Personally, I prefer the 'Losing Lawyer Pays' solution, and least in clear cases. That way they only take cases that have a chance in hell and aren't going to slack off and do a piss poor job. Perhaps it should be at the discretion of a judge, but making it automatic for summary dismissal seems pretty reasonable.
[sarcasm]
Yes, well, as a lefty/liberal/communist/socialist/whateverist, of course no one YOU KNOW believed it!
[/sarcasm]
Ok, the above was over the top, but the people you know do not make up a ramdom sample. Regardless, the GP post's point was correct that there were a large group of people outside the US that also believed it. It may or may not have been a majority of people overall. The official government stance of some of those countries is not necessarily representative of the popular beliefs in those countries, and those stances themselves were often supportive of the belief that he had them.
Also, I believe some of the anti-war protesters thought he did have them, just that we shouldn't go to war to remove them.
I think the metaphor is better than it looks at first glance. Although it's better to compare 'true statements' to 'self defense'.
In both cases, it must be proved that something took place. For murder, it's that the defendent killed someone. For libel, it's that the defendent wrote something about the plaintiff. Then the defendent is allowed to raise affirmative defenses such as self defense or provable truth of statement. The first part is often skipped when the defendent is relying on an affirmative defense.
The original post is a bit unclear without them. Either of the following is a valid parse of the post, and I thought it was the second until I read the article.
The BBC reported yesterday that U.S. scientists want to change the current system[,] which keeps clocks in sync with solar time by adding a leap second every 18 months or so.
as opposed to
The BBC reported yesterday that U.S. scientists want to change the current system[,] which keeps clocks in sync with solar time[,] by adding a leap second every 18 months or so.
The put it under the Suspension Calendar rule because they didn't want amendments or substitutions. As written, it was a clear consise bill. Since it failed, it went back to committee.
There was no poison pill here though. There were no admendments or riders. All it did was exempt the ineternet from one exisiting bill which restricts paid political speech.
It will not make campaigns cheapers, but it will reduce the gap between the power of large and small contributers, and can let poor individuals have a lot more influece via the internet. Money definitively does NOT determine influence in the blogosphere.
Let D=Donation size
S=effective speech of a donation
f(D) is a function determining the overhead cost of donating to a political campaign, from the campaign's point of view.
S=D-f(D)
If f(D) is something like "5 log D" (this could also be a constant, or some other function of D), then donating $1024 nets you $974, and donating 256 would net 216. Spending 4 times as much gets you 4.5 times the influence. The cost of carefully documenting donations doesn't matter much to you, but it matters quite a bit to who you are donating to. If they get around limits by having a secondary group do it's own collecting a spending (527 groups for instance) it further insulates politicians from individuals. With totally unlimited campaign requirements, then you can easily donate time and effort instead of money.
"...people refuse to act in their own best interest."
And what, exactly, gives you the right or ability to decide what their best interests are? People do act in what they percieve to be their own best interests, and just because you disagree does not make them wrong. Your criteria for benefitting society is no more or less arbitrary than theirs.
Which 3 races are you referring to? If you distinguish forsaken from the scourge, the only possible race issue would be orcs because of the War 20 years before. On the other hand, they were betrayed by the Alliance and are incapable of peacfully coexisting with the night elves. That betrayal is why they became the blood elves.
I'm sure he does see applicability. It's just that we are ignoring specks in our eyes to help others deal with the beams in theirs, at least in the mind of G.W. Bush and many of his supporters. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I, on the other hand, feel that it is a good thing to help my brother with a speck in his eye, regardless of whether there is a beam in mine or not. It might be better to deal with my own problem first, but that does not make it bad to assist someone else.
You're missing the argument completely. The whole point is that the overall tax rate was lower at the end of reagan's term (as determined by revenue as a % of GDP), but that the absolute revenue was higher. It is possible to lower taxes and increase revenue. Using the numbers I located, this occured even if you account for population growth and correct for inflation. The GDP per capita increased between the start and the end of his term, and per capita revenue grew 15%.
Why do you consider it inherently a bad thing that revenue fell as a portion of GDP? To use a weak analogy, the goal is to take a smaller slice but enlarge the pie. In other words, (20% of 100) > (21% of 90).
Incidentally, you should use 1980 as a start, but only as a comparison to before Reagan. He didn't take office until 1981. Considering 1989 has some usefulness if you assume that Bush Senior's policies didn't really impact things until later, but I agree that CATO should have left it out. This is why I ran the numbers from 1980 to 1988. They discuss this very point in the linked article however. They did use inflation corrected dollars. All amounts were given in 1992 dollars, but they did not factor out population growth.
Now, I will concede that we can't know for certain whether the tax rate modifications were a cause of the improved GDP. Nonetheless, your original statment that "Even during the Reagan years, when the supply-siders ran free like herds of buffalo in the White House, the tax cut resulted in dramatically lower revenue." is provably false, unless you redefine revenue as a percentage instead of an amount. Since that isn't the standard defintion, using it that way in an argument is misleading.
