobody ever considers using two things? Why not use some rainwater collection, river water, and desalinization to supplement the shortfall? No, we can't supplement the shortfall, we have to stop using groundwater and surface water completely, or it's not scalable. That doesn't make reverse osmosis a bad idea, it just makes you an idiot.
No, it would't. The amount of salt would be a drop in the ocean. The highest efficiency comes when you pump lots of salt water past and extract a small amount of the water. The "waste" water is no more salty than the regular variations in the salt levels. It would be so small a change that it would be undetectable.
Yeah, and they'd look under every kitchen sink and if there was ammonia next to Cl bleach, that'd be another count of WMD, as Cl gas is made from those agents, and is a chemical weapon. When you are looking to prove something, you'll see it everywhere.
The fact is, Iraq had no WMD program. Saddam pretended to have one to keep down insurrection. The US "knew" this was propaganda, but proclaimed it real as an excuse. And we never found what we said we would. No yellowcake program. No current manufacturing capabilities. No modern WMDs.
We were attacked by a group of stateless outlaws on 9/11.
Stateless Outlaws from Saudi Arabia. Stateless Outlaws funded by Saudi Arabia.
And we invaded Iraq unrelated to 9/11. Bush was looking to kill Saddam in revenge for Daddy losing a second term. Yes, we went to war with Iraq to kill one and only one person for revenge for something they didn't even do. The Presidential handlers didn't stop it because the VP (and others) made trillions on the war profiteering. There was never a reason to invade Iraq. Bush and Bush alone (including the administration) are responsible for ISIS and the current instability in the Middle East. The president ordered the CIA to find reasons to attack, not to find those behind 9/11, that came later, after the war on Saddam had started.
You could scrap the electoral college and still use a weighted system that kept the rural bias. If every state simply split electorals based on popular vote within the state, that would end 90% of the problems with the electoral college. Though, if you were worried about urban Billings pushing the rest of MT around, you could have a system of each congressional district is one EV, and two senator seats go to the popular vote winner (with the senate votes split if the "winner" didn't have the majority.
But better than that would simply multiply every vote by (Representatives + Senators)/(State Population) * (US Population)/(members of congress).
That would give the exact same rural bias, but evens out the swing. So the entire population is equal for "swing", rather than a few key states and everyone else is just throwing away their votes. If 100% of CA voted for Alice and 100% of MT voted for Bob, the percent of the total vote for each would be exactly the same as in the EC system. Rural bias retained, while eliminating the "swing state" phenonemon.
Also, that system would be vastly superior in that it would result in "no winner" much more often. Remember the 12th Amendment? It re-designed the EC because so few presidents were being won from EC voting. They didn't realize at the time that the changes would enshrine a 2-party system for all time, and that a 2-party system, enshrined in the Constitution, would divide the country, causing the first Civil War, and leading us towards what may become the second.
A pleasant side effect would be that Gary would have had about 15 EV and Jill about 5, and together, they would have forced an EC debate. If Gary and Jill and the Democrats agreed, they could "outvote" the one non-winner (Trump) and elect a single, acceptable candidate.
Confusing, not the will of the people, but that was the point when they came up with the EC. To have "enlightened" people buffering the farmers from the election. But when we design the system (with winner-take all in every state) to require 2-parties, then there will never be a contested election. At this point, contested elections in the EC would likely be good for the country. And no, not Trump specific, but in getting the will of the people properly executed (though the filter, as designed).
You can't take personal responsibility for your actions as a parent? That must be why all the Conservatives are always talking about personal responsibility. They don't know what it means.
Why can't their parents take some personal responsibility? If someone is dumb compared to their parents and grandparents, why aren't the parents and grandparents taking responsibility for their failures?
"Free Trade" should include a labor cost and environmental cost penalty. Pick the "cleanest" country and tax the others based on their savings from being dirty. Same with those that allow child labor and such.
Oh, and usually when things like that happen, it's 35.4 (correctly rounded to 35) and 19.6666666 (correctly rounded to 20), or some other number that makes them right, and the idiot AC commenter a complete idiot.
Go read the studies that have looked at it. Yes, I know, when an A/C runs across a fact that they don't like, they attack the messenger. That doesn't invalidate the fact, but makes the puny A/C feel better.
When examined, they are making US/Europe widgets for US/Europe companies exported to US/Europe consumers. That the pollution is outsourced doesn't make it not-US/Europe pollution.
It would take no more than a law change to change that. That's exactly what I was calling for. A law change to make personal data be copyrighted by the person it "belongs to".
Let me copyright my SSN, and my name/birthdate combination. If you could copyright your personal data, then sue for identity theft. As it stands now, the penalties for stores that mishandle your data is near-zero. And there's a growing number of companies that hold information, but don't contact people. They sell the database, but without right.
So when you tell Bob to take you off their list, they can't. The list is owned by Alice, and Alice will never call you. Chris calls, from the same list Bob used. You can never get off the list Bob used. That should be illegal. Anyone that holds or uses your personal data should be required by law to disclose where they learned it from.
