Does Korea spend much time or money worrying about how their children feel about their school performance versus helping them improve it?
Actually, self-esteem and self-efficacy is an extremely good, if not the best predictor of how well you do in school. So, no, it is not "overemphasized."
I wouldn't block ads if it didn't seem like 90% of them went something like this:
SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!
Click the whatever to get in on this REALLY AWESOME SCAM!
If there was a way I could block these and choose to receive only non-annoying ads for things I was interested in (hint: not Ponzi schemes) then I would do so. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that so I block them all.
I'm not one to call for gov't-anything, but if the FTC could seriously cut down on this the ad market as a whole would be better off for it.
he's spent an awfully long time trying to make the world see things his way, and he's not going to stop just because someone offers him a pile of cash.
This albeit-unprovable hypothesis finds some support in the fact that he draws a salary of $1/year...
And, by the way, this is coming at the cost of cutting the National Science Foundation, and it is cutting NASA budgets related to things other than the unserious moon-Mars project.
Republicans are supposed to believe in free markets and competition. What are they scared of here?
Losing some good, clean American pork barreling for their districts.
Read the article summary again:
(GOP House Leader) Delay, whose congressional district now includes the Johnson Space Center, was able to deliver the full budgetary request without any debate.
Free market solutions or efficiency of any kind is anathemic to some nice, localized handouts. Your elected representatives at work!
with the Government losing sight of the fact it exists for the people.
"The government" is not an intelligent entity. This is, despite all appearances to the contrary, still a democracy, and if the lawmakers get away with doing things like this it's because the people don't care.
Stuff like this doesn't happen because "the government" is big, and bad, and evil, it's because the people stopped paying attention. Stuff like IP law doesn't show up on literally 99.7% of the population's radar screens. And that's how they're going to get away with it.
Oh, so if you didn't have a problem, then no one else did? Are you a large sample of the population, or are you just one person? (I can't tell because you're posting anonymously.)
Any of the "other variables" proposed here need to satisfy two criteria to better explain this correlation:
1. It must correlate even more strongly with added Bush support 2. It must ALSO independently correlate with the presence of e-voting machines
I've seen a lot of theories that meet ONE of these criteria, but not both. What about, say, the abortion issue, why didn't the study take that into account? Are people who voted on abortion also disproportionately drawn to using e-voting machines? You need BOTH.
Uh, what, are we just going to have to accept the fact that we're always going to do worse at electronic voting machines?
"You also not create a fraud free system, as we know with the hacker culture, rules/systems/processes/et al. are meant to be bent and sometimes broken, and anyone who has the desire to attack the system can do so with enough effort."
Yes, there will always be some fraud. Does that mean that any given amount of fraud is acceptable? When there is fraud, am I supposed to sit back, sigh, and say, "Oh, well. There will always some fraud." There will always be some wrongness in the world. So, I suppose I shouldn't care when some wrongness occurs?
"I do find it very ironic that we have two distinct crowds, largely both in the Democrat leaning arena which desire to challenge the election results. There are those who want to challenge the electronic voting and those who want to challenge the paper voting. Each group implies the other system is the better system. You can't have it both ways."
All butterfly ballots are paper ballots, but not all paper ballots are butterfly ballots. Draw a Venn diagram, if it'll help you. It is quite possible to have a ballot that is both not electronic and not a punch-card butterfly ballot. This is an obvious false dilemma.
None of the theories you mentioned would explain why counties with electronic voting machines (you noticed I italicized it) were significantly more likely to vote GOP.
"you still have to account for people who have traditionally voted Democrat but were in this election turned off by the Dem's seemingly rabid support of gay marriage and/or abortion"
Were people who were turned off to gay marriage and abortion also drawn to e-voting machines?
"Maybe we've got stupid Republicans actively working to disenfranchise or confuse minority voters?"
Did they only do it in counties with e-voting machines?
