While female orgasms were most commonly experienced during foreplay, copulatory vocalizations were reported…most often…with male ejaculation …[indicating] that there is at least an element of these responses that are under conscious control, providing women with an opportunity to manipulate male behavior to their advantage. – Gayle Brewer & Colin Hendrie
This has been rather a quiet week, which is good because it’s allowed me to get ahead on my work, and to adjust my schedule for being out of town next week (I’ll explain where I’m going one week from today). This “Links” feature has almost finished its circuit; next week it will once again be adjacent to the TW3 column, and two weeks after that it will be back to its accustomed place on Sunday (where it will remain except when some special occasion displaces it). Radley Balko was top dog again this week, contributing all the links down to the first video; that was provided by Satoshi Kanazawa, and examines an interesting problem in probability which fooled me until it was explained (and even then required some thought). The second video isn’t nearly as intellectually challenging, but may be harder to accept emotionally for many Americans; it’s a short recording of a protest based on a principle I have myself stated to Grace (who is a quarter Choctaw) many times. The links between the videos were supplied by Michael Whiteacre, Brooke Magnanti, AL 360, Jack Shafer, Amy Alkon, Popehat, Mike Siegel and Jesse Walker, in that order.
- The dildomaker.
- Trends in dog naming.
- What Mars would look like with oceans and life.
- The cost of one single example of scientific illiteracy: 8 million lives.
- “As gun control has moved to the forefront of national debate, California’s program is being studied as a potential model.”
- Florida man attempts getaway from bungled hardware store robbery in golf cart stolen from nearby nudist camp.
- Man still forced to pay “child support” for son who died at age 3 in 1988.
- I’ve always been fascinated by weird Cambrian animals.
- Here’s a scientific study of why women fake orgasms.
- Deer can’t read signs because Obama kills babies.
- A military analysis of the Battle of Hoth.
- Medieval LOLcats.
- “I don’t wanna go to Disney World.”
- Breaking news on the death of the universe.
- Cops browbeat 10-year-old into “confessing” to sex crimes.
- US Supreme Court grants dogs the power to issue search warrants.
From the Archives
- Older men have always sought younger women, and young women have always been willing to capitalize on it.
- Control freaks won’t be satisfied until every conceivable behavior of “sex offenders” is criminalized.
- Sex isn’t the only thing busybodies attack with ridiculous exaggerations and addiction rhetoric.
- Preacher calls hooker with intent to preach at her, gets robbed instead.
- Religious justifications for bestiality laws give way to “abuse” rhetoric.
- And now for something completely different: a man with half a head.
- A reporter actually asks an escort for opinion on “sex trafficking” law.
- My previous columns for Mardi Gras and Valentine’s Day (Lupercalia).
- A report on the progress of the Swedish rot, with a focus on Ireland.
- “Sex trafficking” mythology is an inspiration to unscrupulous creeps.
- Aussie doctor declares “dirty whore” panic “absolute total rubbish”.
- An actress demonstrates how little our professions have diverged.
- Israeli politicians promote Swedish model despite 59% opposition.
- Pardis Mahdavi on “trafficking” hysteria as a global moral panic.
- French people discover that escort services exist, panic on cue.
- A word from noted “sex trafficking” expert Tommy Flanagan.
- Another article about single mothers turning to sex work.
- A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.
- Georgia declares prostitution worse than death.
- Cop hilariously compares whores to vampires.
- The incredible credulity of Sudhir Venkatesh.
- To be anti-choice is to be anti-life.
- Do as I say, not as I do.
- Kelly James vs. the TSA.
- The sky is falling!
I’m not one quarter Choctaw (like Grace) – but I DO have a significant amount of Choctaw in me.
Now – I am a moderate on immigration … I’m not an “open doors” guy. If the entire world were “open doors” … then I would be all for it. Until that happens – it’s utopian to believe that the richest nation on the planet could just open it’s doors and not be smothered to death. So I DO favor border enforcement.
