Otherwise people in low population states would be completely disenfranchised.
That isn't at all what disenfranchisement means here. Each vote would count exactly the same. If you can't get enough other people to vote for your proposal, well, that's how voting works.
Sure, in the senate. It's equalized out in the house. That's the whole point.
Yes, that was supposed to be the idea. There were two problems that weren't predicted, though: ludicrous gerrymandering and the importance of the modern executive branch.
If California had 60 reps and Maine had one, do you think ANY legislation Maine needed would ever get passed?
If we stick to the original theory, what federal legislation could a low-population state need? They might vote certain ways when it comes to things like foreign relations and interstate commerce, but anything that only affected a single state would be legislated by that state, not the federal government.
And even then, the Founders and authors of our Constitution had given much thought and demonstrated great wisdom, for indeed Presidential election results prove their fears were warranted.
So are you arguing that tyranny of the minority is better than tyranny of the majority?
How, precisely, do the senate and electoral college disenfranchise people?
A vote in a high-population state counts less (i.e. is a smaller fraction of one senator or EC delegate) than a vote in a low-population state. It isn't total disenfranchisement, but it certainly reduces the voting power of certain people relative to other people.
There is nothing to account for. You cannot conclude anything from the absence of statistical significance. So we don't know which of these differences are real and which ones are not, hence it's pointless to speculate which of the alternative hypotheses I listed applies. Women treating men may have the same statistical differences as women treating women, but they didn't show up.
So your explanation is that the statistics observed in the study don't match reality. If the observed differences aren't real, then what exactly are you trying to explain?
Okay, I'll rephrase. How do your explanations account for the statistical difference between male and female doctors when the patient is female in a way that wouldn't equally apply when the patient is male?
First, "study" means the published research paper, not the news article ("story") describing it.
In this context, "jump to conclusions" means "stating a cause". While some article writers and other doctors not involved in the study will gladly speculate on possible causes for the statistical difference, the study itself doesn't do so.
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.”
So in your case it can’t be theft, as you still have your photo.
Using your definition, a client not paying me for a day’s work, and using the material I’ve created for them, would be theft...but it clearly isn’t.
Note that this varies by jurisdiction. In some places, "theft of services" is a defined crime, even though it doesn't involve a specific physical object. Your example may be classified as theft of services, though it may also just be shifted over to a civil court as a contract violation. If you were a regular employee, the common term is "wage theft", though I don't know offhand if it's called that in any place's legal code.
but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?
Even Sanders would be considered a typical mainstream left-wing politician in much of Europe. There are a small number of far-left people in the US (after all, you can find people in every area of political ideologies), but none are well-known federal officials.
Where do you come up with this? A church isn't even allowed endorse a candidate...
Was that restriction lifted last year? I know the current administration stated that they were going to do so, but I don't remember offhand if it has been formally changed yet.
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
The idea that the "invisible hand of the free market" fixes everything includes several assumptions. When one or more of those assumptions doesn't hold, you no longer get the optimal solution that the theory says you should.
In this case, the invalid assumption is that there is no significant barrier to entry.
I was basing car class not on any official designation per se, but more in terms of what the car simply looks like in terms of size and general overall appearance.
The "luxury" car class is usually more an indication of performance and interior features (leather seats, fancy electronic toys, etc.) than size or general appearance.
As for the Tesla and BMW3 being a luxury car, yeah.... but if one is willing to accept that it's a luxury item in the first place, why is anyone trying to that it's also supposedly affordable?
The Tesla is an amazing car, and I certainly don't judge them harshly on that count by any means... but I'd never in a million years think that they are somehow priced "affordably".
At $35,000, you'd be looking at somewhere around $600 per month. It's certainly not cheap for a car, but it's definitely affordable for an upper-middle class family.
Actually, the Tesla model 3 starting price is nearly 50% more than the BMW 3
The Internet says that the base price for the BMW 3 is about $35,000, which is the expected base price for the Tesla Model 3. I would reasonably assume that adding features increases the price of a BMW the same way that it increases the price of a Tesla Model 3.
and going by general appearance, and size, is actually not significantly different from the Ford Fusion, whose price starts at just over a third of the price that the Tesla model 3 starts at.