"Maybe people just didn't know how to use the machine, accidentally submitted their vote, and didn't ask for help?"
Why did these voter errors on e-voting machines always turn out so well for Bush?
"Or maybe they asked for help but were told to just go home by partisan poll workers?"
Partisan poll workers only at polls with e-voting machines? And how did this always turn out well for Bush?
We've got a basic problem here: the best correlation for doing well for Bush is the presence of e-voting machines. The only way to debunk this is to come up with a variable that correlates even more strongly for Bush AND ALSO correlates independently with the presence of e-voting machines. Merely throwing variables up in the air, as I've seen throughout this./ discussion, isn't going to help you do that most efficiently.
Yes, "too many of these wannabe statiticians are not publishing their results." I'm not sure who you're talking about, because if you RTFA (!!!) you will find that they put all of their data online. If you can find a flaw in that, then you've got something.
Journal-published articles take 6-18 months to be published. This article is only a working paper, and it should be treated as such, but it would be definitionally impossible for a academic-refereed article to be coming out within a relevant timeframe.
Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
"There are no laws preventing commercial space flight."
No, it's been regulated by the FAA since 1991. This bill would have just changed the regulations a bit. In any event this is still suborbital flight we're talking about.
All you need is some asinine buzzword for it, and you've just described a Bush administration policy.
Here are some suggestions: * Patent freedom act * Small-business patent relief * The freedom to innovate (oops, that's microsoft) * Clear patents act * War is peace
I'm off for tea at the moment, so many other people can suggest others in this thread.
You're talking about business methods not business products. By your logic, since historically business methods have NOT until very recently been protected by patent law, then until the recent past there was no incentive for people in this country to discover new industries. Someone could just steal their business model, so there were no incentives or innovation in the US until very recently. Take a good look at history: it must have been like the dark ages some 20 years ago, what with no incentives to innovate and whatnot. Thank god we have history's lessons to teach us to correct that awful mistake.
Except in most "first-world" countries, there are legal barriers to the development of 2nd or 3rd-world areas within their bounds. It would be illegal anywhere in the US to employ someone for the same amount as in Bangladesh. And our minimum wage laws aren't even that high! Some European countries have legal minimum wages set at the equivalent of US $30/hour! There are plenty of other things, like liability rules, minimum insurance levels, safety regulations, etc that would make the employment practices of a third world country simply impossible in an advanced country.
Think about it for a minute. San Francisco is the most expensive city to live in the the US, and the price level of goods only 20% above the national average. The difference between San Francisco and Kansas is worlds away from the difference between either and any third world country. The average person in LA probably makes $40,000 a year, the average person in Alabama makes something like $20,000 a year, and I just looked it up and the number for average person in Afghanistan is $700. That just doesn't compare.
The answer to that question is simple: because people are thinking generally when they out to be thinking on a case-by-case basis.
They think that knowing the election result sooner is better because they think that knowing everything sooner is better.
They think that a newer and computerized voting machine because they think that everything that is newer and computerized is better.
These rules are true generally. But in this particular case, exactly the opposite is true. The reason they don't make corrections for their rule-based understanding of the world when relevant should be fairly obvious from looking at our political culture for long enough: dumb-downed media, taking other people seriously is considered impugning to one's own pride, media finds the first two sides it can identify and then shows "both" sides equally, encouraging shoot-from-the-gut judgments and refusing correction, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's easy to see how this can be awfully politically convenient for some people....
Slashdot Mirror
People get pissed off about the Confederate flag because they think that it's a symbol of racism, not because its "separatist".
Does Korea spend much time or money worrying about how their children feel about their school performance versus helping them improve it?
Actually, self-esteem and self-efficacy is an extremely good, if not the best predictor of how well you do in school. So, no, it is not "overemphasized."
HINT: I bet Czech schools don't spend millions of dollars (or preferred local currency) on state-of-the-art sports facilities and equipment.
