-
The proposal to abolish pennies just seems wacky. How much could minting them cost?
Posted at January 3, 2006 2:07 PM in response to "Vastly" Higher
-
Not only is focusing on the hard cases more equitable, it may well be a better bang-for-the-buck. The gifted kids are generally going to turn out okay regardless, while the hard cases likely won't (otherwise they wouldn't be hard cases). By focussing resources on the hard cases we maximize the number of okay-outcome kids.
Posted at December 27, 2005 8:16 AM in response to Gifted Children Left Behind?
-
Good summary. And it obviously goes farther - a 99% solution sounds great until you do that same math for finding 50 people out of a million.
One detail - generally you don't have a single error rate - you have a false positive rate and a false negative rate. Not only are these not generally identical, they're often inversely related. Lowering your terroristness threshold will reduce your false negative rate (you'll catch more bad guys), but will also increase your false positive rate (you'll catch more guys who just happened to email out "Afghan music is DA bomb!").
Posted at December 26, 2005 9:33 AM in response to Doing The Math
-
The Trent Lott comment was a bit tone-deaf and awkward, but the content wasn't fundamentally offensive. He was trying to make a rah-rah statement about rebuilding Mississippi, which is a great thing to say. He just it badly.
Posted at September 2, 2005 11:12 AM in response to Base First
-
"It doesn't get redder than that."
Ahem. As a resident of Utah, I'm offended.Posted at August 24, 2005 1:19 PM in response to It's remarkable
-
Jedmunds,
Advertising rates are set based on actual viewership, not package subscribers. There might be changes in viewership levels associated with a transition to a la carte pricing, and presumably there would be some friction involved, but you wouldn't see precipitous artificial drops based on the change in subscriber numbers.Posted at July 28, 2005 10:04 AM in response to Another Voice For A La Carte
-
To some extent, I figure the Religous Right has their hands tied. If Bush's appointees aren't anti-abortion enough for them, what are they going to do - support a Democrat in 2008? Whomever Bush appoints is the best they're going to get, and they know it. Witholding support for him, his successors, or the Party would just lessen their impact. They've got nothing to bargain with.
Posted at July 8, 2005 2:59 PM in response to Supreme Shell Games
-
I have got to start Tivo'ing all his TV appearances.
Actually, considering that red carpet squirtage, maybe all his appearances.Posted at June 24, 2005 1:58 PM in response to Serious Stuff
-
Yeah, that was what really leapt out at me to.
To put it another way, who dreams of becoming a pharmaceutical lobbyist? Dreaming about being an astronaut I can understand. Or "making a difference", whatever that means to you. Or just being rich. But being a pharmaceutical lobbyist? Isn't that kinda like wanting to be Scott Boras's coffee-fetcher?Posted at June 15, 2005 8:10 AM in response to You've Gotta Dream
-
As an aside, I think there's also some racism underneath the lockstep for Bush. Problems in the US are being either swept under the rug or related to terrorism, which is essentially code for "it's the Arabs's fault".
I'm not sure that Americans will reassess in 2008. Josh makes a good point that people don't pay that much attention. Whether terrorism is a big actual deal in three years or not, the Republican nominee(s) will be able to make it a big political deal. No reassessment will be needed as rhetorically we'll still be in the middle of the War on Terror. The Dems are going to have to either win by looking hawkish on Terror, by out-politicking the Republicans and convincing voters that the threat of terrorism has faded, or by exploiting an as-yet unforseen event.
Posted at June 7, 2005 3:01 PM in response to Where's the Outrage on Iraq?