But the government passes CAN SPAM laws that tell companies they can spam you. But nobody in power wants to change it, so we are left with government by the 1% for the 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nccdglobal.org/site... Not directly, but using that as a starting point, and following some of their cites, and you'll land on it, or something close to it.
For goats milk and wool?
What's wrong with this fact is that it implicitly assumes that you throw a dice to see whether you need to use the gun in self-defence and another dice to see whether you'll be shot by your toddler
If you can't identify factors that affect the odds, assuming the average for everyone is the most statistically valid assumption. If you disagree, then provide a study or proof of my wrongness. Part of the odds is that they are valid for the population, even when wrong. If you don't understand that, go take some statistics classes and come back when you grasp the basics. A normal curve for the odds for the population mean that, by definition, you are usually wrong, but that the average comes back to the mean/median (which match for a normal curve).
These are individual factors and while an average statistic is interesting, it won't say much about your personal situation. It might be that in your particular case, you're better of with a gun. Even only if it makes you sleep better.
Your "personal situation" doesn't actually affect the odds. You haven't proided any facts (substantiated or otherwise) but appealed to emotion. Like was said, fact-based arguments favor the Liberal, and the factless emotional arguments are the tool of the conservatives.
The data indicates that Blacks commit crimes less than whites, but that prison correlates with crime more than white does, so the racism of the system handing out more and longer sentences to Blacks shows statistics that have Blacks offending more. Correct for SES, and Blacks commit more crimes. Correct for recidivism and Blacks offend less.
Democrats don't want to destroy Appalachian culture. They just want to destroy the global damage caused by coal mining and burning. If the Appalachian culture was built around goats or sheep herding, the Democrats wouldn't have any issue with them.
That's what Google does. When the search engine classifies based on use, and the world is liberal-biased, then the results will be liberal-biased.
The one thing that they didn't correct for is searching for things that have liberal and conservative biases. Search for "SJW BLM" and tell me if the results are liberal or conservative. The look I did showed very conservative results. Try again with "crooked hillary" and tell me the results. If conservatives use a different language in doing searches, then the results they see will match what they are looking for. If Liberals use more neutral-sounding searches, then neutral-sounding searches will be more liberal.
The study (only 4-people, lack of variety in search terms) is obviously limited.
Like stats about the uselessness of gun control, for example.
What's wrong about the fact:
If you have a gun and a toddler in your house, you are more likely to be shot by your toddler than to fire the gun in self defense.
Go on, prove it wrong. Tell me how it's not true. Yes, I know the non-fact based argument that most "self defense" uses are brandishing, not firing. But I've not found anyone that can find (objective, factual) fault in the fact presented.
I calculated the votes if everyone in CA voted for A and everyone in MT voted for B, the percent of "win" would be the same under current EC system as a purely popular (but weighted) system. Though, the other problem I "made" and didn't think of until after I wrote that (having just come up with it on the spot), is that the electors are done in a way that makes it clear at a national level who the winner is, without need to recount. The "states" cast their votes on December 19, and arguments within the state as to the winner will not affect the timing or selection process.
Not in the US system. A minority government may have to make promises to get the votes to get their president in, but none of those promises are binding. The MMP systems that get the 3rd parties seats in the House and/or Senate, require the minority government keep their promises, or they just become the minority party, and the government isn't their anymore.
A system keeping the number of electors, but selecting them from national votes (weighted or not) would have given Jill and Gary 20+ electoral votes between them. Not sure exactly where they'd come from from the major parties, but it could have forced a runoff in the House of Representatives.
Weighting the rural vote seems unrelated to your comments on 3rd parties, so I don't understand how that's related to the issue.
That isn't fair. Per person, Alaska receives the most money from the federal government. Per land area, Alaska receives the least. So is it a leach, draining large amounts of money for a few people, or inexpensive, with the smallest budget, for the state with more coastline than the rest of the US combined.
The fact that there's such a divide between people and area is why there was proportional representation, one vote per person (and a portion of a vote for the size of the area per person in that area). Dropping the parenthetical will help the Democrats win elections, that much is obvious, but will it properly represent the interests of the nation?
"Screw the nation, I want my party to win" seems to be the popular answer.
Often X isn't Z, but some other factors (often racist bigots) force X to be Z, then complain that X is Z.
Note the much higher conviction rate of Blacks than whites for the same crime, then when Blacks are sentenced to longer prison sentences for the same crimes, bigots complain that Blacks are filling up the jails. If the sentencing wasn't racist, then X wouldn't equal Z, and X shouldn't equal Z, but bigots force X to equal Z, then complain about it.
Why is it that nobody ever considers using two things? Why not use some rainwater collection, river water, and desalinization to supplement the shortfall? No, we can't supplement the shortfall, we have to stop using groundwater and surface water completely, or it's not scalable. That doesn't make reverse osmosis a bad idea, it just makes you an idiot.
No, it would't. The amount of salt would be a drop in the ocean. The highest efficiency comes when you pump lots of salt water past and extract a small amount of the water. The "waste" water is no more salty than the regular variations in the salt levels. It would be so small a change that it would be undetectable.
