Surprisingly, I didn't RTFA. The summary seems to quote the article in saying that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." This would imply exclusive control on the part of non-average Americans.
If in a country of 300 million, only tens of thousands of people are the ones that determine the course of public policy (not merely agree with it), then indeed, that does make them oligarchs, by definition.
I didn't know slashdot had its own Supreme Court justice! Welcome! In any case, as someone with the authority to rule on the constitutionality of various things, you must surely be aware of the countless gender-specific laws and regulations that are on the books today and nowhere near being mulled over by the judiciary, spanning the gamut between differences in SS retirement age and allowable roles in the military. This is but one of them.
Regarding the Heller decision, I thought the Court concluded that the prefatory clause (the part that references a well regulated militia) had no bearing on the right to bear arms. As in, the amendment could have read "The sky is blue, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," to the same effect. It didn't redefine the composition of the militia.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I'm an able-bodied 31 year old male citizen. I am a member of the militia of the United States, as defined by U.S Code. Presumably, the Honorable John Paul Stevens, as a former Justice of the Supreme Court, is aware of this little detail.
I don't think you can call exclusive control a mere "moderate bias", and I don't think "tens of millions of people" is a synonym for tens of thousands of people.
I think you may be excessively watering down the claims being made.
One man's "inaccurate" is another man's "good enough".
30/10 is pretty damn close to pi. It's not like 22/7 would be "correct", and if you think the Hebrew Bible should have even attempted to explain irrational numbers to a largely illiterate people, you're the one that's "incorrect".
That being said, numerology is hilarious. Sure, Hebrew numerals are written using the same characters as some Hebrew "letters" (I use that term loosely, as Hebrew uses an abjad, not an alphabet). Sure, it might be possible that summing some arbitrarily chosen subset of characters from that verse might yield 31, and summing some other arbitrarily chosen subset of characters might yield 222. However, nowhere in that verse does it indicate which subsets to sum (hence my use of the word "arbitrarily"). Also, nowhere in that verse does it say anything about dividing (or multiplying, or exponentiating, or performating any other binary mathmetical operation) one sum by another. The fact that you can apply some arbitrary interpretation to this verse and arrive at a decent approximation of pi doesn't mean anything, since I can come up with countless other arbitrary (but equally valid) interpretations that yield meaningless numbers that don't correspond to any particularly interesting natural constants. I don't know anything about this Chuck Missler, but based on the fact that he had this diatribe published under his name, I'd have to guess that he's an idiot.
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." - Madeleine Albright
In the long run, it's still Eisenhower's (and Allae Dulles') responsibility, as it was under his watch that we supported the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government, which was the ultimate cause for the Iran hostage crisis. Blaming Carter for the crisis makes less sense than blaming Obama for Iraq.
The Democrats and Republicans differ only in the mascot they rally behind. Two sides of the same coin. Keep throwing your vote away on any of these cocksuckers and see how much good that will do.
I owned one of those Audi TTs without a spoiler (2000, USA). I took it up to its maximum speed (~130mph) on several occasions. I never noticed any poor handling at high speeds.
During this time, I also rented a Corvette, which I was only able to safely get up to 120mph. At that speed, staying in one lane was nearly impossible, and if I had gone any faster I'm not convinced that I would've been able to stay on the pavement.
I never understood why there was a recall on the TT that stuck a spoiler on it. In my opinion, its handling at high speeds was at least as good as other sports cars.
I meant Minnesota in a figurative sense, as in a place where there is no significant motor vehicle traffic on public roadways.
How long your brakes last is determined not only by your driving style, but also on your environment. In dense stop and go traffic, leaving a significant gap in front of your vehicle doesn't work, since people will cut in front of you, thereby eliminating said gap. The only way you can drive in heavy New Jersey traffic without using brakes excessively is if you keep your car in first gear.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people". Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them? Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States (assuming you are) since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?
s/gay marriage/civil rights for blacks/
That's what you'll sound like in a few years. Telling Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up; Telling Dr. King that if he doesn't like it, maybe he should move to Africa.
Who do these complainers think they are; declaring that someone should lose their job, just because they have different beliefs?
What if he believed that black people are sub-human? What if he believed that Jews should be baked? What if he believed that women were property of their husbands/fathers?
Yes, holding certain beliefs can impact your employment status. Of course, in this case, the beliefs come with a blessing by religion, so that automatically gets him a free pass. I wonder why the Ku Klux Klan hasn't re-branded as a religious organization, as I'm sure that would silence most of their critics. Wouldn't want to disrespect someone's religious beliefs, after all.
On the other hand, I never knew the story behind the research.
