This is however, very borderline. It is, if not illegal, very close, depending on the exact wording of the contracts, and the exact nature of the particular cases (and also depending on the jurisdiction).
You can die from it after they strike it down too--it's illegitimate either way. Not that it changes the fact of your death, but that's still the case.
The original version of the law was signed by Nixon. Sure, congress was Democratic, but Congress had been almost universally Democratic from WWII to 1994.
Actually, it looks worst in context. Until the final sentence she's pushing the usual post-modern relativist position, then pulls a 180 on the last sentence, which implies that, contradicting the previous sentence, she does believe that there is a universal definition of better.
Add her lesser abhorrence (her own words) of the idea of physiological or cultural differences, than the old white woman, and she sounds MORE racist, not less.
You must not be from around here. In the US we have this 220 year old piece of paper called the Constitution. According to it, certain laws are not valid. Examples include excessive punishment--such as statutory damages to the tune of thousands of time the cost of an item.
This is the inherent problem of using quantity adjectives: "Many" and "a number of" can mean a hell of a lot of different things, so much so that the GP's comment is meaningless.
Most people(err...many...er...what do I mean?)--Most people I know (more precise) cannot comprehend this. They throw around non-specific quantity adjectives and expect to be understood. Problem is, "a lot" can mean 1,000 or 1,000,000,000--it just depends on context.
No, but some law and medical schools try to keep 50/50 balances. So where they used let in underqualified women, now they have to let in underqualified men to achieve that.
From the main IQ wiki page (admittedly not the one I linked to):
Although the term "IQ" is still in common use, the scoring of modern IQ tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is now based on a projection of the subject's measured rank on the Gaussian bell curve with a center value (average IQ) of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, although different tests may have different standard deviations.
It is not that the Weschler test has a normal distribution of scores, it's that the Weschler test scores in percentiles which are converted to IQ scores based on that normal distribution. The Weschler test does not measure the traditional IQ (mental age over physical age).
The point of my original post really had more to do with the fact that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence (and as such was more than a little a non-sequitur), but then the Parent wanted to get into a pissing contest over whether I knew the difference between median, mean, and mode.
What you describe (with regards to pathology clustering) is a very good reason why tests like the Weschler do not really measure intelligence.
Wait...you're comparing five percent of the population from an area the size of New Jersey, to.1% of the population from a Nation the size of the US? Seriously?
5% of China's population would be 60-70million people...how the hell are they all going to get to Beijing? You can walk across from one end of the Czech Republic to the other in less than a week. Information can spread quickly, people can be mobilized.
The organizational logistics of coordinating people do not scale linearly, it is highly disingenuous to compare the percentages of the population protesting. Especially when you consider that the Czech protests happened AFTER the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, when it was already clear that they were going to have their way. Protesters at Tianamen protested in the face of a regime still in full control, and more than willing to kill them all, which inherently means fewer people were willing to take that risk.
That being said, I don't doubt your conclusion, that popular support just isn't there. But your argument borders on absurd.
One of it's properties is that the mean and the median are the SAME (as I said, by defintion). Mathematically speaking, one could say that the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution, evaluated at
Integral from x=-infinity to x=infinity xP(x) dx = xbar (the mean)
is cdf(xbar)=0.5. Statistics 101, as you said.
In modern IQ tests such as the Weschler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale, the standardized scores match a normal distribution with median/mean 100, and standard deviation of 15 (Other IQ tests use a standard dev of 20 I think, but I can't remember which).
Thus, as I said, BY DEFINITION, 50% of people score under 100, the median AND mean, because, as I said, the median and the mean are the same for a normal distribution.
Pro-tip: When you're going to say:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You just failed statistics 101
try to at least think before you open your mouth (or in this case move your fingers). In general, you're right. In the specific case I was referring to, you are wrong, and end up looking like an idiot.
While you're out completely redefining the word 'fascism,' maybe you could take a whack at 'if' and 'blue.' Those two words always bothered me.