At the same time – we could have up to 22 million illegals in this nation already – and I favor some kind of path to citizenship for those who are hard working and don’t have a criminal background. It’s silly to think we could deport these people – 22 million is MORE than the German and Indian Partition deportations COMBINED – and the optics on both of those were hideous.
On this argument … “We didn’t invite you here”.
Excuse me … “We?”
That assumes that this “Native American” was here when the settlers arrived. Either that – or he has some magical physical link to the people who were here hundreds of years before he was even born. He shares their DNA – that’s it. If he has a job – he’s paying into Social Security with the hopes that he’ll receive a pension the same as the “White Folk” that he didn’t “invite” into the country.
Sheila Jackson Lee said something equally stupid on the senate floor last week when she said … “I stand here today as a freed slave”. Excuse me? Are you SERIOUS? Sheila Jackson Lee doesn’t know anything more about slavery than the White people she hates so much. Please point to me the scientific evidence that shared, or even similar DNA, magically makes one more “enlightened” on certain subjects or experiences? Who knows more about slavery? Sheila Jackson Lee – because she was born with black skin? Or some pasty faced white boy historical researcher who has researched the subject for many years? I submit the latter.
Also – who exactly did I disobey when I was born in America? I don’t remember a sign that said … “Hey, you aren’t Native American so you have to divert to a womb in Europe!”
I had no choice in coming here.
Now I’m part Choctaw – prolly only about 5% though – I guess not enough to make me “entitled” live here.
The rest of my DNA comes from Scottish Highlanders and French Gauls. Maybe I should go to Scotland and tell the Brits … “Hey we didn’t invite you here!” … Maybe I should go to Italy and complain to the Italians about how the Romans raped, pillaged, and detroyed my Celtic ancestor’s culture in Europe?
But no – I’m not a lunatic so I won’t do that.
That’s totally NOT the point I think he was making, and certainly not my point in posting it. The point is that calling people “illegal” for migrating is a slippery slope, and if you’re going to pick up that weapon you should not be surprised when it’s also used against you. If Mexicans are wrong for coming here – if in fact the children of “illegal” migrants are wrong because their parents came here, as the anti-immigration fanatics insist – then all the mostly-non-Amerind folks on this continent have to accept the same moral judgment on themselves. It isn’t right when we do it, but wrong when others do. And it CERTAINLY isn’t right when we label it “human trafficking” and pretend the people who do it are “victims” so we can convince ourselves that we’re the good guys for sending them back to a place they wanted desperately to get out of.
Everyone in America is a migrant, just depends how far back in history you choose to go. Same applies, except for some in Africa, worldwide.
My ancestors were sharecroppers – doesn’t mean I ever was one Korhomme.
I know I’d make a damn good one though! 🙂
Are you complaining about some lunatics calling people names? Like everything else in this country – everything is debated and seems to be controlled by the “fringe elements”. You have the “self-deportation” fools on one side and the “hey everybody come on in – there’s plenty of room in the boat” on the other side. When they start shouting at each other – I don’t feel a responsibility to take one side or the other.
So using the word “illegal”? Well I use it to differentiate the undocumented immigrants from the documented ones. I also use it because someone else seems to think they can tell me not too – I find it fun that I can anger them with a simple … word. 😀
And by the way – the argument doesn’t work against me because I was born here – never “migrated” – the fact that my DNA donors came here hundreds of years ago is no more significant in the debate than it is for those Asians who crossed the Bearing Straights into North America to become … “Native Americans”.
True fact – my HR office lists me a “Native American” for ethnicity. I changed my race! I did it to make a statement about how stupid all the EO thing is. Anyone can be ANY race they want. I could have told them “African American” and they’d have to list me as such or face a possible lawsuit from me (which I would have won).
If there’s a requirement for being a “native” of a place other than being born there, I’m not aware of it. However, the immigration issue (both here and in Europe) has nothing to do with crowding and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that whites have created a culture which discourages people from reproducing and are now worried about being outnumbered by brown people whose culture does not. Furthermore, only welfare states worry about immigration; non-welfare states are glad for the cheap labor. So is the problem really immigration, or the fact that whites have built unstable welfare states we can’t afford and are angry now that “others” may take advantage of our stupidity and shortsightedness?