The parent's point was that some complaints are made because it's different, not because it's not working. Many complaints that both groups have about the other's system are caused solely by an unfamiliar interface. It's perfectly reasonable to expect it to work as well, but you can't expect it to do everything in the same way.
After examining your examples, I think I see why aluminium got shortened, but i'm really just guessing.
Note that aluminium has the most syllables of all the examples given. Magnesium and potassium have 4, but the sounds seem to be a bit more distinct than they are in aluminium. If it had been alumium to begin with, I don't think it would have been an issue.
BTW, I'm not saying that shortening the word when spoken was a good thing, just that I can see one reason it might happen.
My apologies, I didn't read your original statement as carefully as I thought I did. I picked out the '...there is a laffer point' due to the italics I guess.
Taking the simple method of multiplying the revenue as a % by the gdp per capita, the revenue per capita went from $4306.54 to $4980.34 in chained 2000 dollars.
"...but make no mistake there is a Laffer point."
This should really say "...but make no mistake there is at least one Laffer point."
You can't really assume it's a smooth function, let alone with a single point that is optimal. Hell, you can't even assume the curve doesn't change over time.
"According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'."
In other news, the criminal justice system is faulty in that the decision to decide someone is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' is made by juries, and different juries could have different options on what is defines as 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Seriously, I'm not fond of the bill, but allowing a group's consensus judgement is way more consistent than having decisions made by various individuals, who may be having a bad moode one day or personally object to something. If you want a system to rate games imposed by government at all, this is a better way to go than many alternatives.
It is illegal for the federal government to regulate it.
It is legal for an individual to engage in the activity, as far as the federal government is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to the second option.
Since lightning rods work by reducing the probability of a strike, not by attracting strikes, I fail to see the problem of it acting as a lightning rod. It would, if I understand correctly, prevent a large charge from building in the first place. It would still be a problem if it's too flammable, but being conductive wouldn't really be a drawback.
I would have gotten this correct knowing nothing about the words used. The first 3 are 2 syllable, 4 letter words. The question is, what was the reasoning used when this question was designed?
I could make an argument that 1 is the odd one out, since it starts with a vowel, but it seemed a much weaker correlation.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I prefer the 'Losing Lawyer Pays' solution, and least in clear cases. That way they only take cases that have a chance in hell and aren't going to slack off and do a piss poor job. Perhaps it should be at the discretion of a judge, but making it automatic for summary dismissal seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if you RTFA, they DID ask first.
[sarcasm]
Yes, well, as a lefty/liberal/communist/socialist/whateverist, of course no one YOU KNOW believed it!
[/sarcasm]
Ok, the above was over the top, but the people you know do not make up a ramdom sample. Regardless, the GP post's point was correct that there were a large group of people outside the US that also believed it. It may or may not have been a majority of people overall. The official government stance of some of those countries is not necessarily representative of the popular beliefs in those countries, and those stances themselves were often supportive of the belief that he had them.
Also, I believe some of the anti-war protesters thought he did have them, just that we shouldn't go to war to remove them.
I think the metaphor is better than it looks at first glance. Although it's better to compare 'true statements' to 'self defense'.
In both cases, it must be proved that something took place. For murder, it's that the defendent killed someone. For libel, it's that the defendent wrote something about the plaintiff. Then the defendent is allowed to raise affirmative defenses such as self defense or provable truth of statement. The first part is often skipped when the defendent is relying on an affirmative defense.
The put it under the Suspension Calendar rule because they didn't want amendments or substitutions. As written, it was a clear consise bill. Since it failed, it went back to committee.
Except for Russ Feingold, whom I have a great deal of respect for, even though I almost certainly disagree with his politics.
There was no poison pill here though. There were no admendments or riders. All it did was exempt the ineternet from one exisiting bill which restricts paid political speech.
It will not make campaigns cheapers, but it will reduce the gap between the power of large and small contributers, and can let poor individuals have a lot more influece via the internet. Money definitively does NOT determine influence in the blogosphere.
Let D=Donation size
S=effective speech of a donation
f(D) is a function determining the overhead cost of donating to a political campaign, from the campaign's point of view.
S=D-f(D)
If f(D) is something like "5 log D" (this could also be a constant, or some other function of D), then donating $1024 nets you $974, and donating 256 would net 216. Spending 4 times as much gets you 4.5 times the influence. The cost of carefully documenting donations doesn't matter much to you, but it matters quite a bit to who you are donating to. If they get around limits by having a secondary group do it's own collecting a spending (527 groups for instance) it further insulates politicians from individuals. With totally unlimited campaign requirements, then you can easily donate time and effort instead of money.
"...people refuse to act in their own best interest."
