Ten oz

I was thinking a full point off and not just fractions of a point. I suppose it could be taken a step further where correct answers count and 1 but incorrect answers count as -2 or greater. Then a person would truly have to be sure of every answer. I don't believe they saw any issue with answering all questions including the ones they were unsure of. As people have noted in this thread being able to deduce an answer or superior guess is often viewed as on par with knowing the answer out right. On most multiple choice tests with A-D options, test for which you know little regarding the subject, an answer or two can usually be eliminated. The majority of questions provide 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 chance of guessing. Given those chances it would not be miraculous to guess 7 of 10 questions right. Of course it could go the other way as well. It make evuating the persons true knowledge nebulous. I am sure we all have seen or heard of people being up for a few hours or days in Las Vegas before eventually losing all gains. How large of a sample size do you need to truly rate a gamblers skill? Or is a gamblers skill a fallacy and in truth every who plays long enough loses unless they cheat? In the military the back office folks have had a hard time over the last few years: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/air-force-fires-9-officers-accused-in-cheating-scandal.html?_r=0 http://news.usni.org/2014/08/20/navy-expels-34-sailors-nuclear-cheating-scandal http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20120705/NEWS/207050329/Record-number-OCS-candidates-booted-amid-cheating-allegations I realize that for any test there will be cheats. However the above stories are all officers; leaders with their organizations. And these test were job proficiency tests. It isn't comparable to the SAT. No one is expected to know the answer to all the questions on the SAT. Job proficiency tests are meant to ensure a minimum knowledge base amongst the ranks. When leadership is caught cheating on that type of test you know the issue must be much larger. What I witnessed was a room full of senoir leadership unable to provide an honest accessment of their knowledge base. While there may be something to be said for sustained winning habits I think in the end there is more to be said for just knowing information straight up. I know the 2 + 2 = 4 and do not need to apply any sort of test taking strategy to arrive at that answer. Perhaps with in any section of a test there should be questions that a person must answer correctly to pass. A question so fundamental to the subject matter that failure to answer it can not be excused? The test may be 100 questions but there are 10 questions that must be answered correctly on the test and failure to answer those 10 is an automatic failure regardless of how the other 90 questions are answered.

I do not post in collaboration with any of the other posters on this site. You are conflating several independent arguments from multiple posters into a single narrative. I went back to July to show that I had already made the free speech argument. That I have made it in this thread multiple times. Rather than acknowledging that fact and moving forward you are carrying on about what you feel other posters have done. I am responsible for my own posts. It is not my cross to bare; to debate or explain all posts that have aggrieved you. You dont like the Car comparison so I accommidaited you and made other (which I have made previously in this thread). To this you persisit that the car comparison is simply too egregious for you to move beyond. All while insisting that I am exaggerating the issues at hand. You are circling the drain as if it is the only place you feel comfortable. Threads are not meant to be one persons private soapbox. You either want to participate is discusion or you don't. Right now it seems you are just venting. You are not acknowledging posts on their own merits without conflation and are writing with a tone of affirmative authority over what is obviously a matter of opinion. You leave no room for the discussion to evolve which in itself is a tactic used by pro-gun advocates to perptuate the status qou. You are fillibusters.

My employer was extended and opportunity to have someone attend a senior leadership school taught by one of the Uniform Armed Services. I was selected to attend. One of our first assingments was to take a pre-test. We were specifically directed to not answer any questions we were not 100% certain about. Though multiple choice we were all instructed not to guess. To simply leave blank answers to question we were not absolutely positive about. The purpose of the test is to guage the effectiveness of the course. They are looking for a baseline knowledge of the subject matter upon entry into the class. The test doesn't count toward class completion and does not negatively effect ones final grade. After the test was complete, during a break, I chatted with the services members and was surprised to find to to a person every had answered every question on the test despite universal acknowledgement from everyone I spoke with that they were not familiar with the information. I got strange looks when stating that I had left at least 3/4 or more of the test blank. I reminded the people I spoke to of our instruction but most stated they felt that they were able to eliminate some of the answer option and basically had 50/50 odds when answering. The explaination is a bit confusing. 50/50 odds is not equal to knowing the answer. So conditioned to test strategies many of the students seemed unable to provide an honest account of their knowledge base. So my question is; should there be a built in penalty for guessing on multiple choice tests? A standard where questions left blank are not counted but questions answered wrong are subtract from questioned answer correctly? When I school I was always taught that there was no harm in guessing. To always be sure to answer every questions. Perhaps that is a bad philosophy. Students should be held accountable for what they actually know and should be able to evaluate the difference between good/lucky test taking and acquired knowledge. On a 100 question test were a student knows 50 answers for sure and are able to reduce the rest to 50/50 guesess a passing grade is well within reach despite only actually know half the material. If wrong answers subracted from the score guessing would become very risky. Students would be force to provide more honest evaluations of there know and educators would have more reliable feedbak. What are this forums thoughts on this?

