It's also worth pointing out that elephants have larger brains than humans. Sure, you can make lots of good arguments about how 20% of your metabolism (or something like that) is devoted to powering your supercooled cpus, but the point is that brain size is an imperfect indicator of intelligence. Also, men have larger brains than women - but smaller brains proportional to mass. And if you find these arguments unconvincing, then I'll just ask you to trust me - I'm an elephant and I've got a larger brain than you do.
While I'm sure many on slashdot feel that way, I'm fairly certain that the majority of Americans don't feel that way - regardless of the reality - and my point was about how people feel.
As for whether steel is a metal, well, I'll just say "no comment".:)
Right now, in Virginia it looks like enough people might be voting for "a swift kick in the nuts" to be taking votes away from "a slap in the face", such that we end up with "a baseball bat to the skull". Luckily, "a slap in the face" still leads by 1,000. (Numbers are 474,376 to 473,136 to 10,514 with 42% responding.)
To quote Voltaire, "the best is enemy of the good". If you're going to demand perfection, you might get nothing. I'd rather have people make some positive steps then do nothing at all. Yes, getting involved is the best choice, but don't force people into thinking that it's all or nothing - because then they'll usually choose nothing. I'd rather people choose the lesser of two evils than allow the greater evil to make a choice for them.
The problem with that is that I'm perfectly comfortable not working for someone who would force me to vote a certain way. I'd never work for such a person. This is much like the debates over surveillance in that regard. I really don't have anything to hide. The problem is other people.
Other people can be influenced by coercion. The fact that you can't be influenced by coercion doesn't change that fact.
Surveillance can be used for coercion. The (possible) fact that you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean that surveillance can't be used (indirectly) against you.
You must be anti-American! Surely the bat symbolizes baseball and is therefore the best option!
But seriously, if you feel that strongly, vote for a write-in (e.g., "zerbert"). At least you'll be voting - and that very clearly states that you're not lazy, you're disgusted with the choices.
I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils. If someone ties you down to a chair and asks me if I prefer to be beaten with the steel or metal bat, I answer that I prefer to be let go without harm.
Instead of choosing between steel or "metal" bats, let's make the analogy closer to how many voters really feel. You've got the choice between being hit (very hard) with a bat, or being slapped (very hard) on the face. You have the option not to choose, but if you don't choose, they'll let someone else decide. What do you do then?
Having said that, I've got no problem with voting for a 3rd party candidate - just make sure it's an informed decision within the context of our voting system. Not voting, however? That's just letting someone else choose how to abuse you.
If truly random, then the expected deviation from the expected mean varies as the square root of N (with N being the number of random votes). That is, although the expected proportion is 50%, the expected deviation from that proportion is significantly non-zero. If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I can't tell you whether there will be more heads than tails, but I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that the number of heads will not be between (for example) 499,900 and 500,100. Specifically, the variance would be expected to be n*p*(1-p) or 250,000, meaning the standard deviation would be expected to be 500, so there's only about a 16% chance of the actual number of coin flips being between 499,900 and 500,100 (if I've done my math correctly).
I agree completely. Your "uninformed" vote is certainly at least partially informed. You've absorbed some information whether you like it or not. A lot of that information is propaganda, no doubt, but hopefully the "average uninformed" voter will get some signal through that noise. However, when the turnout is only 30% (as I believe predictions are calling for), who wins depends a lot more on who energizes their base more than what the majority believes (thus reinforcing negative campaigning).
I've tried to verify your statement, but all I've found so far is that increased CO2 will lead to increased forest fires which will lead back to increased CO2 (how much was not stated), most of the contribution of forest fires to CO2 is due to tropical forests (think slash-and-burn), and that boreal forest fires (as opposed to tropical forest fires, for example), contributed 828-1,103 Tg of CO2 in 1998, compared to 2,214.837 Tg emitted by US fuels (only fuels, mind you) in 1998. According to that same link, the fuels are 40.5% of the total US contribution, so that comes out to about 5,470 Tg of CO2 from the US alone.
So, your facts might be correct, but it's hard for me to verify. Do you have a source?
Wouldn't an ad hominem attack require an, um, attack?
I was questioning a "fact" that was posted in the summary, and posted a little research to help judge the validity of the "fact". Yes, my comments were "ad hominem", but they weren't an attack. The original summary was also "ad hominem", as in, listen to me because I "like Al Gore" and "donate to the Sierra Club".