Going by the classifications on the US News site, the Ford Fusion is listed as a "midsize car", along with the Camry and Accord. The Tesla Model 3 is classified as a "luxury small car", just like the BMW 3.
The problem is that CA is a large enough market that the rules they've been creating essentially apply to all the other states. That means one state is dictating to 49 other states who are not represented by the California legislature.
California isn't dictating any laws to any other states. Companies are deciding that it's easier and cheaper to only make products that comply with California's laws, instead of having multiple different versions.
It took 15 years to execute on our initial goal to produce an affordable, long-range electric vehicle...
If you want to call costing twice as much as conventional vehicles that are otherwise in the same or similar class based on size and general exterior asthetic "affordable"... sure.
And what class is that? The Model 3 is in the same class as the BMW 3, which costs roughly the same amount. The Model 3 isn't in the same class as a Civic or Camry.
Havenâ(TM)t you noticed many people on here believe anything Elon says. He said on the call today they were still going to make money this year so it must be true.
Anything he says on investor calls or in SEC filings, yes, of course. It's possible that his predictions won't come true, but lying to investors or the SEC does nothing but make you a target for the SEC Hammer (TM).
No, most states don't allow same-day registration at all. It doesn't appear to be a partisan issue, either, since it's pretty much a 50-50 split for states that allow it. Map here.
Same-day registration usually makes your ballot provisional, so if the vote difference is greater than the number of provisional ballots (which it almost always is), they won't bother verifying it until after the election anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Otherwise people in low population states would be completely disenfranchised.
That isn't at all what disenfranchisement means here. Each vote would count exactly the same. If you can't get enough other people to vote for your proposal, well, that's how voting works.
Sure, in the senate. It's equalized out in the house. That's the whole point.
Yes, that was supposed to be the idea. There were two problems that weren't predicted, though: ludicrous gerrymandering and the importance of the modern executive branch.
If California had 60 reps and Maine had one, do you think ANY legislation Maine needed would ever get passed?
If we stick to the original theory, what federal legislation could a low-population state need? They might vote certain ways when it comes to things like foreign relations and interstate commerce, but anything that only affected a single state would be legislated by that state, not the federal government.
Don't knock diversity of approach. Different people trying something many different ways can be the best way of finding the right way.
Only if people stop doing something the wrong way once it's clear that it's the wrong way.
And even then, the Founders and authors of our Constitution had given much thought and demonstrated great wisdom, for indeed Presidential election results prove their fears were warranted.
So are you arguing that tyranny of the minority is better than tyranny of the majority?
How, precisely, do the senate and electoral college disenfranchise people?
A vote in a high-population state counts less (i.e. is a smaller fraction of one senator or EC delegate) than a vote in a low-population state. It isn't total disenfranchisement, but it certainly reduces the voting power of certain people relative to other people.
There is nothing to account for. You cannot conclude anything from the absence of statistical significance. So we don't know which of these differences are real and which ones are not, hence it's pointless to speculate which of the alternative hypotheses I listed applies. Women treating men may have the same statistical differences as women treating women, but they didn't show up.
So your explanation is that the statistics observed in the study don't match reality. If the observed differences aren't real, then what exactly are you trying to explain?
Okay, I'll rephrase. How do your explanations account for the statistical difference between male and female doctors when the patient is female in a way that wouldn't equally apply when the patient is male?
Do any of those explanations account for the lack of statistical difference between male and female doctors when the patient is male?
First, "study" means the published research paper, not the news article ("story") describing it.
In this context, "jump to conclusions" means "stating a cause". While some article writers and other doctors not involved in the study will gladly speculate on possible causes for the statistical difference, the study itself doesn't do so.
> Your example may be classified as theft of services
Unlikely. A photograph is not a service, it's a creative work fixed in a tangible medium.
"Theft of service" would be more like, you hire the photographer to photograph your wedding and then refuse to pay him.
Right. The example that I meant was of a client not paying for a day's work.
Copyright infringement...yes. Theft...no!
UK definition of THEFT:
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.”
So in your case it can’t be theft, as you still have your photo.