The problem is, of course – “unstable welfare states” … and yeah – you are spot on about whites complaining about being overrun when they have created a culture the discourages people from reproducing.
I had a band of illegals help me rebuild my house after Katrina. I’d much prefer those guys in America than some fat-assed white kid who sits around on the couch eating potato chips bought with FOOD STAMPS.
However, I’m also the kind of guy who locks the doors at night. I tell the open borders libertarians … “Hey, demonstrate your commitment to your beliefs … open your house … your property – to whomever wants to wander into them.”
None of them will do it though.
So some responsible border administration is well … responsible.
It’s just absolutely sickening that we can’t get the moderate forces together to solve this problem and we outsource everything to the extreme political fringe.
The analogy between a nation and a person’s home only makes sense if you assume that the government owns the country and everything in it. Besides that, if an open-borders libertarian did want to invite a foreign stranger to live in his basement, proponents of closed or heavily restricted borders would typically deny him that right (and, more importantly, the right of the foreigner to go where he wishes without violating anyone’s property).
It makes sense because, as long as this government takes my taxes and re-distributes it to others – I should have a say in how that money is spent and who gets it. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that heads of households who were born in Mexico are more likely to ask for government food assistance than any other nationality …
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/usda-assures-illegal-immigrants-taking-food-stamps/
Food stamps … that’s some of MY money. Kind of like – the food in my refrigerator is MY food. I worked for it … no one has a right to take it from me.
Now – were this a perfect Libertarian state and those welfare programs were eliminated – I’d agree with Maggie and say sling open the borders. But until then – while we’re a welfare state – I still believe in some border enforcement.
The system of government I described is called socialism, by the way.
But let’s suppose we take your argument seriously. Does taking money from the government mean that you lose your basic rights (freedom of movement, in this case)? If so, why do you (seemingly) support applying this only to foreigners? Shouldn’t native-born Food Stamp collectors be deported and otherwise restricted as well?
Alright, I’m genuinely curious as to your reasoning here as to why you think we have a culture that discourages reproducing, since I’ve never hear anyone make that claim without blaming it on increased sexual freedom.
That’s what happens when you waste your time reading collectivists and disparage the concept of personal freedom.
Children are largely a pain; people only used to have a bunch of them because A) they helped in the family business (usually a farm); B) they supported one in old age; and C) they were a form of immortality because one could leave them accumulated wealth and pass on less-tangible family legacies such as titles. Modern Western countries have made children a financial liability instead of a financial asset; they now consume family wealth instead of adding to it. The state pretends it can care for old people as well as their own efforts and children used to, so kids don’t do that any more and parents think they don’t need to. Inheritance taxes eat up accumulated wealth (much more in Europe than in US, but still true in both) so it’s harder to leave legacies, and noble titles have largely vanished. Finally, children in the past generation have now become a legal liability, especially during divorce but not limited to it; they are an excuse for the state to invade the home, wreak emotional havoc and consume wealth. There is no longer one rational reason for having children, and plenty of reasons not to; most people still have one (or more rarely, two) for emotional reasons, but that’s not enough to keep a culture going.
A and B seem to be problems inherent to any developed nations, since A) children can only help with simple physical labor, not the complex intellectual work done now, and B) People can work for a much longer portion of their life and save enough for a comfortable retirement without children.
Inheritance taxes in the United States do not exist for anything less than millions of dollars, and most people are not millionaires, so any harm to reproductive enthusiasm caused by the inheritance tax is limited to a tiny little portion of the population, who can damn well afford kids if they want them, inheritance tax or no.
The birth rate has dropped in China. In Japan. In any part and every part of the world where standards of living are anywhere near those of the US and Japan. The fact of white culture which discourages reproduction is material wealth. As brown people get richer, their birth rates fall also. White people will only be outnumbered by brown people if the brown people stay poor.