However, if you want some facts, how about we start with the most obviously bogus claim (and there's a lot to choose from) on this site: "a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none." Why don't you Google that and see what you come up with? (Unfortunately, there's no reference on the site's list of "references" to back up that claim, so Google will have to do you. You will find sites that make this claim, and you'll find sites that show why it's nonsense. Only you can make the final call as to what you believe.)
Makes you wonder how someone who "donate[s] to the Sierra Club" would find this to be a "very convincing article", doesn't it?
As someone who basically agrees with you, something has been bothering me. How is this different from absentee ballots? Sure, you have to sign the back of the envelope, but can't he be with you watching to make sure you vote the "right" way?
This group that you show so much distain for represents about half of this country, and believe it or not, they want fair and honest elections just as much as you do.
Absolutely. I think it's important for us to remember that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation want fair and honest elections. Having said that, I strongly believe that Republican politicians are far more corrupt right now than Democrat politicians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.
Again, however, it is important to remember to be civil to our fellow Americans who happen to have different beliefs than us. (I can't pretend to always have a great memory about this, but I do try.)
Em, no, wait, that got thrown out.
*rustle*
Where is it?
*rustle*
Aha! Found it!
Benchmarks!
(Disclaimer: This is a joke. I know Republicans actually have plans. So do Democrats. However, if all you do is listen to sound bites - i.e, if you don't think Democrats have plans - this is the impression you get of the Republican "plan".)
What was the better policy? Status quo (no fly zones, etc.) or our invasion? (Especially considering that we had/have unfinished business in Afghanistan.)
Note, I'm not asking what was the best policy - just what was the better policy. (Status quo does not seem like a good policy, but it does seem like a better policy than this particular invasion.)
But I did note that it had me agreeing with my (Republican) incumbents a lot more than I would have thought. So, I'm definitely not saying the slant isn't there, but if it is, it's subtle enough for me not to spot.
So, is Fox News part of the drive-by media, as well? Because they have the story as well. Granted, it's quite tricky to find on the Fox News web-site (I had to use "search" to find it).
Let's see, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for the past six years, so why should most political problems from the past six years NOT be biased towards Republicans?
They have also controlled the Supreme Court for far more than the last six years, although you'd never have guessed that from all the complaints about activist judges. 7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
If I were to find such a story on DailyKos (with the opposite slant, of course), I'd be skeptical, but I would be on the lookout for supporting information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also worth pointing out that elephants have larger brains than humans. Sure, you can make lots of good arguments about how 20% of your metabolism (or something like that) is devoted to powering your supercooled cpus, but the point is that brain size is an imperfect indicator of intelligence. Also, men have larger brains than women - but smaller brains proportional to mass. And if you find these arguments unconvincing, then I'll just ask you to trust me - I'm an elephant and I've got a larger brain than you do.
I like that way of thinking. It's somewhat less depressing.
No disagreements here. I just wanted to point out that an even split is NOT what's expected from a random vote.
While I'm sure many on slashdot feel that way, I'm fairly certain that the majority of Americans don't feel that way - regardless of the reality - and my point was about how people feel.
As for whether steel is a metal, well, I'll just say "no comment". :)
Right now, in Virginia it looks like enough people might be voting for "a swift kick in the nuts" to be taking votes away from "a slap in the face", such that we end up with "a baseball bat to the skull". Luckily, "a slap in the face" still leads by 1,000. (Numbers are 474,376 to 473,136 to 10,514 with 42% responding.)
First of all, I do appreciate that you keep to facts and logic. Now, let me poke a little hole in them. :) (Of course, IANAL.)
Without habeas corpus, how can I prove that I am NOT an enemy combatant? How can I prove that I AM a US citizen?
Basically, it is impossible to deny habeas corpus to anyone without denying it to everyone (possibly short of profiling a la race/gender).
To quote Voltaire, "the best is enemy of the good". If you're going to demand perfection, you might get nothing. I'd rather have people make some positive steps then do nothing at all. Yes, getting involved is the best choice, but don't force people into thinking that it's all or nothing - because then they'll usually choose nothing. I'd rather people choose the lesser of two evils than allow the greater evil to make a choice for them.
The problem with that is that I'm perfectly comfortable not working for someone who would force me to vote a certain way. I'd never work for such a person. This is much like the debates over surveillance in that regard. I really don't have anything to hide. The problem is other people.
Other people can be influenced by coercion. The fact that you can't be influenced by coercion doesn't change that fact.
Surveillance can be used for coercion. The (possible) fact that you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean that surveillance can't be used (indirectly) against you.
You must be anti-American! Surely the bat symbolizes baseball and is therefore the best option!
But seriously, if you feel that strongly, vote for a write-in (e.g., "zerbert"). At least you'll be voting - and that very clearly states that you're not lazy, you're disgusted with the choices.