Fascism was, in the words of Benito Mussolini who more or less invented it (certainly invented the word), 'the unification of the corporation and the state.' Corporation of course did not mean the modern American C Corp in Mussolini's Italy, but rather referred to social groupings in general (family, neighborhood, Costco Club, RIAA, etc, all social groupings are one-with-the-state in fascism). The quote is often misused by modern left-ists who claim that it proves that corporate capitalism is fascism (it doesn't).
It is characterized by extreme nationalism, in some cases xenophobia and racism (Hitler being the obvious case of this, Mussolini FAR less so--Mussolini's views on race were mostly a function of how much favor he was trying to curry from Germany at the moment rather than any sort of principle).
There is no underlying economic theory in fascism. Mussolini and Hitler's economic philosophies varied over the years from more to less state involvement. They were anti-communist not because they favored capitalists over workers, but because communists were a political threat and in particular a usually anti-nationalist one (what with the talk of world socialist revolution and global proletariat). Significant portions of their economic agendas favored workers over capitalists, especially when those capitalists were politically undesirable persons to the regime.
State ownership of businesses is not a feature of fascism. State sponsored cartels were, but again this had more to do with political expediency than anything else--the automobile company is a social grouping of workers and capital owners (some of whom may or may not be the same people), and fascism seeks to unify this structure with the state. Its interests must be aligned with the state, and its loyalties. This is not the same as state, or collective ownership however.
Slashdot Mirror
This is however, very borderline. It is, if not illegal, very close, depending on the exact wording of the contracts, and the exact nature of the particular cases (and also depending on the jurisdiction).
You can die from it after they strike it down too--it's illegitimate either way. Not that it changes the fact of your death, but that's still the case.
The original version of the law was signed by Nixon. Sure, congress was Democratic, but Congress had been almost universally Democratic from WWII to 1994.
Actually, it looks worst in context. Until the final sentence she's pushing the usual post-modern relativist position, then pulls a 180 on the last sentence, which implies that, contradicting the previous sentence, she does believe that there is a universal definition of better.
Add her lesser abhorrence (her own words) of the idea of physiological or cultural differences, than the old white woman, and she sounds MORE racist, not less.
You must not be from around here. In the US we have this 220 year old piece of paper called the Constitution. According to it, certain laws are not valid. Examples include excessive punishment--such as statutory damages to the tune of thousands of time the cost of an item.
This is the inherent problem of using quantity adjectives: "Many" and "a number of" can mean a hell of a lot of different things, so much so that the GP's comment is meaningless.
Most people(err...many...er...what do I mean?)--Most people I know (more precise) cannot comprehend this. They throw around non-specific quantity adjectives and expect to be understood. Problem is, "a lot" can mean 1,000 or 1,000,000,000--it just depends on context.
No, but some law and medical schools try to keep 50/50 balances. So where they used let in underqualified women, now they have to let in underqualified men to achieve that.
Did you seriously just fall for that troll?
RTFA. They are Uighurs (an ethnicity). Chinese government policy (China is their home country) is to execute them on sight.
It only makes you wonder why we won't send them there if you're an idiot.
They fled China to escape persecution, and were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so wound up at Gitmo.
China has no problem with us sending them back, we have a problem with handing them over for summary execution.
RTFA. HOME is China for these guys, and the Chinese government policy is to execute them on sight.
Don't worry, some day Calais will return to the fold. And India too!
That'd still be wrong, honor is singular. There is no way to fix that sentence, stephanruby broke the English language.
If think this is a normal reaction, I hope you never reproduce. Your children will be more fucked up than even I am.
Great, by writing it on clothing-covered skin all the pedophiles will know his phone number. /s
No problem when you misquote it.
If they had to contribute back, it wouldn't be free. It would be purchased.
I thought the CIA was a cocaine import export company.
Black-suited men inbound for figuring out their scheme. RUN FOR THE HILLS!
