Your statement correctly applies to the median.
Not so! Consider the set of integers {1, 1, 1, 37}. How many of these are below the median? Sorry for nitpicking.
And sorry for quote-fucking, it was just too tempting.
Touche! I definitely walked into that.
It helps to remember that of any cohort, half are below average.
Not so! Consider the set of integers {1, 1, 1, 37}. How many of these are below average? Your statement correctly applies to the median. Sorry for nitpicking.
To play devil's advocate for a moment on the health thing, what did you expect was going to happen?
I thought he would implement the exact plan he argues against in this Democratic Party primary debate with Clinton. Why? Because it is the most straightforward way to transfer wealth directly from the poor/middle classes into the hands of insurance companies and because he is a corporate shill.
Finally, the professors quoted in the article are from U. of Tennessee and SMU, which are like 4th-tier universities. So don't take their word too seriously.
This comes off as a snobby, ad-hominem cheap shot. You made some strong points in the rest of your comment and I didn't see the need for it. In the interest of full disclosure -- I hold a master's degree (CS) from a top 20 University; working on the PhD.
So you hate niggers, right?
Not sure if this is trolling or a clever parody of said trolling (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter), but either way Bravo!
from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution." summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.
Perhaps. But the folks who define science as witch-craft, speak in tongues and handle snakes (Mike Huckabee), think that if you're a good boy you get your own planet when you die (Mitt Romney), these people run things now. The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.
Yea. These beliefs are much sillier than those of the sitting president who believes in the invisible sky ghost.
You mean, the fact that there is a hidden cost of using a credit card built into your daily life doesn't bother you? Of course, you don't see the price increase, the merchants build it in. Generally speaking, you can get a cash discounted price at a mom and pop store for simply paying debit or cash - because then they don't pay the CC company and the related merchant fees.
So, yeah, I guess just so long as you don't actually *see* the increased cost, it won't bother you. And for big-box stores, those prices are part-and-parcel of their merch, so abstaining from using a CC may not help you there
In addition to this flaw, from a psychological standpoint people also spend more when using a credit card.
This GPS thing is the beginning of a slippery slope. If the practice remains unchallenged, it may not be long before our children are wearing ankle monitors, as some criminals are required to wear. If you think this isn't the logical outome here, have a look at history, and read '1984' again while you're at it. Orwell's timeline was a few decades off, but his predictions were pretty much on target.
I agree with the rest of your comment, except that it isn't the beginning of the slope.
(Note 2: No, actually I'm lying. My first thought was of Ghengis Khan, since he was my contemporary)
Same here.
How can you be so sure that there is little we can do to stop it? The fact that we can't prove that we're responsible for global warming doesn't prove that we're not. And if you do a proper risk assessment, like this guy does in his series of videos that are very much worth viewing despite his silly hats, you'll find that the smart thing to do is to try and do something about it.
Your line of thought sounds like "the Earth is going to hell but we might not be responsible so let's just see where this goes". Consider the possibility that we are responsible, and/or (they don't even have to be connected) the possibility that we can do something about it.
I am astonished/appalled that people actually buy into the reasoning displayed in this video. Aside from him papering over some pretty important complexities in the problem, if we followed his logic we might as well spend all of our money on defenses in preparation for a Klingon invasion. After all, the consequences of Klingon invasion would be so severe (they're mean!) that we can't afford NOT to act on the threat. I haven't been convinced either way on AGW at this point, but this video and the argument is poses are garbage.
After all, statistics says that if one flips a coin 10 times, one will get around 5 heads and 5 tails.
I would like to know where you took statistics. If you did a single trial of 10 coin flips and got 8 heads and 2 tails, would you regard statistics as a debunked science?
No, but I would be willing to wager on one against the other. As Bastardi is doing.
I love knowing how America keeps creeping to become more and more like the Soviet Union with a similar kind of loss of privileges.
Where the debate really needs to be centered is on two things:
By far and away too much is classified material. I don't mind having things like the locations of military units and certain other generally time-sensitive information being classified, but there certainly is a whole bunch of stuff being labeled as classified material mainly because it would be embarrassing if the information was disclosed. That stuff should not be protected under an official secrets act and I wish that a harder evaluation would result in trying to decide what exactly should be considered classified material in the first place.
Speculating that the King of Saudi Arabia is an ass should not be considered an official secret.
DHS already works with a former head of the KGB to assist in fighting the war on terror. Cause, you know, that's what the KGB is famous for.
I see your point about how a reduction of options (of which a monopoly would be the degenerate case) could make something _seem_ compulsory. Eg, if you lived in an apartment building and therefore couldn't grow your own food, and there was only 1 grocery store within 50 miles you might as well have a gun to your head with respect to where you buy food.
So for the sake of argument suppose we equate a lack of options with compulsion. Still how does this apply to casinos? You don't need a casino to live or even to be entertained. Casinos have certain (state-granted) monopoly-like privileges to let them corner the gambling market in many ways, but they don't have a monopoly on anything critical like food, utilities, or entertainment.
Not trying to be argumentative or anything, just trying to see where you're coming from.
Most casinos have a rule that blackjack dealers cannot hit above 17. But if the dealer does hit on a hand totalling 18 anyway, and loses, they owe me the amount of money I won, not just my bet back. They can subsequently fire the dealer, if they want, but their screwup is not my problem, nor should I be denied a win based upon "Oops, we didn't mean for it to work that way...".
The scenario doesn't change because the "dealer" making the error is a machine. They can take the machine right out of service, and I imagine they would, but I was still shown a win and am owed winnings, not my bet back.
I agree with all of this.
One would think they would pay a sufficient amount of money for code auditing to ensure that these things cannot happen. If they fail to do so, fallout from that is their problem, not mine.
And why would they do this when its cheaper just to buy legislation?
Casino gambling, like the lottery is just another regressive tax in a country that has been embracing regressive taxation more and more in the past three decades (at least).
Taxes are compulsory; the exchange of money in a casino is not.
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai
