Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I 'get' that this is a process to select the Democrat nominee for the Presidential election; but imagine if the Presidential election was run along similar lines? The people go out and vote in November for who they want to as President. Candidate A beats Candidate B by a narrow margin. But Candidate A is not inaugurated because Congress and The House of Representatives have 'Superdelegate' status and it is their job to question "is this the best person for the job?" and they give their votes to Candidate B.
Well, the US Supreme Court seemed to have an extraordinary number of votes in 2000. Way more than some minority voters in Florida.
And some diebold machines in Ohio in 2004 were rumoured to be voting heavily as well.
-
The data were obtained under America's Freedom of Information Act, and include both published and unpublished trials. This has the effect of removing "publication bias": where only the published research is examined.
You'd really want to know if there was a difference between the published and unpublished trials here.
Sometimes there are reasons why research isn't published, often that reason is that "it's crap".
-
You have to wonder what the state Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan were thinking.
I understand that moving your primary forward helps your state and gives more prominence to your issues etc.
Given that they were forewarned of the consequences however - isn't having a later primary better than having no primary at all? No one is going to care about your issues if they never have to turn up and get you to choose them.
Weird.
-
So less people are driving now seat belts are compulsory?
This was the direct effect of cycle helmet laws.
Which is kinda silly. If people choose to stop doing something, because you have to wear the safety equipment - tough for them. I don't let my son onto his grandfather's boat without a lifejacket. I don't let him into a moving car without a seat belt. We don't question these things.
I'm limiting myself to cycles as transport not racing. As with walking or running, if cycling at a casual speed a helmet is not required for safety.
My son fell off his bike last year, at a relatively slow speed, and just because of the way he fell, his head hit the ground, and his helmet caught most of that. I don't know what the damage would have been done if he hadn't been wearing a helmet, but I'm happy he was wearing it. The speed of the bike also isn't the only thing you should be concerned about. Most bicycle accidents happen as a result of interaction with vehicles, and they'll throw you off your bike at real speed.
While most bike accidents, a helmet won't help you, that doesn't mean that they're not useful. My mother used to work at Starship with children, and was a big advocate of compulsory helmets, she saw the results of not wearing them.
-
I assume we're talking about people who pay tax but get support like working for families which outweighs this. Such people aren't effectively paying no tax, they're paying negative tax, and tax cuts can and would provide them benefit - they'd end up with a more negative tax burden.
It's a breadwinner's wet dream. Earn more money than you actually earn. Quick, I need to have more kids.
-
is that really more valuable than someone who can restore a sense of dignity and direction to the nation?
That's why I think he'll win - he's become The Person For The Time. Not only the nomination, but he'll wipe McCain in the general. The momentum he has, and he just keeps building up and turning more people on. Turn that onto independents for 6 - 8 months, I think he'll even get a fair few Republicans who won't see much difference between him and McCain. I'm picking 60% of the electoral college.
-
You're no doubt also opposed to wearing seat belts on the basis that we should just make roads safer places for cars.
-
As for what he's going to do, to me the only important thing is Iraq, and he already opposed it way more than any other viable candidate. That speaks volumes to me. I couldn't give a crap about how the Americans are going to manage their economy and internal services, except in so far as they start with not wasting such a large chunk of it on killing foreigners.
Heh. Good point. I hadn't thought of it in such terms before.
-
It also, since it's open source and very robust, crash.
Er. "hardly ever crash". Wee slip.
-
Seems to work fine, but if you think I should go back to Safari??
It's really a bit of personal preference. I use firefox because I found safari gets slower as time goes on. Also, the plug-ins for Firefox... some real gems. There's one which brings it up close to what safari does with pdf files.
It also, since it's open source and very robust, crash. Which, when you've opened 12 tabs, is annoying as hell. If it does crash, it has a nifty feature where it opens everything you had open back up again.
BTW (since I guess this blog will attract computer geeks like the proverbial) any clues how I transfer the files from my OS9 Mac to OSX? The salesman never told me they wouldn't work on an Intel Chip Mac. Yes, I've asked this question before, but I was told there was nothing you could do except download OpenOffice which I did, but without success. (I know nothing about computers remember)
I presume you mean, moving files from old versions of word to new versions, rather than physically moving the files.
Salesman possibly had no idea what they were talking about. There's nothing about the intel chip that prevents you opening old word documents. If it doesn't work directly by dragging the files onto the word icon, then I'd be tempted to try and intermediate step. Try either the latest version of word for os9 (2001 I think), or the first one for X - Office X. Open and save as, see if that works.
If your old files are really old (like word 5) that might be causing the problem. The intermediate step should fix that - word changed their file format for... office 97 I think. Early versions of word opened the old files, more recent ones don't.
It's not hard like, say, costing tax cuts. Just 60,000MB at $10 a megabyte ...
I'm betting if you're downloading 60,000 MB, that you should get a bulk discount. Or a tax cut.