But I bet their labor costs are a lot lower.
If there was a way I could block these and choose to receive only non-annoying ads for things I was interested in (hint: not Ponzi schemes) then I would do so. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that so I block them all.
I'm not one to call for gov't-anything, but if the FTC could seriously cut down on this the ad market as a whole would be better off for it.
he's spent an awfully long time trying to make the world see things his way, and he's not going to stop just because someone offers him a pile of cash.
This albeit-unprovable hypothesis finds some support in the fact that he draws a salary of $1/year...
And, by the way, this is coming at the cost of cutting the National Science Foundation, and it is cutting NASA budgets related to things other than the unserious moon-Mars project.
I think the biggest risk to our own species is our own species. There is nowhere we can "go" to escape that.
We exercise such short-term thinking at our own peril.
Isn't that the whole argument against deficit spending?
Republicans are supposed to believe in free markets and competition. What are they scared of here?
Losing some good, clean American pork barreling for their districts.
Read the article summary again:
(GOP House Leader) Delay, whose congressional district now includes the Johnson Space Center, was able to deliver the full budgetary request without any debate.
Free market solutions or efficiency of any kind is anathemic to some nice, localized handouts. Your elected representatives at work!
On average, the republican party outspends the democratic party nationwide. For every state, those that have GOP in control of both houses added the most new spending -- all financed by running higher deficits.
The problem is not George W. Bush.
a few more lucrative speaking engagements...
Tenet makes $35,000 a pop, or more than $500,000 since resigning a few months ago. Plus, book deal in the works!
I'm not sure what he did to deserve all this.
with the Government losing sight of the fact it exists for the people.
"The government" is not an intelligent entity. This is, despite all appearances to the contrary, still a democracy, and if the lawmakers get away with doing things like this it's because the people don't care.
Stuff like this doesn't happen because "the government" is big, and bad, and evil, it's because the people stopped paying attention. Stuff like IP law doesn't show up on literally 99.7% of the population's radar screens. And that's how they're going to get away with it.
Oh, so if you didn't have a problem, then no one else did? Are you a large sample of the population, or are you just one person? (I can't tell because you're posting anonymously.)
Here's where you're wrong:
If you violate the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.
This should actually say:
If * the company says that * you violated the terms and conditions, the company can suspend or revoke your license to play the game.
Whether or not you violated the terms and conditions is not at all relevant.
Any of the "other variables" proposed here need to satisfy two criteria to better explain this correlation:
1. It must correlate even more strongly with added Bush support
2. It must ALSO independently correlate with the presence of e-voting machines
I've seen a lot of theories that meet ONE of these criteria, but not both. What about, say, the abortion issue, why didn't the study take that into account? Are people who voted on abortion also disproportionately drawn to using e-voting machines? You need BOTH.
Uh, what, are we just going to have to accept the fact that we're always going to do worse at electronic voting machines?
"You also not create a fraud free system, as we know with the hacker culture, rules/systems/processes/et al. are meant to be bent and sometimes broken, and anyone who has the desire to attack the system can do so with enough effort."
Yes, there will always be some fraud. Does that mean that any given amount of fraud is acceptable? When there is fraud, am I supposed to sit back, sigh, and say, "Oh, well. There will always some fraud." There will always be some wrongness in the world. So, I suppose I shouldn't care when some wrongness occurs?
"I do find it very ironic that we have two distinct crowds, largely both in the Democrat leaning arena which desire to challenge the election results. There are those who want to challenge the electronic voting and those who want to challenge the paper voting. Each group implies the other system is the better system. You can't have it both ways."
All butterfly ballots are paper ballots, but not all paper ballots are butterfly ballots. Draw a Venn diagram, if it'll help you. It is quite possible to have a ballot that is both not electronic and not a punch-card butterfly ballot. This is an obvious false dilemma.
None of the theories you mentioned would explain why counties with electronic voting machines (you noticed I italicized it) were significantly more likely to vote GOP.