Material wealth also means, as asmallnotch pointed out, that children aren’t much help with much of the work which needs to be done. Material wealth means that national governments are able to do that which will help those who are still poor, though greater wealth better shared means they don’t need to do as much, because their aren’t as many poor then.
The only way for white people to have a culture which encourages reproduction again is to become poor and unskilled again, and increasing disparities in wealth and a desire to dismantle the welfare state could well accomplish that.
And plus, you only need one child to inherit your things.
But you’re white and therefore you have privilege! Also nonwhites can’t be racist because of reasons!
LOL – yeah – but actually no.
My race is listed as “Native American” by my human resources department. I didn’t even attempt to get a good tan before walking in their office and directing them to scratch that “C-word” (Caucasian) from my employment record and make me “Native American”.
I have about 5% Choctaw in me – so I figure that’s enough to be Native American. The government has yet to establish any criteria for “blood” and the way we can FORCE them to do it is for all Caucasians to walk into their respective human resources department and change their race. Sue ’em if they refuse! We have a President who’s just as much WHITE as he is BLACK if you look at his ancestry – yet he self-identifies as “African American”.
Forcing the government to set standards for “blood” would be the end of all this stupid EO stuff – because just about no one in the U.S. is “pure” blooded anything.
Charlatans! Hoaxers! Shysters! Illusionists! Mind-Defrauders!
Oh please, not this sad, tired, dead-horse-beaten-into-dirt ‘game-show choice’ IL-logic again! This BS keeps being recirculated… strive to overcome this false lure!
Look, the key to this, no matter how they try to misdirect our perfectly-good-but-easily-distracted brains, is to remember one thing: After 1 of the 3 doors is open, there are 2 choices left… only 2 choices, the whole 2 choices, & nothing but 2 choices. Choosing between 2 choices is a 50-50 chance… only 50-50, the whole 50-50, & nothing but 50-50. Every time any of these shysters says “33%” or “66%” AFTER there are ONLY 2 choices left is the illusionist’s misdirect… keeps your focus/eye on the (false) lesser chance of the bad prize & the (false) greater chance of the good one, rather than keeping your focus/eye on the real logic of what’s going on. It’s critical to note the verb-tenses, IE: “WAS 33%”… yet they keep carrying on as though after there are only 2 choices remaining the percentages haven’t changed. They’re also attempting to misdirect with extraneous facts; IE: that the host must open a bad-prize door.
Think about it this way: every time the game is played, no matter which of the 3 doors you first pick (equal choice), 1 of the 2 not-chosen doors will be opened (left/center/right, position doesn’t matter), & there will always be 2 doors remaining (one to the left, one to the right); thus, with the situation ALWAYS resulting in 2 doors remaining–one to the left-side, one to the right-side–there is IDENTICAL chance that your 1st-choice will have been either the left-side remaining-closed door, or the right-side remaining-closed door. So, these people are trying to say that if your 1st-choice was the left-side remaining-door, there’s a 66%, 2-to-1 chance the right-side remaining-door is the good prize… while, at the very same time!, they’re ALSO saying that if your 1st-choice was the right-side remaining-door, there’s a 66%, 2-to-1 chance the left-side remaining-door is the good prize… both these CANNOT be true at the same time!
People, please, use your lovely brains. The only way this could work as ‘explained’ is if thought–wishing hard enough–could actually change reality, & all us rationalists know clairvoyance is hooey. In this instance they’ve got a nice, warm British accented voice & cute animation… don’t be distracted!… don’t be fooled!
Do you believe Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
“Do you believe Wikipedia?” … of course not!; Wikipedia is a compilation of opinion, not strenuously reviewed fact … it’s a very nice idea in concept, of a democratic, proletariat, commonality of knowledge … but in practice/reality it’s unreviewed opinion.