I did review this thread and my own posts which is how I produced a post from July. You are disregarding evidence to the contrary of your view. I do not believe the country is about to fall apart do to gun violence But I can certianly sympathize with a parent who may have lost a child to gun violence that may believe that it is. You are making an affirmitive statement that it is not okay for the sake of comparison to bring up cars or mention the constitution not being a suicide pact. On what authority do you make such affirmitive statements? Thomas Jefferson, a man with better first hand constitutional knowledge than yourself, said; "a strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Why do you demand that pointing this out is not okay? In the United States there is higher rates of gun violence than in other comparable nations. Police shoot and kill unarmed citizens and are able to justify it by simply saying they thought the citizen may have been armed. That justification is successful in part because so many people are armed that the majority accept the personal safety concern above and beyond the life of the dead suspect. This situation is unique to the United States. It isn't happening in the UK, Germany, France, and etc. Same can be said for our (USA) rates of mass shootings and accidental shootings. So many die that in these discussion we don't even bother addressing the tens of thousands injured. The scale of the problem is radical in comparison to other countries so I see nothing wrong with radical suggestions for solving it. The Constitution does not limit what may or may not be considered. The Constitution does not outline which ideas are acceptable for discussion and which ones are not. It is an empty throne you sit on in an attempt to lord over our opinions. There are currently 206,000 people in federal prisons. http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp

Is it so much less common? Above is an example where I used it previously in this very thread. Why do you suppose your preception is such that it is less common than perhaps it actually is?

Do object to drawing parrallels between gun rights and freedom of speech? Freedom of speeh is more broadly and less controversially acknowledged as a right specifically protected. Yet people need permits to protest, can be sued for slander, held in contempt, cited for causing a disturbance, and ect. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example often used but in truth yell anything in a crowded theater and you'll be asked to leave. Failure to do so will lead to legal action. Police regularly note verbal assualts or agressive speech as a justification for tasering or pepper spraying people. Our freedom of speech has many limits.

To extrapolate a bit on what iNow has said our conscious minds are still a bit of a mystery. Many emotional and mental processes are performed automatically. It is unclear to me whether or not our conscious minds make decisions or merely executes them. A very simply experiment to perform is to sit in chair with no conscious intention of doing anything other than observing yourself. Don't try to sit still don't try to do anthing. Just sit, relax, and observe. With in minutes if not moments you will notice yourself perfoming tasks you did not consciously command. Things like adjusting yourself in your seat, turning you head, focusing your eyes on specific things in the room, or etc. I know some people who have done this simple self obersvation experiment before and observed themselves get up and walk into other rooms before ending the experiment. @ MigL, the enforcement of law can be done to ensure community safety. It doesn't have to be about punishment. Whether consciously in control of their actions or not violent people are a threat to community safety. Removing violent people can be done to ensure they do not hurt others. It doesn't have to be done as a means of retribution.

Circular reasoning/logic is definately exercised in religion however it is done knowingly. Faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof) sets religion up a classic catch 22. One can not know or understand God until one has faith in god. To a religious person circular reasoning does not seem nonsensical because they have a key which straightens the loop; Faith. The idea that knowledge and insight follows belief rather than leads to it is the link in the chain that keeps the whole thing spinning.