And what, exactly, gives you the right or ability to decide what their best interests are? People do act in what they percieve to be their own best interests, and just because you disagree does not make them wrong. Your criteria for benefitting society is no more or less arbitrary than theirs.
Which 3 races are you referring to? If you distinguish forsaken from the scourge, the only possible race issue would be orcs because of the War 20 years before. On the other hand, they were betrayed by the Alliance and are incapable of peacfully coexisting with the night elves. That betrayal is why they became the blood elves.
I'm sure he does see applicability. It's just that we are ignoring specks in our eyes to help others deal with the beams in theirs, at least in the mind of G.W. Bush and many of his supporters. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I, on the other hand, feel that it is a good thing to help my brother with a speck in his eye, regardless of whether there is a beam in mine or not. It might be better to deal with my own problem first, but that does not make it bad to assist someone else.
You're missing the argument completely. The whole point is that the overall tax rate was lower at the end of reagan's term (as determined by revenue as a % of GDP), but that the absolute revenue was higher. It is possible to lower taxes and increase revenue. Using the numbers I located, this occured even if you account for population growth and correct for inflation. The GDP per capita increased between the start and the end of his term, and per capita revenue grew 15%.
Why do you consider it inherently a bad thing that revenue fell as a portion of GDP? To use a weak analogy, the goal is to take a smaller slice but enlarge the pie. In other words, (20% of 100) > (21% of 90).
Incidentally, you should use 1980 as a start, but only as a comparison to before Reagan. He didn't take office until 1981. Considering 1989 has some usefulness if you assume that Bush Senior's policies didn't really impact things until later, but I agree that CATO should have left it out. This is why I ran the numbers from 1980 to 1988. They discuss this very point in the linked article however. They did use inflation corrected dollars. All amounts were given in 1992 dollars, but they did not factor out population growth.
Now, I will concede that we can't know for certain whether the tax rate modifications were a cause of the improved GDP. Nonetheless, your original statment that "Even during the Reagan years, when the supply-siders ran free like herds of buffalo in the White House, the tax cut resulted in dramatically lower revenue." is provably false, unless you redefine revenue as a percentage instead of an amount. Since that isn't the standard defintion, using it that way in an argument is misleading.
The parent's point was that some complaints are made because it's different, not because it's not working. Many complaints that both groups have about the other's system are caused solely by an unfamiliar interface. It's perfectly reasonable to expect it to work as well, but you can't expect it to do everything in the same way.
After examining your examples, I think I see why aluminium got shortened, but i'm really just guessing.
Note that aluminium has the most syllables of all the examples given. Magnesium and potassium have 4, but the sounds seem to be a bit more distinct than they are in aluminium. If it had been alumium to begin with, I don't think it would have been an issue.
BTW, I'm not saying that shortening the word when spoken was a good thing, just that I can see one reason it might happen.
My apologies, I didn't read your original statement as carefully as I thought I did. I picked out the '...there is a laffer point' due to the italics I guess.
From 1980 to 1988 that is.
Actually, if you check the numbers, despite revenue being lower as a portion of GDP, absolute revenue was HIGHER by the time reagan left office.
GDP Data
Revenue as a portion of GDP
GDP per capita
Taking the simple method of multiplying the revenue as a % by the gdp per capita, the revenue per capita went from $4306.54 to $4980.34 in chained 2000 dollars.
"...but make no mistake there is a Laffer point."
This should really say "...but make no mistake there is at least one Laffer point."
You can't really assume it's a smooth function, let alone with a single point that is optimal. Hell, you can't even assume the curve doesn't change over time.
"According the the VSDA, the bill is faulty in that a game is decided whether or not it is 'violent' by juries, and different juries could have different opinions on what is defined as 'violent'."
In other news, the criminal justice system is faulty in that the decision to decide someone is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' is made by juries, and different juries could have different options on what is defines as 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Seriously, I'm not fond of the bill, but allowing a group's consensus judgement is way more consistent than having decisions made by various individuals, who may be having a bad moode one day or personally object to something. If you want a system to rate games imposed by government at all, this is a better way to go than many alternatives.
It is illegal for the federal government to regulate it.
It is legal for an individual to engage in the activity, as far as the federal government is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to the second option.
Since lightning rods work by reducing the probability of a strike, not by attracting strikes, I fail to see the problem of it acting as a lightning rod. It would, if I understand correctly, prevent a large charge from building in the first place. It would still be a problem if it's too flammable, but being conductive wouldn't really be a drawback.
This is off-topic, but Montana is less than 1 Million according to the Census
I would have gotten this correct knowing nothing about the words used. The first 3 are 2 syllable, 4 letter words. The question is, what was the reasoning used when this question was designed?
I could make an argument that 1 is the odd one out, since it starts with a vowel, but it seemed a much weaker correlation.
I suspect the GP was referring to the paranoia buff that felhunters give you.