I do believe in logic, rationality & intelligence… to that end, further debunking of this irrationality:
Thing is, that 1st “choice”, & it being 1-of-3 & thus 33% is absolutely IRRELEVANT!, it’s misdirection!, you’re believing the magician! But even if it were relevant, it doesn’t matter because once one of the 3 choices is removed the probabilities are irrevocably changed (“dependent probabilities”):
pre-1st-choice & opening of 1 door: 3 choices: 33% each;
post-1st-choice & opening of 1 door: 2 choices: 50% each…
… one’s choice, original or switched, has absolutely no bearing on which prize is actually, physically behind which remaining door, & thus also no bearing whatsoever on the PROBABILITY of which prize is behind which remaining door.
In this scenario, NO “probabilities” are being “affected” by ANY choices! The probabilities would be completely unchanged if one eliminated the 1st-unopened-door-choice entirely; either way, one ends out with 2 doors/choices, one prize behind one of ’em, a different prize behind the other one. Whether one even makes an original, switchable choice before 1 of 3 choices is removed is irrelevant… you ALWAYS end out the same way, (3 – 1 =) 2 doors/prizes, 1 choice… 50-50.
Someone else responded, “The reason here is based on the misunderstanding most people have regarding independent probabilities vs dependent probabilities. If I shuffle a deck of cards (all 52 cards, unlimited and thus ‘independent’) and deal 2 out, the third card CAN’T be one of the first two cards dealt, so the probabiities of the third card are changed (now 50 cards, limited and ‘dependent’ on) by the deal of the first two cards.”
I know, Wikipedia is crap. I mean, they even have those charlatans Copernicus and Galileo spouting that bullshit about the earth circling the sun. You just have to look to see that the sun moves; I can’t feel any movement in the earth, it’s common sense that it doesn’t move…isn’t it?
There are 9 possible combination of car placement and player guess.
If (this is key if) if Monty must open an unpicked door with a goat, in six of the nine combinations switching is better.
The key thing is the original 9 combination are random and evenly likely. But Monty pick is absolutely no random.
Should have included this. If Monty doesn’t know where the car is, he will uncover the car 1/3 and in the rest of the cases, it’s a coin flip 50/50.
There are 2 choices, not 9, regardless of whether the host knows the location of the good prize (he does). Re-read the above to provide an alternate perspective, then use your own mind, not the guidance of any others, me included, think it through… above all quit falling for the deliberate misdirection.
Sorry. You are wrong.
Write down the 9 original combinations. Then play out different rule sets for Monty. Tiny space, only takes a couple minutes per rule set.
Big hint. You are right if it’s a fair game and Monty is ignorant.
But if he knows where the car is, some rule sets make it better to switch. And some make it worse.
If he only offers to switch when you picked the car, would you still argue that it’s 50/50?
The key to this puzzle is that if you picked a bad door the first time — which is 2/3 likely to be true, AND STAYS THAT WAY after step two since step two doesn’t reveal either the car or the door you picked in step one — then switching wins.
It can also be seen as an example of the Principle of Restricted Choice.
wnwd, you might want to visit LessWrong.com and read up on Bayes’ Theorem.
One last try & I’m done: A plays the game, originally chooses the right-most door. B plays the game, originally chooses the left-most door. Both games the host opens the middle door, taking it out of play. Good prize behind one door, bad prize behind the other. Doesn’t matter which. There are only 2 doors remaining. Again, ONE-of-the-TWO. [Now, the whole point that y’all refuse to consider is that at this point the entire game has changed to be NOTHING except a choice of 1-of-2 doors… that EVERYTHING that has preceded is now null-&-void, over, done with, history. However, since there are none so blind as those who will not see, we’ll do this another way.] IF your theorem holds true, at this point both A & B have equal 66% odds of picking the good prize by switching… A switching to the left-most door, B switching to the right-most door… but both situations cannot exist! Nothing has changed! The prize is still behind the same door. The middle door is open & out of play. But
(My apologies, accidentally hit before I’d finished.)