Calling driving a privilage a play on words and parsing of law and the way it is applied. Yes courts can take away citizens driving privilages but courts also can execute people taking away life all together. Of course the Founders did not have a crystal ball. They couldn't write an amendment specifically protecting someones right to something that did not yet exist. Then again the privileges and immunities clause does protect our right to travel freely. Today the most popular mode of travel is a car. Sort of like how "arms" are protected and "guns" are the most popular type od "arms". For tens of millions of people in this country who do not live in a metropolitan area with a robust public transportation system driving is a necessity and not some privilage that pales in importance to gun ownership. This is an example of why strick literal adherence to the Constitution without modern considerations simply does not work. Cars didn't exist when the constitution was written. Most people never traveled more than 15-20 miles from the place of their birth as part of standard living.Today transportation be it cars, rail, or planes are arguably part of the pursuit of happiness. As we have the right to all legal activities so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Millions can't conduct the life they live without cars. Plus I think it can be argued that if people did form militias to combact an oppresive Government automibles to transport themselves and supplies would be logistically important as guns.

Warnings are great but lack teeth. When children ends up hurting themselves or others with a gun if is merely viewed as a tragic accident. I would prefer a "hot car" approach. Leave a child in a hot car to die and you can expect to be charged with a crime. Should be the same for a guns. Leave a gun unsupervised around a child who then hurts themselves or others you should expect to be charged with a crime. Rather in this gun loving society many "thoughts and prayers" go out to parents after such accidents.

I appriciate you acknowledging that I have attempting to engage in discussion about measures which are reasonable. The way this thread has being going I will take that as a compliment from you and run......

On earth force acting against a force counters something from expanding or inflating. No force equals nothing acting against that inflating balloon. If the balloon were inflating into something the force of that something would not only act against the inflating balloon but we would need then need to consider the origin of that something. As already pointed out the Balloon is just an analogy. It is not filling or taking up room in the universe but rather it is the universe.

@ Anon_Ghost, i think you need to look at the big bang more as an inflation of balloon and less as an explosion. Its origin is everywhere. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radation is in all directions. Other intelligent life; I think it is wrong to assume older equals more advanced. Sharks are older than humans yet are not more intelligent. Rather they are perfectly evovled for success in their habitat. Also evolution as we understand it relies on DNA. Does all life in the universe contain DNA? If not, if some other coding exists, then all bets are off for how alien evolution may work.

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — A DeKalb County police officer was shot monday evenig after police went to the wrong house responding to a burglary call, authorities said. Officers received a vague location for the burglary in progress call and when they arrived in the neighborhood around 7:35 p.m. ET they entered the wrong home, according to DeKalb County Public Safety Director Dr. Cedric Alexander. Gunshots were fired and both an officer and the homeowner were struck, Alexander said. The homeowner's dog was killed. “We did respond to the wrong residence tonight and then these other circumstances unfolded,” he said. Alexander called the situation complicated. Officers fired their weapons, the chief said, but it’s not clear if the homeowner had a gun. Alexander said the situation happened like this: A neighborhood resident called 911 at 7:34 p.m. to report a suspicious person and described a home to the dispatcher. Three officers responded to a house that fit the description the caller gave 911. The officers went to the back of the home and found that a screen door and a rear door were unlocked. “That in and of itself would probably suggest to anyone that it is possible that there could be intruders inside, but it turned out not to be the case,” Alexander said. “Somewhere at the rear of that home, some things happened that have yet to be determined.” The officers had just entered the home when the gunfire erupted. “There was gunfire, I just cannot tell you who fired and who did not,” he said. The injured officer was transported to Grady Memorial Hospital in critical condition after losing "a lot of blood" from being shot in the thigh, Alexander said. He was headed into surgery as of 8:45 p.m. The homeowner was shot in the leg and the homeowner's dog was killed, police said at the scene. A DeKalb County police officer was shot on Monday, authorities said. 11Alive http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/31/ga-police-officer-shot/71495714/ The way we perceive threat in this country is a huge part of the problem. The idea that an unlocked door leading out to ones own backyard is clear evidence to anyone that a crime is in process and thus justifying a guns drawn entry of a home is ludicrous. Of course the police department will use the fact that all criminals potentially are armed to justify needing their guns at the ready. The prospect that criminal could have shot at them will also be used to explain why they couldn't just announce themselves and knocked on the front door while watch the rear of the house. Here in the states many use guns as a preemptive tool to combat the worst possible threats they can imagine in a given situation. Imagination should not have anything to do with it. People should be be held accountable when they overreact. Would have, could have, may have, and etc are not be acceptable reasons to shoot someone. What is actually happening in a given situation trumps what someones fears might happen. It is a cultural issue. We allow a certain attitude about these matters to exist at all levels.