./ discussion, isn't going to help you do that most efficiently.
"you still have to account for people who have traditionally voted Democrat but were in this election turned off by the Dem's seemingly rabid support of gay marriage and/or abortion"
Were people who were turned off to gay marriage and abortion also drawn to e-voting machines?
"Maybe we've got stupid Republicans actively working to disenfranchise or confuse minority voters?"
Did they only do it in counties with e-voting machines?
"Maybe people just didn't know how to use the machine, accidentally submitted their vote, and didn't ask for help?"
Why did these voter errors on e-voting machines always turn out so well for Bush?
"Or maybe they asked for help but were told to just go home by partisan poll workers?"
Partisan poll workers only at polls with e-voting machines? And how did this always turn out well for Bush?
We've got a basic problem here: the best correlation for doing well for Bush is the presence of e-voting machines. The only way to debunk this is to come up with a variable that correlates even more strongly for Bush AND ALSO correlates independently with the presence of e-voting machines. Merely throwing variables up in the air, as I've seen throughout this
Yes, "too many of these wannabe statiticians are not publishing their results." I'm not sure who you're talking about, because if you RTFA (!!!) you will find that they put all of their data online. If you can find a flaw in that, then you've got something.
Journal-published articles take 6-18 months to be published. This article is only a working paper, and it should be treated as such, but it would be definitionally impossible for a academic-refereed article to be coming out within a relevant timeframe.
RTFA:
This bill is about suborbital flight. RTFA.
"There are no laws preventing commercial space flight."
No, it's been regulated by the FAA since 1991. This bill would have just changed the regulations a bit. In any event this is still suborbital flight we're talking about.
All you need is some asinine buzzword for it, and you've just described a Bush administration policy.
Here are some suggestions:
* Patent freedom act
* Small-business patent relief
* The freedom to innovate (oops, that's microsoft)
* Clear patents act
* War is peace
I'm off for tea at the moment, so many other people can suggest others in this thread.
You're talking about business methods not business products. By your logic, since historically business methods have NOT until very recently been protected by patent law, then until the recent past there was no incentive for people in this country to discover new industries. Someone could just steal their business model, so there were no incentives or innovation in the US until very recently. Take a good look at history: it must have been like the dark ages some 20 years ago, what with no incentives to innovate and whatnot. Thank god we have history's lessons to teach us to correct that awful mistake.
Except in most "first-world" countries, there are legal barriers to the development of 2nd or 3rd-world areas within their bounds. It would be illegal anywhere in the US to employ someone for the same amount as in Bangladesh. And our minimum wage laws aren't even that high! Some European countries have legal minimum wages set at the equivalent of US $30/hour! There are plenty of other things, like liability rules, minimum insurance levels, safety regulations, etc that would make the employment practices of a third world country simply impossible in an advanced country.
Think about it for a minute. San Francisco is the most expensive city to live in the the US, and the price level of goods only 20% above the national average. The difference between San Francisco and Kansas is worlds away from the difference between either and any third world country. The average person in LA probably makes $40,000 a year, the average person in Alabama makes something like $20,000 a year, and I just looked it up and the number for average person in Afghanistan is $700. That just doesn't compare.
The answer to that question is simple: because people are thinking generally when they out to be thinking on a case-by-case basis.
They think that knowing the election result sooner is better because they think that knowing everything sooner is better.
They think that a newer and computerized voting machine because they think that everything that is newer and computerized is better.
These rules are true generally. But in this particular case, exactly the opposite is true. The reason they don't make corrections for their rule-based understanding of the world when relevant should be fairly obvious from looking at our political culture for long enough: dumb-downed media, taking other people seriously is considered impugning to one's own pride, media finds the first two sides it can identify and then shows "both" sides equally, encouraging shoot-from-the-gut judgments and refusing correction, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's easy to see how this can be awfully politically convenient for some people....