This guy was so unbelievably stupid that Dunning and Kruger took it upon themselves to study his idiocy in a scientific way. I mean, he must've felt pretty damn stupid when he got arrested, but then to find out he's literally a case study in stupidity? I got a good laugh out of it.
How do you know that Biblical characters never really existed?
I don't, much like I don't know that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Isaac Asimov
Indeed, how do you know that Frodo never really existed? He's just in a different history book. The fact that it's a ficitonal one rather than a factional one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrication.
I see someone is downmodding my posts in this thread. While I've got karma to spare, this still bothers me. How does an invitation to self-reflection warrant a troll mod?
I didn't mean to suggest that Nimrod, Cush, Ham, and Noah didn't really exist. I did mean to say that the biblical characters bearing those names are just that: characters. We have no evidence of their existence beyond what is written of them in a book with many other claims that are known to be false. If one can claim that, for example, the biblican creation story is not meant to be interpreted literally, how are we to know that Noah wasn't also a metaphor? In any case, the historicity of these characters is not established, unlike the historicity of, say, Hammurabi.
That being said, the earliest evidence of these characters' existence dates from several centuries after the well-documented reign of Hammurabi. "Eye for an eye" is not a concept introduced by the Abrahamic faiths, as even according to the Abrahamic mythology, Moses is predated by Hammurabi.
It's unsettling to me that so many people are offended by this statement. It's not exactly a radical claim, as I'm only repeating common historical knowledge. I fear that this claim, combined with the indoctrination that often accompanies religious belief, causes an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance in some people, which they resolve by discounting what I'm saying.
If you have no problem denying evolution, geology, and cosmology, I shouldn't be surprised if you also have no issues denying known history.
"The Kruger Dunning" isn't a thing. You're thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Which you almost-conveniently almost-link to. Try something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect">this</a>.
Slashdot Mirror
Surprisingly, I didn't RTFA. The summary seems to quote the article in saying that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." This would imply exclusive control on the part of non-average Americans.
If in a country of 300 million, only tens of thousands of people are the ones that determine the course of public policy (not merely agree with it), then indeed, that does make them oligarchs, by definition.
1) It's unconstitutional.
I didn't know slashdot had its own Supreme Court justice! Welcome! In any case, as someone with the authority to rule on the constitutionality of various things, you must surely be aware of the countless gender-specific laws and regulations that are on the books today and nowhere near being mulled over by the judiciary, spanning the gamut between differences in SS retirement age and allowable roles in the military. This is but one of them.
Regarding the Heller decision, I thought the Court concluded that the prefatory clause (the part that references a well regulated militia) had no bearing on the right to bear arms. As in, the amendment could have read "The sky is blue, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," to the same effect. It didn't redefine the composition of the militia.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Citation.
I'm an able-bodied 31 year old male citizen. I am a member of the militia of the United States, as defined by U.S Code. Presumably, the Honorable John Paul Stevens, as a former Justice of the Supreme Court, is aware of this little detail.
I don't think you can call exclusive control a mere "moderate bias", and I don't think "tens of millions of people" is a synonym for tens of thousands of people.
I think you may be excessively watering down the claims being made.
WOLF-PAC.
We're making it happen. You should help out.
One man's "inaccurate" is another man's "good enough".
30/10 is pretty damn close to pi. It's not like 22/7 would be "correct", and if you think the Hebrew Bible should have even attempted to explain irrational numbers to a largely illiterate people, you're the one that's "incorrect".
That being said, numerology is hilarious. Sure, Hebrew numerals are written using the same characters as some Hebrew "letters" (I use that term loosely, as Hebrew uses an abjad, not an alphabet). Sure, it might be possible that summing some arbitrarily chosen subset of characters from that verse might yield 31, and summing some other arbitrarily chosen subset of characters might yield 222. However, nowhere in that verse does it indicate which subsets to sum (hence my use of the word "arbitrarily"). Also, nowhere in that verse does it say anything about dividing (or multiplying, or exponentiating, or performating any other binary mathmetical operation) one sum by another. The fact that you can apply some arbitrary interpretation to this verse and arrive at a decent approximation of pi doesn't mean anything, since I can come up with countless other arbitrary (but equally valid) interpretations that yield meaningless numbers that don't correspond to any particularly interesting natural constants. I don't know anything about this Chuck Missler, but based on the fact that he had this diatribe published under his name, I'd have to guess that he's an idiot.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.
"the failed rescue mission, which arguably was his responsibility resulted in the loss of eight servicemen" -- You
"in the long run it's still Carter's responsibility." -- You again
If you meant to absolve Carter of any blame, you weren't communicating that clearly.
If you meant to blame Carter, I sought to counter your claim.
Perhaps you can point out the part of your post that you feel I didn't read?