One last try & I’m done: A plays the game, originally chooses the right-most door. B plays the game, originally chooses the left-most door. Both games the host opens the middle door, taking it out of play. Good prize behind one door, bad prize behind the other. Doesn’t matter which. There are only 2 doors remaining. Again, ONE-of-the-TWO remaining doors has the good prize; ONE-of-the-TWO remaining doors has the bad prize. [Now, the whole point that y’all refuse to consider is that at this point the entire game has changed to be NOTHING except a choice of 1-of-2 doors… that EVERYTHING that has preceded is now null-&-void, over, done with, history. However, since there are none so blind as those who will not see, we’ll also do this another way.] IF your theorem holds true, at this point both A & B have equal 66% odds of picking the good prize by switching… A switching to the left-most door, B switching to the right-most door… but both situations cannot exist!, in-other-words, it cannot be the same higher-percentage to pick different doors! It’s the exact same game! Nothing has changed! The prize is still behind the same door. The middle door is defacto gone. If A & B switch choices, one will win the good prize, the other the bad. If A & B don’t switch, one will win the good prize, the other the bad. It doesn’t matter what they do, the results are identical whether-or-not they switch choices. Such results are identical to all 50-50 choices ever.
jdgalt: I appreciate the reference suggestion, but whatever wonderful stuff may be there, it doesn’t change the circumstance of this false derivation.
Maggie: thank you for your indulgence, & my apologies for taking so much of your comment-space… as I said, I’ve done the best I can & so am finished.
Your counterargument is based on false premises – the Monty Hall problem is specifically based on the fact that there’s always going to be a door hiding a booby-prize that wasn’t selected, and so the host can (and will) always open such a door – that is, a door that was not selected, and contains a booby prize.
If you offer two different people the choice of three doors, there’s no guarantee that the door that wasn’t selected will contain a booby prize – when both contestants choose wrongly, the host won’t be able to open the unselected door.
To illustrate the Monty Hall problem more clearly, consider the following variation:
On this hypothetical game show, instead of doors, there are 100 small boxes. Inside one of these boxes is a valuable jewel, the other 99 boxes each contain a lump of coal. A single contestant gets the option to pick one box, without any other information beforehand.
Now, the host knows which box contains the jewel, and after the contest has made his selection, the host will always open 98 of the remaining 99 boxes, each containing a lump of coal. Now the contestant is given the option of either keeping his original choice, or switching to the last remaining unopened box. Should he switch, and what are the odds of winning if he does so?
Now, it should be fairly obvious that the contestants on this show won’t pick the correct door 50% of the time with their initial guess, therefore, why would their chances of having picked accurately increase simply because the host opens 98 other wrong choices (an action that he will always complete, regardless of their choice)? In this hypothetical show, switching boxes alters the winning chances from 1% to 99%.
I love dogs, but that SCOTUS decision is ridiculous.
The interesting comment in the article about ‘Deer can’t read because Obama kills babies’ is in the middle. “… They are on this earth like trees to make humans’ lives better…” Sorry, the world does not revolve around you, your faith, or even humanity in general.
As for the SCOTUS, the question of animal intelligence when a human handler is around to provide cues was answered in 1907, with the examination of ‘Clever Hans’.
*rubs temples* Hmmmmm. I see cold, snowy weather in your future!
My recent past, too; it snowed here yesterday. 😉
That story about TSA made me wince, but then it got me to thinking. In particular, about this story (more of an op-ed) I read the other day: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/us_airways_american_airlines_merger_get_ready_for_less_competition_and_higher.html
(apologies for the long URL)
But it makes me wonder, what will give out first, people’s patience or their wallets? And would the effects of either giving out yield comparable changes or even improvements?
Just now I’ve been mulling about whether trains are actually a better bet for the rare long-distance leisure travel I indulge in. The fares are comparable (or even lower) and while the journeys are longer, one could argue they are more enjoyable. I haven’t yet cracked how to get to Arizona from the Great Plains, but I’m sure there’s some way…
Apologies for double posting, but I thought it would be worth noting that TSA story has reached the mainstream media: http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-apologizes-after-family-told-wheelchair-bound-daughter-would-get-1C8481122
Let’s hope that isn’t the end of it.