Not with this new-fangled patriot act. Declare them all terrorists!
From the main IQ wiki page (admittedly not the one I linked to):
It is not that the Weschler test has a normal distribution of scores, it's that the Weschler test scores in percentiles which are converted to IQ scores based on that normal distribution. The Weschler test does not measure the traditional IQ (mental age over physical age).
The point of my original post really had more to do with the fact that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence (and as such was more than a little a non-sequitur), but then the Parent wanted to get into a pissing contest over whether I knew the difference between median, mean, and mode.
What you describe (with regards to pathology clustering) is a very good reason why tests like the Weschler do not really measure intelligence.
Wait...you're comparing five percent of the population from an area the size of New Jersey, to .1% of the population from a Nation the size of the US? Seriously?
5% of China's population would be 60-70million people...how the hell are they all going to get to Beijing? You can walk across from one end of the Czech Republic to the other in less than a week. Information can spread quickly, people can be mobilized.
The organizational logistics of coordinating people do not scale linearly, it is highly disingenuous to compare the percentages of the population protesting. Especially when you consider that the Czech protests happened AFTER the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, when it was already clear that they were going to have their way. Protesters at Tianamen protested in the face of a regime still in full control, and more than willing to kill them all, which inherently means fewer people were willing to take that risk.
That being said, I don't doubt your conclusion, that popular support just isn't there. But your argument borders on absurd.
You tend to know people who have just disappeared.
No, I didn't. Maybe you've heard of the Normal Distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
One of it's properties is that the mean and the median are the SAME (as I said, by defintion). Mathematically speaking, one could say that the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution, evaluated at
Integral from x=-infinity to x=infinity xP(x) dx = xbar (the mean)
is cdf(xbar)=0.5. Statistics 101, as you said.
In modern IQ tests such as the Weschler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale, the standardized scores match a normal distribution with median/mean 100, and standard deviation of 15 (Other IQ tests use a standard dev of 20 I think, but I can't remember which).
Thus, as I said, BY DEFINITION, 50% of people score under 100, the median AND mean, because, as I said, the median and the mean are the same for a normal distribution.
Pro-tip: When you're going to say:
try to at least think before you open your mouth (or in this case move your fingers). In general, you're right. In the specific case I was referring to, you are wrong, and end up looking like an idiot.
Because their infringement is a state secret.
Newspeak for the win!
While you're out completely redefining the word 'fascism,' maybe you could take a whack at 'if' and 'blue.' Those two words always bothered me.
Fascism was, in the words of Benito Mussolini who more or less invented it (certainly invented the word), 'the unification of the corporation and the state.' Corporation of course did not mean the modern American C Corp in Mussolini's Italy, but rather referred to social groupings in general (family, neighborhood, Costco Club, RIAA, etc, all social groupings are one-with-the-state in fascism). The quote is often misused by modern left-ists who claim that it proves that corporate capitalism is fascism (it doesn't).
It is characterized by extreme nationalism, in some cases xenophobia and racism (Hitler being the obvious case of this, Mussolini FAR less so--Mussolini's views on race were mostly a function of how much favor he was trying to curry from Germany at the moment rather than any sort of principle).
There is no underlying economic theory in fascism. Mussolini and Hitler's economic philosophies varied over the years from more to less state involvement. They were anti-communist not because they favored capitalists over workers, but because communists were a political threat and in particular a usually anti-nationalist one (what with the talk of world socialist revolution and global proletariat). Significant portions of their economic agendas favored workers over capitalists, especially when those capitalists were politically undesirable persons to the regime.
State ownership of businesses is not a feature of fascism. State sponsored cartels were, but again this had more to do with political expediency than anything else--the automobile company is a social grouping of workers and capital owners (some of whom may or may not be the same people), and fascism seeks to unify this structure with the state. Its interests must be aligned with the state, and its loyalties. This is not the same as state, or collective ownership however.