Chilly

Sounds like a user problem to me.

The 2004 exit polling situation was an interesting, and unique, case. Basically, the exit polling system was blown up after 2000 and remodeled and remade. For a number of reasons, it was remade absolutely horribly, and all sorts of biases were introduced, leading to completely inaccurate numbers. One of the problems with that thread is RCow posted the tabulations using the Best Geo estimate, and neglected to mention that there are other estimates that can be made based on exit polling. The PA poll he posted experienced a much greater red shift than the composite estimate, which was the most accurate estimate that year (though still not as accurate as other years). The Best Geo estimate is basically determined by interviewing voters after exit polls release only, and then adjusting for past turnout and past results. The problem was that the new network in 2004 was so horribly mismanaged that the interviewers in most cases had very little, if any, actual training in how to conduct the interviews in person, and introduced all sorts of participation biases that shouldn't have existed. As a result, the results were horribly slanted towards Kerry in areas where they shouldn't have been. If you took that PA example, and ran the composite estimate (which includes polls leading up to the election in addition to the surveys), it had Kerry up by 8.5 instead of 14. In addition, if you took a look at the polls taken just before election day, they put the vote at Kerry +1. The final results were at Kerry +2.5 - making them pretty accurate. In fact, if you had taken the pre-election poll averages, and made an electoral map off of that, only one state would have been wrong, Wisconsin, and that was at Bush +0.9 instead of Kerry +1 (well within the MoE). After the 2004 disaster, they blew up the exit polling model again, and made a new system. 2006 was the first test, and there were mixed results. I'm highly skeptical of whether exit polling is going to improve in November this year or not. Which would mean that it didn't make any difference if it simply reinforced campaign messages. Is anyone going to vote for a Presidential candidate because of the way their VP candidate did during the debate? Maybe vote against them if they are batshit insane, but generally it doesn't work the other way around. To specifically look at the 2004 VP debate (which were the ones we were talking about), here is a quote from ABCNews: "Among these groups, 70 percent of Republicans said Cheney was the winner, 68 percent of Democrats said it was Edwards, and independents split 42 percent-37 percent, Cheney-Edwards." What they don't say is whether those independent numbers included leaners or not. If they included leaners, since more Republicans tuned into the debate, that difference could easily be accounted for there. While it was entertaining, I don't think the debates back in 04 did much of anything among true independents, who were apt to call them ties.

GET OFF MY LAWN

Whats the theory behind both of those comments?

thats true for all OSes

Eh, as long as you aren't confused with Brian Peppers. Everyone has sex with a picnic table sometime in their life.

Don't you mean in the ear?

Not a Hobbesian eh? That's actually one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty (besides the biases, cost, and lack of deterrence), I'm not a huge fan of giving the government a way to create some evidence, try someone for treason, and kill em.

Unless the DMG contains an application to install - use that instead of dragging, as its likely creating files/folders outside of the Application bundle.

Page Not Found

Mine does have an onboard computer with a hard drive for music and navigation. The biggest thing stopping the car manufacturers from allowing someone to simply sync up to your home network is, imo, intellectual property issues.

Polling results from 2004 showed no significant bump for either candidate from any of the debates following the first one on September 30th. Take a look at Polling Report. Here are the dates for the debates: - Sept 30 (Kerry got a boost from this one) - Oct 5 (VP) - Oct 8 - Oct 13 In addition, the post-VP debate polling in 2004 put the percentage of people who felt Cheney won at only an average of 5% higher or so. CBS' focus group of uncommitted voters put Edwards winning at 41% and Cheney at 28%, with a 31% tie. It was the ineptitude of Kerry to portray himself as something other than a flip-flopper, elitist, and naive liberal that lost him the election.

Is this the TBD league I'm usually in? I can't remember. if so, I'm down

How ya doin?

To point out a technicality, they weren't fleeced. Round 1, pick 22: 780 2005 Round 1, Round 2 pick 13, Round 5 pick 13: 895.50 Overpaid slightly, sure, but weren't fleeced in that trade. Technically, it was drafting JP that was a bad decision, but the trade ultimately wasn't a fleecing.

How much creativity does it take to put a random ingredient on a known recipe.

Interesting, thanks. Looks like I need to go read up on Gregg v Georgia.

Oh, that change: Audacity of a broken promise

I fail to see how that clause = violating the 8th amendment.

Is this not a decision left to the state legislatures, and not to the courts?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...me-court-s.html Has anyone read the whole ruling yet? I'm not a fan of the death penalty for a number of reasons, but the blurbs that USA Today posted make it seem like a pretty weak ruling for the majority opinion: Does this standard have legal precedent? It seems pretty sketchy to look at simply whether the states that have the death penalty currently use it for cases of child rape or not and call it a "national consensus". Seems to me they are leaving out loads of situational info without examining each state, and leaving out states that don't currently have the death penalty (which means its not a national consensus on using it on child rape, but rather at best a 'death-penalty states consensus'). Shouldn't this part of the ruling be up to the individual state legislature to decide? How does this provide evidence of it not being proportional to the rape of a child, or that it is unconstitutional? This seems like an especially poor argument to me, essentially saying "none of this stuff actually violates the constitution, we just don't like the end result of the ruling, so we're going to make it violate the constitution."

We should get some people to write up a preview for the conferences that follow those conferences pretty closely. For instance, I could do the Big 12, smokin could do the Pac 10, etc.

Ah, alright. I took that comment incorrectly then - I've seen lots of conservatives attacking him for being "one-sided".

Network tv during the summer = crap

Uhm, John [sic] Stewart pokes fun at both sides.