jcd11235

No, I'm saying your analysis didn't isolate any specific variable accurately. GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So you acknowledge that any conclusions that you might reach with your analysis are useless in the real world? Why bother with it at all? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm out of town at the moment, and don't have access to my hard copy data. Actuarial analysis has shown that there would be no real benefit from a private account. Some downsides would be that people would treat it as a retirement account instead of a safety net. It is not a 401k or IRA, and should not be treated as such. What other forms of insurance are you comparing it with? You're right. It is not a retirement plan. It's not intended to be a retirement plan. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I've read your insights on economics. They reinforce my point by way of example. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Look who's building straw men. Go ahead and find any reference I made to soldiers not getting paid anywhere in your bogus series of threads. What are you talking about? My argument was that the modular premise of your analysis rendered your conclusions inaccurate for any real world economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I understood it completely, just as I understood that your artificial limitations precluded drawing any useful conclusions except that your analysis would be virtually useless. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

W/R/T economic policy, Libertarians are about as far right as anyone can be, often due to a lack of understanding of economics. On topic, Sen. Clinton offered the best healthcare plan. Hopefully whatever plan is eventually passed by Congress will bear a close resemblance to it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not at all. We merely understand why your artificially modular analysis won't lead to conclusions valid in the real world. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

QFT Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps the box filled with light is moving at a speed near the speed of light, while the box without light is a system at rest. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

My previous post is still applicable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And the mind of anyone else who has basic grasp of economics. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not arguing just to argue. If you want to reach a meaningful conclusion, you shouldn't leave out critical data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not all government spending is on labor. By the logic you're using, there no need to count your spending, we can just start counting with the people to whom you pay your income to. That doesn't give us an accurate count of consumer spending. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Exactly. Revenue spent by the government goes back into the economy just like revenue spent by any other consumer. Thus, you can't discount government spending in your experiment. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The problem is that you want to disregard government spending of tax revenue. That spending contributes to the economy just like other consumer spending. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I must have missed where you ever explained it. All you've done is dismissed an example that refutes your claim. I suppose one could argue that your clinging to an assertion that has been proven false is a testimony to your faith. What connection? The one you fabricated for your rhetoric? I think the word you are looking for is quest. Making that claim only offers evidence that you don't understand the scientific method. Agreed wholeheartedly. If you want to go through life with no evidence for your beliefs, that is your prerogative. Right. That is typically done without any evidence. Or, perhaps I understand them them better than you, just not as well as you think you understand them. If you understood the teachings of Christ you would understand that he was far more liberal than I am. I'm a far right wing conservative nut compared to Jesus. How did you get that from me not caring about how much you love Jesus? LMAO! Do you know what slippery slope means? A perfect demonstration of my point about looking at things from the perspective of science versus the perspective of faith. I'm not sure what you were rambling on about, but it didn't address my point about the fundamental differences between science and faith. You just claimed that the golden rule was the truth. Now you're claiming that its trueness depends on circumstances? This is a public forum. If anyone wants to offer their opinion, they are free to do so. I'm through with this thread, however. Have fun with it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

IT sees all and knows all (potentially), but unless you piss off someone in IT, they're probably more interested in what management is doing electronically. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You should have mentioned that in your poll. Excluding them biases the poll. The government spends as a consumer in the economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

My bad, I thought we had settled that. It isn't. Why not, because it so easily refutes your erroneous claim? It is an excellent example of a belief not based on faith that is stronger than faith based beliefs. Neuroscientists may well be able to observe it. The average person is limited to feeling it. Oh, nevermind. Scratch what I said about it being observable. With your restrictions, no, it is unlikely to be observable. We were talking about belief based on faith versus belief based on anything else, of which belief based on understanding is a subset. I don't think we will ever find all the answers. The more we know the more questions we are able to ask. Even if/when we to discover the UFT/TOE, the number of problems it could be applied to is virtually infinite, so we still couldn't obtain all the answers. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. That's because you still don't understand science well enough to realize it is faithless by design. I don't believe there is any correlation between morality and religious faith. I never cared enough to consider it. And that would still be nonsensically incorrect. To quote Fritjof Capra, "The map is not the territory." How so? Huh? One more time, in English, please. What isn't rational about them? I offered realistic examples of situations for each rule in which obeying the rule does not achieve the desired effect. You're trying to observe the rule from the perspective of one who has faith that the golden rule is absolutely correct. I'm trying to observe the rule like a scientist testing a hypothesis, trying to find scenarios that can disprove its accuracy. Having shared such scenarios with you, you are now trying to justify why the scenarios should be ignored so you don't have to adjust your faith in the golden rule as being absolutely correct, while I simply accept that the golden rule is not absolutely correct, because it makes the assumption that everyone desires the same things. Do unto others … is an active rule. It requires a conscious action on the part of the follower. Do not do unto others … is passive. The follower is not required to do anything, only to avoid doing things they themselves would find undesirable. While they do indeed appear similar, they are actually very different. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Considering your post was a reply to my post in which I answered your question, "Are there any stats on recidivism in Maricopa county?" it seemed fair to assume we were still talking about recidivism. I didn't quote the study. I quoted an article that cited the study in its claim that recidivism has not decreased under Arpaio's tenure. I linked to the study; if you want to read it to find out the details and methodology, feel free to purchase a copy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That doesn't address recidivism. From the link: Meth hospital admissions in Maricopa County increased 855 percent from 1990 to 2004. Yes, 855 percent. Note that Arpaio took office in 1993. Again, this source does not address recidivism w/r/t before and during Arpaio's tenure. The methodology is also unclear. The recidivism for drug use needs to be measured and compared from the latter of date of release from incarceration or date of final drug screening. It does indicate that treatment reduces drug use more than no treatment, which is a no shit point. Generally, I think that's something that most people already knew. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the overall recidivism for drug offenders has been reduced, that would only indicate that recidivism has increased for other offenses, since the total recidivism hasn't decreased. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Aside from the savings due to fuel consumption, there is a reduction of about 5¢ - 10¢ per mile in depreciation as well as (as you alluded to) a savings in maintenance costs, about 4.5¢ - 5.9¢ per mile, for a total non-fuel savings of 9.5¢ - 15.9¢ per mile by renting. That savings (on average) is almost twice as much as the savings due to increased fuel efficiency of renting a car that gets 30 mph instead of driving a vehicle that only gets 20 mph. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a common misconception. Please name a Democrat president since the assassination of JFK that has allowed spending to increase faster than revenue. Can you name all the Republicans that have allowed it to happen? Clue Answer It's difficult believe rhetoric about personal responsibility from such a fiscally irresponsible party. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!