Now there's a platform (shoe) I can support!
Instead of choosing between steel or "metal" bats, let's make the analogy closer to how many voters really feel. You've got the choice between being hit (very hard) with a bat, or being slapped (very hard) on the face. You have the option not to choose, but if you don't choose, they'll let someone else decide. What do you do then?
Having said that, I've got no problem with voting for a 3rd party candidate - just make sure it's an informed decision within the context of our voting system. Not voting, however? That's just letting someone else choose how to abuse you.
If truly random, then the expected deviation from the expected mean varies as the square root of N (with N being the number of random votes). That is, although the expected proportion is 50%, the expected deviation from that proportion is significantly non-zero. If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I can't tell you whether there will be more heads than tails, but I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that the number of heads will not be between (for example) 499,900 and 500,100. Specifically, the variance would be expected to be n*p*(1-p) or 250,000, meaning the standard deviation would be expected to be 500, so there's only about a 16% chance of the actual number of coin flips being between 499,900 and 500,100 (if I've done my math correctly).
I agree completely. Your "uninformed" vote is certainly at least partially informed. You've absorbed some information whether you like it or not. A lot of that information is propaganda, no doubt, but hopefully the "average uninformed" voter will get some signal through that noise. However, when the turnout is only 30% (as I believe predictions are calling for), who wins depends a lot more on who energizes their base more than what the majority believes (thus reinforcing negative campaigning).
VOTE!
I've tried to verify your statement, but all I've found so far is that increased CO2 will lead to increased forest fires which will lead back to increased CO2 (how much was not stated), most of the contribution of forest fires to CO2 is due to tropical forests (think slash-and-burn), and that boreal forest fires (as opposed to tropical forest fires, for example), contributed 828-1,103 Tg of CO2 in 1998, compared to 2,214.837 Tg emitted by US fuels (only fuels, mind you) in 1998. According to that same link, the fuels are 40.5% of the total US contribution, so that comes out to about 5,470 Tg of CO2 from the US alone.
So, your facts might be correct, but it's hard for me to verify. Do you have a source?
Wouldn't an ad hominem attack require an, um, attack?
I was questioning a "fact" that was posted in the summary, and posted a little research to help judge the validity of the "fact". Yes, my comments were "ad hominem", but they weren't an attack. The original summary was also "ad hominem", as in, listen to me because I "like Al Gore" and "donate to the Sierra Club".
However, if you want some facts, how about we start with the most obviously bogus claim (and there's a lot to choose from) on this site: "a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none." Why don't you Google that and see what you come up with? (Unfortunately, there's no reference on the site's list of "references" to back up that claim, so Google will have to do you. You will find sites that make this claim, and you'll find sites that show why it's nonsense. Only you can make the final call as to what you believe.)
Makes you wonder how someone who "donate[s] to the Sierra Club" would find this to be a "very convincing article", doesn't it?
As someone who basically agrees with you, something has been bothering me. How is this different from absentee ballots? Sure, you have to sign the back of the envelope, but can't he be with you watching to make sure you vote the "right" way?
Because they have an article on the story as well.
Absolutely. I think it's important for us to remember that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation want fair and honest elections. Having said that, I strongly believe that Republican politicians are far more corrupt right now than Democrat politicians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.
Again, however, it is important to remember to be civil to our fellow Americans who happen to have different beliefs than us. (I can't pretend to always have a great memory about this, but I do try.)
Em, no, wait, that got thrown out.
*rustle*
Where is it?
*rustle*
Aha! Found it!
Benchmarks!
(Disclaimer: This is a joke. I know Republicans actually have plans. So do Democrats. However, if all you do is listen to sound bites - i.e, if you don't think Democrats have plans - this is the impression you get of the Republican "plan".)
What was the better policy? Status quo (no fly zones, etc.) or our invasion? (Especially considering that we had/have unfinished business in Afghanistan.)
Note, I'm not asking what was the best policy - just what was the better policy. (Status quo does not seem like a good policy, but it does seem like a better policy than this particular invasion.)
But I did note that it had me agreeing with my (Republican) incumbents a lot more than I would have thought. So, I'm definitely not saying the slant isn't there, but if it is, it's subtle enough for me not to spot.
So, is Fox News part of the drive-by media, as well? Because they have the story as well. Granted, it's quite tricky to find on the Fox News web-site (I had to use "search" to find it).
Although it did take me a while to find it.
If I were to find such a story on DailyKos (with the opposite slant, of course), I'd be skeptical, but I would be on the lookout for supporting information.