Haha, just now got around to clicking on the links in your article. Read the one on women and vocalization during orgasms. I can only speak for myself, but if I am trying to help excite a man, or get him to reach climax faster I just vocalize more moaning and groaning, because yes, that will in turn encourage him to get there faster! I don’t think we needed a study for that, but I do find the other “finding” in that study(ies) very interesting.
As a whore, I had an amazing knack for conveniently (and vocally) reaching orgasm just as my client was getting close to it. 😉
So the silent (or gaspy) shuddering orgasms are the real ones?
Or would answering that break the hidden edicts of the Whoreovermind?
It’s funny that the story of O should include the starting letter of Oral and Orgasm. 😉
Hi Maggie,
If I were an ID proponent, I might argue that Herpetogaster ran into God’s Dildomaker…
It’s a good stopgap gadget, until everybody has 3-D printers and can make all the dildos (or anything else) they want.
I’ve had dogs named George, Nicky, and… that’s all I think.
I’ve seen a goodly number of these “Wet Mars” images. I like this one, but then I like most of them. The biggest difference seems to be how much water you pour on the Red Planet.
I am prepared to myself eat golden rice. I already eat long grain white rice, sweet short grain white rice, brown rice, and black rice. I’ve eaten red rice, but don’t like it as much. I’d be happy to add golden rice to my food stores.
BTW, do any of these GMO protesters eat corn?
I got it wrong, and then when he started to explain, I got it wrong again. You know, maybe instead of requiring high school students to take algebra, we should require them to take statistics and probability. We deal with these things every day, and statistics is one of the main tools people abuse to fool us.
How do people who are legally entitled to buy guns wind up being unentitled? Do they all commit some actual crime?
If one could be found not guilty by reason of stupidity, this golf cart guy would walk.
The Friend of the Court is either screwing this man deliberately, or there is a huge amount of incompetence going on.
My trip out of state happens tomorrow. I’ll read more in the morning, but I also have other stuff to do before I leave. I’ll see how much more of this I can get to before leaving Texas. Whatever is left I’ll get to when I get back.
Nope, the state just moves the goalposts, which of course they can keep doing repeatedly until somebody realizes that he didn’t speak up for the Jews, communists, trade unionists and intellectuals.
If a SF writer is looking for truly alien aliens, these Cambrian animals are a good place to start. Then of course, there’s this.
“With regard to the reasons females gave for making cop-ulatory vocalization, 66% reported using these to speed uptheir partner’s ejaculation.”
That’s why I do it. Huh? What?
Having failed to convince myself that Kathleen is joking, I now feel this strange mixture of mirth and despair.
We have spaceships which make banking turns, blaster fire which is slower than an arrow, an economy where robots are so common that a slave child can build one as a hobby (and yet there ARE slaves), and so on. Is it that surprising that the battle tactics aren’t very realistic either?
Meow meow old is meow meow new again. Laura, pet Blossom for me, would you?
While this highlights problems with America’s current security-over-all hang-up, it would help if it weren’t on a website selling gold and anti-altruism books.
Considering we were already facing both heat-death and proton decay, I don’t find this unnerving. It’s interesting, and I’m glad that the article makes some mention of the many uncertainties involved.
The current status quo seems to be that young people have no rights which adults are obliged to bother recognizing. This sort of thing will continue until we change our minds about that.
While “SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs” is a cute title, the reality is much worse. What SCOTUS has done is to say that if you have a dog, you don’t NEED a search warrant. Now, who are the activist judges again?
Well, he’s got a point, doesn’t he? All those not-an-Indian Americans going on and on about their property rights only have property because government took it away from somebody else.
That said, American Indians today have necessities, luxuries, and conveniences their ancestors couldn’t have dreamed of. It didn’t turn out well for Geronimo or Sitting bull, but it’s turned out well for those around today. Yes, I know: poverty is this high and unemployment is this bad and so on, and that’s all true, but what was it like in 1491? For all the injustice of the past, today’s Native Americans live in the richest country in the world, and share (though not equally) in the advantages of that.