You wouldn't download a kidney, would you?
You wouldn't download a kidney, would you?
They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that.
If they shared some or all sites then they wouldn't be a separate 50 sites, no?
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?
it's still within the same order of magnitude.
You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
Regulation are also costing them. I'm sure lot of hotel would be fine just not having those pesky regulation getting in the way (like you know fire protection, hygiene, using legit employees, insurances,
Think "barriers to entry."
Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.
Can you explain how? I mean, it seems to me that they are inextricably linked. Suppose Mr. Legislator wants to try to create a better society. His necessary first step is to hypothesize how to do so. Once he has his hypothesis he has two choices--either evaluate whether the hypothetical society is better than current society or try it. You've forestalled the former, so he has to proceed with the latter. Once it's tried, he must evaluate the results. The possible evaluations are the hypothetical society is worse than ex ante, it's equal, or it's better. You've forestalled the latter. It seems to me that the only way you allow a person to try to create a better society is if he a priori is doomed to failure.
The 2nd Amendment applies to what is now the National Guard. We never updated the Constitution as we adopted a "standing army" policy.
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
I keep hearing that. However, here are all of the economic planks of the 1928 Socialist Party Platform, and how they have fared legislatively. Smells like socialism to me.
'It's not possible. Space is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.'"
I feel the same way about settling the western United States. Oregon is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.
"You have died of dysentery."
Yeah sorry dude but there hasn't been a judge, founding father, legislator or even constitutional clause since foundation thats actually said this. This is a fantasy of the tea party whackys.
Does Chief Justice Marshall count? He once said, "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." I'm pretty sure he's not a tea party whacky. How about Chief Justice William Rehnquist? He's the one who wrote the majority opinion when striking down the Gun Free School Zone Act in United States v. Lopez.
The index does not measure, and has nothing to say, about the main topics at hand - civil liberties and human rights - so it doesn't refute the binary guy's claims even one bit. In fact, it's almost completely unrelated to his claims.
And here is Freedom House's 2013 annual survey of freedom. In it you'll find the United States rated as "Free" (most free of three categories) in freedom status, "1" (most free of seven categories) in political rights, and "1" (most free of seven categories) in civil liberties.
The Heritage Foundation is based in the US. That doesn't prove anything.
First, I'm going to try to prove that you're wrong. I'm going to do that by showing that your argument is flawed, and can be rejected on that basis. Following that I'm going to try to prove that I'm right. I'm going to do that by showing that Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. Here's why your argument is flawed. You're saying that the US isn't free because the entity stating that it's free is based in the US. You're arguing against an argument because of some attribute of the entity making the argument. That's flawed because arguments stand on their own. To argue against the entity making the argument is a fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem, which can be translated as "argument against the man" and is sometimes colloquially called an ad hominem argument. You've just committed the ad hominem fallacy. Since your argument is fallacious it can be rejected.
Second, Argument from Authority is a valid inferential technique. In fact, that's the reason authorities exist, to deliver us conclusions that are too difficult for people not schooled in the art to reach. Now, to be a valid Argument from Authority, it must meet four prongs. The first prong is that the Authority must be an actual authority. You can find information about their authority here. Second, the authority must be an authority in a relevant sphere of inquiry. You can find information about relevance at the same site. Third, if the sphere of inquiry is well established then there must be general agreement in the field, and if not then the authority must have a reputation of having made correct predictions. You can find information about agreement at that same site. Finally, the authority must explain, so far as possible, the reason he reached that conclusion. You can find information about methodology at that same site. Therefore, I have made a valid appeal to authority and the conclusion I stated may be relied on with some confidence.
And Singapore is rated 8 steps above the US. Singapore, which has an actual dictator and all kinds of crazy laws.
You can find the reasons Singapore is rated so highly here.
And Chile beats the US in terms of freedom? Well at least they are not aiming high.
You can find the reasons Chile is rated so highly here.
In any case your whole post is basically an Argument from Authority. You are saying, "This is what the Heritage Foundation thinks."
The actual fallacy is called Argument from Inexpert Authority. An Argument from Inexpert Authority is an argument from authority that does not meet one or more of the four prongs I outlined. Since the argument I made meets all four prongs it's a cogent argument.
Try actually making a real argument to support the view that the US is "one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot".
You can find the reasons the United States is rated so highly here.
The US is still one of the most free countries in the world by a pretty long shot
I am willing to bet that you have never spent more than a month living outside of the US. Otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid things.
It's not so much a "stupid" thing to say as an, oh, "accurate" thing to say. If you would like to see an (as nearly as possible) objective way to look at the relative freedom of countries you might refer to The Heritage Foundation's annual survey. It says pretty much exactly what LordLimecat said, listing the US at 10 freest out of 177 countries ranked.
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982