Using your definition, a client not paying me for a day’s work, and using the material I’ve created for them, would be theft...but it clearly isn’t.
Note that this varies by jurisdiction. In some places, "theft of services" is a defined crime, even though it doesn't involve a specific physical object. Your example may be classified as theft of services, though it may also just be shifted over to a civil court as a contract violation. If you were a regular employee, the common term is "wage theft", though I don't know offhand if it's called that in any place's legal code.
but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?
Even Sanders would be considered a typical mainstream left-wing politician in much of Europe. There are a small number of far-left people in the US (after all, you can find people in every area of political ideologies), but none are well-known federal officials.
I suppose if you are insanely far to the right, everything looks "left" to you ...
Fixed that for you.
Where do you come up with this? A church isn't even allowed endorse a candidate...
Was that restriction lifted last year? I know the current administration stated that they were going to do so, but I don't remember offhand if it has been formally changed yet.
Yeah, but according to some, a simple common sense solution like this is apparently "racist" these days.......
Where "some" is a federal court.
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Yes, it fucking does.
1545–55; < Latin specis appearance, form, sort, kind, equivalent to spec(ere) to look, regard + -is abstract noun suffix
late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus), originally "a sight, look, view, appearance,"
The idea that the "invisible hand of the free market" fixes everything includes several assumptions. When one or more of those assumptions doesn't hold, you no longer get the optimal solution that the theory says you should.
In this case, the invalid assumption is that there is no significant barrier to entry.
I was basing car class not on any official designation per se, but more in terms of what the car simply looks like in terms of size and general overall appearance.
The "luxury" car class is usually more an indication of performance and interior features (leather seats, fancy electronic toys, etc.) than size or general appearance.
As for the Tesla and BMW3 being a luxury car, yeah.... but if one is willing to accept that it's a luxury item in the first place, why is anyone trying to that it's also supposedly affordable?
The Tesla is an amazing car, and I certainly don't judge them harshly on that count by any means... but I'd never in a million years think that they are somehow priced "affordably".
At $35,000, you'd be looking at somewhere around $600 per month. It's certainly not cheap for a car, but it's definitely affordable for an upper-middle class family.
Actually, the Tesla model 3 starting price is nearly 50% more than the BMW 3
The Internet says that the base price for the BMW 3 is about $35,000, which is the expected base price for the Tesla Model 3. I would reasonably assume that adding features increases the price of a BMW the same way that it increases the price of a Tesla Model 3.
and going by general appearance, and size, is actually not significantly different from the Ford Fusion, whose price starts at just over a third of the price that the Tesla model 3 starts at.
Going by the classifications on the US News site, the Ford Fusion is listed as a "midsize car", along with the Camry and Accord. The Tesla Model 3 is classified as a "luxury small car", just like the BMW 3.
remember how awesome it was last time that happened around the OPEC oil crisis?
No, they don't remember. That's the problem.
The problem is that CA is a large enough market that the rules they've been creating essentially apply to all the other states. That means one state is dictating to 49 other states who are not represented by the California legislature.
California isn't dictating any laws to any other states. Companies are deciding that it's easier and cheaper to only make products that comply with California's laws, instead of having multiple different versions.
breath of fresh air
And now they're working on fixing that.
If you want to call costing twice as much as conventional vehicles that are otherwise in the same or similar class based on size and general exterior asthetic "affordable"... sure.
And what class is that? The Model 3 is in the same class as the BMW 3, which costs roughly the same amount. The Model 3 isn't in the same class as a Civic or Camry.
Havenâ(TM)t you noticed many people on here believe anything Elon says. He said on the call today they were still going to make money this year so it must be true.
Anything he says on investor calls or in SEC filings, yes, of course. It's possible that his predictions won't come true, but lying to investors or the SEC does nothing but make you a target for the SEC Hammer (TM).
No, most states don't allow same-day registration at all. It doesn't appear to be a partisan issue, either, since it's pretty much a 50-50 split for states that allow it. Map here.
Same-day registration usually makes your ballot provisional, so if the vote difference is greater than the number of provisional ballots (which it almost always is), they won't bother verifying it until after the election anyway.