They should water crops with the salt water, because everyone knows, electrolytes are good for you.
Yeah, and they'd look under every kitchen sink and if there was ammonia next to Cl bleach, that'd be another count of WMD, as Cl gas is made from those agents, and is a chemical weapon. When you are looking to prove something, you'll see it everywhere.
The fact is, Iraq had no WMD program. Saddam pretended to have one to keep down insurrection. The US "knew" this was propaganda, but proclaimed it real as an excuse. And we never found what we said we would. No yellowcake program. No current manufacturing capabilities. No modern WMDs.
We were attacked by a group of stateless outlaws on 9/11.
Stateless Outlaws from Saudi Arabia.
Stateless Outlaws funded by Saudi Arabia.
And we invaded Iraq unrelated to 9/11. Bush was looking to kill Saddam in revenge for Daddy losing a second term. Yes, we went to war with Iraq to kill one and only one person for revenge for something they didn't even do. The Presidential handlers didn't stop it because the VP (and others) made trillions on the war profiteering. There was never a reason to invade Iraq. Bush and Bush alone (including the administration) are responsible for ISIS and the current instability in the Middle East. The president ordered the CIA to find reasons to attack, not to find those behind 9/11, that came later, after the war on Saddam had started.
You could scrap the electoral college and still use a weighted system that kept the rural bias. If every state simply split electorals based on popular vote within the state, that would end 90% of the problems with the electoral college. Though, if you were worried about urban Billings pushing the rest of MT around, you could have a system of each congressional district is one EV, and two senator seats go to the popular vote winner (with the senate votes split if the "winner" didn't have the majority.
But better than that would simply multiply every vote by (Representatives + Senators)/(State Population) * (US Population)/(members of congress).
That would give the exact same rural bias, but evens out the swing. So the entire population is equal for "swing", rather than a few key states and everyone else is just throwing away their votes. If 100% of CA voted for Alice and 100% of MT voted for Bob, the percent of the total vote for each would be exactly the same as in the EC system. Rural bias retained, while eliminating the "swing state" phenonemon.
Also, that system would be vastly superior in that it would result in "no winner" much more often. Remember the 12th Amendment? It re-designed the EC because so few presidents were being won from EC voting. They didn't realize at the time that the changes would enshrine a 2-party system for all time, and that a 2-party system, enshrined in the Constitution, would divide the country, causing the first Civil War, and leading us towards what may become the second.
A pleasant side effect would be that Gary would have had about 15 EV and Jill about 5, and together, they would have forced an EC debate. If Gary and Jill and the Democrats agreed, they could "outvote" the one non-winner (Trump) and elect a single, acceptable candidate.
Confusing, not the will of the people, but that was the point when they came up with the EC. To have "enlightened" people buffering the farmers from the election. But when we design the system (with winner-take all in every state) to require 2-parties, then there will never be a contested election. At this point, contested elections in the EC would likely be good for the country. And no, not Trump specific, but in getting the will of the people properly executed (though the filter, as designed).
You can't take personal responsibility for your actions as a parent? That must be why all the Conservatives are always talking about personal responsibility. They don't know what it means.
Why can't their parents take some personal responsibility? If someone is dumb compared to their parents and grandparents, why aren't the parents and grandparents taking responsibility for their failures?
"Free Trade" should include a labor cost and environmental cost penalty. Pick the "cleanest" country and tax the others based on their savings from being dirty. Same with those that allow child labor and such.
If we make development illegal, then they'll never catch up to us. It keeps us out ahead of the advancing 3rd world.
You may want to re-do the math.
(9/5)*35=?
Oh, and usually when things like that happen, it's 35.4 (correctly rounded to 35) and 19.6666666 (correctly rounded to 20), or some other number that makes them right, and the idiot AC commenter a complete idiot.
Go read the studies that have looked at it. Yes, I know, when an A/C runs across a fact that they don't like, they attack the messenger. That doesn't invalidate the fact, but makes the puny A/C feel better.
How about we consider countries outside the USA.
When examined, they are making US/Europe widgets for US/Europe companies exported to US/Europe consumers. That the pollution is outsourced doesn't make it not-US/Europe pollution.
It would take no more than a law change to change that. That's exactly what I was calling for. A law change to make personal data be copyrighted by the person it "belongs to".
Let me copyright my SSN, and my name/birthdate combination. If you could copyright your personal data, then sue for identity theft. As it stands now, the penalties for stores that mishandle your data is near-zero. And there's a growing number of companies that hold information, but don't contact people. They sell the database, but without right.
So when you tell Bob to take you off their list, they can't. The list is owned by Alice, and Alice will never call you. Chris calls, from the same list Bob used. You can never get off the list Bob used. That should be illegal. Anyone that holds or uses your personal data should be required by law to disclose where they learned it from.
But the government passes CAN SPAM laws that tell companies they can spam you. But nobody in power wants to change it, so we are left with government by the 1% for the 1%.