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." - Madeleine Albright
In the long run, it's still Eisenhower's (and Allae Dulles') responsibility, as it was under his watch that we supported the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government, which was the ultimate cause for the Iran hostage crisis. Blaming Carter for the crisis makes less sense than blaming Obama for Iraq.
Citation.
A wise man once said, "Don't shit where you eat".
To some people, this is self-evident. To others, it's an impediment to expediency.
'nuf said.
Because when I'm having a beer, the things I want most are tomatoes and clams.
Who comes up with this shit? What next, a combination of beets and shrimp for your margarita? Some broccoli and sardines for your martini?
Your sig is sad.
The only thing worse than Democrats and Republicans is a voter that thinks there's a difference.
You say that as though it matters.
The Democrats and Republicans differ only in the mascot they rally behind. Two sides of the same coin. Keep throwing your vote away on any of these cocksuckers and see how much good that will do.
I owned one of those Audi TTs without a spoiler (2000, USA). I took it up to its maximum speed (~130mph) on several occasions. I never noticed any poor handling at high speeds.
During this time, I also rented a Corvette, which I was only able to safely get up to 120mph. At that speed, staying in one lane was nearly impossible, and if I had gone any faster I'm not convinced that I would've been able to stay on the pavement.
I never understood why there was a recall on the TT that stuck a spoiler on it. In my opinion, its handling at high speeds was at least as good as other sports cars.
I meant Minnesota in a figurative sense, as in a place where there is no significant motor vehicle traffic on public roadways.
How long your brakes last is determined not only by your driving style, but also on your environment. In dense stop and go traffic, leaving a significant gap in front of your vehicle doesn't work, since people will cut in front of you, thereby eliminating said gap. The only way you can drive in heavy New Jersey traffic without using brakes excessively is if you keep your car in first gear.
Much like we saw the black community stand up for gay rights.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people". Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them? Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States (assuming you are) since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?
s/gay marriage/civil rights for blacks/
That's what you'll sound like in a few years. Telling Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up; Telling Dr. King that if he doesn't like it, maybe he should move to Africa.
How insightful. Thank you for your illuminating commentary. It's all so crystal clear now.
Who do these complainers think they are; declaring that someone should lose their job, just because they have different beliefs?
What if he believed that black people are sub-human? What if he believed that Jews should be baked? What if he believed that women were property of their husbands/fathers?
Yes, holding certain beliefs can impact your employment status. Of course, in this case, the beliefs come with a blessing by religion, so that automatically gets him a free pass. I wonder why the Ku Klux Klan hasn't re-branded as a religious organization, as I'm sure that would silence most of their critics. Wouldn't want to disrespect someone's religious beliefs, after all.
We can't all live in Minnesota.
An engine braking analogy for Slashdot, a predominantly American audience, which is statistically unlikely to know how to drive stick.
On the other hand, I never knew the story behind the research.
This guy was so unbelievably stupid that Dunning and Kruger took it upon themselves to study his idiocy in a scientific way. I mean, he must've felt pretty damn stupid when he got arrested, but then to find out he's literally a case study in stupidity? I got a good laugh out of it.
s/factional/factual/
/me requests an edit button.
How do you know that Biblical characters never really existed?
I don't, much like I don't know that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Isaac Asimov
Indeed, how do you know that Frodo never really existed? He's just in a different history book. The fact that it's a ficitonal one rather than a factional one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrication.
I see someone is downmodding my posts in this thread. While I've got karma to spare, this still bothers me. How does an invitation to self-reflection warrant a troll mod?
I didn't mean to suggest that Nimrod, Cush, Ham, and Noah didn't really exist. I did mean to say that the biblical characters bearing those names are just that: characters. We have no evidence of their existence beyond what is written of them in a book with many other claims that are known to be false. If one can claim that, for example, the biblican creation story is not meant to be interpreted literally, how are we to know that Noah wasn't also a metaphor? In any case, the historicity of these characters is not established, unlike the historicity of, say, Hammurabi.
That being said, the earliest evidence of these characters' existence dates from several centuries after the well-documented reign of Hammurabi. "Eye for an eye" is not a concept introduced by the Abrahamic faiths, as even according to the Abrahamic mythology, Moses is predated by Hammurabi.
It's unsettling to me that so many people are offended by this statement. It's not exactly a radical claim, as I'm only repeating common historical knowledge. I fear that this claim, combined with the indoctrination that often accompanies religious belief, causes an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance in some people, which they resolve by discounting what I'm saying.
If you have no problem denying evolution, geology, and cosmology, I shouldn't be surprised if you also have no issues denying known history.
Offtopic:
Your sig makes no sense.
"The Kruger Dunning" isn't a thing. You're thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Which you almost-conveniently almost-link to. Try something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect">this</a>.