You are ignoring what has actually been said on the matter and insisted that your perspective is the only viable one. Constitutional scholars and lawyers have debated these same issues at length a hundred times over. On the suicide issue you single it out as evidence of some sort of logical fallacy or dog whisper for a confiscation but ignore the context or actual stated goal being proposed. When you did it to me earlier I responded in post #366 bothering to provided a couple means by which gun control could reduce suicide. You choose to ignore it. A real conservation where the merits of various proposals are discussed apparently isn't your interest here. "The positions and measures I have advocated revolve around gun locks and gun safe. Some suicides by firearms are committed by people who use a parents, spouse, or friends firearm. So in my opinion a law which encourages firearm owners to keep their weapons out of the reach of others would in fact have an affect on firearm suicides. I also think tighter regulations on people with diagnosed mental conditions purchasing firearms would have an affect as well. Neither of those is confiscation or a ban." The premise held true once upon a time. I think advocates would simply harken back to that time and pretend on some fundamental level nothing has changed. I agree broadly though. The 2nd amendment is no longer applicable as the conditions and government structure it was designed for no longer exist. Applying the 2nd amendment word for word to society today would be like applying some old horse and carriage law to the FAA claiming that by carriage the founders meant transportation and sense planes transport people planes are actually carriages.

1 - Article Five of the Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution 2 - "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." President Thomas Jefferson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

@overtone, I have always listed suicide along side other things like accidental shootings and have never claimed gun control would 100% prevent anything. You are taking things said, placing them in isolation, and then quantifying them in exaggerated terms. It is also hyperbolic to insist only confiscation could effect the number of suicides with firearms. The positions and measures I have advocated revolve around gun locks and gun safe. Some suicides by firearms are committed by people who use a parents, spouse, or friends firearm. So in my opinion a law which encourages firearm owners to keep their weapons out of the reach of others would in fact have an affect on firearm suicides. I also think tighter regulations on people with diagnosed mental conditions purchasing firearms would have an affect as well. Neither of those is confiscation or a ban. You can not find a single post where I have indicated that the 2nd amendment was not written with the intention of allowing citizens to keep and bare arms. What I have argued is that society presently exists beyond the conditions envisioned by the founding fathers and amending the language in the 2nd Amendment is in order. The Constitution allows for that. It has been done already to protect of other rights. As information and environments changes ideas and theories must be updated. Nothing in the Constitution is religious doctrine decreed by god(s) meant to stand all time. The Founding Fathers themselves dispensed all together with the doctrine of old and wrote their own laws. The Founding Fathers did not allow the past to dictate their present. It is ironic that the laws they wrote are now treated as monolithic by people who claim to honor or best understand their intentions.

@ overtone, this thread is 19 pages long and I have made several posts. Not once have I advocated for a confiscation or complete prohibition of firearms. I have yet to read a post were anyone has truly advocated that position. In my opinion your need to extrapolate into and outright change the discussion in responses is an indication of how weak your arguments actually are on there own merits. Just as saying "Happy Holidays" is not an affront against Jesus or Christians "gun control" is not dog whistle for confiscation. Automobiles kill tens of thousands of people per year and injury hundreds of thousands. So we have put laws in place governing seat belts, airbags, number of passengers in a vehicle, speeds at which you can drive, where you can drive, health conditions for driving, age restrictions, registration requirements, licensing requirements, law enforcement assigned specifically to enforcement, and etc. Automobiles have a tremendous amount of regulation and yet most everyone in the United States who has a desire to own and operate a car is able too. The majority of working adults spend time operate an automobile every single day. Regulation and prohibition/confiscation are not one in the same.

In my opinion gun violence and our (USA's) love of guns is a dark off shoot of our political values. We lead the world in incarceration, top 5 for execution, our police kill copious amounts of citizens, we preemptively invade sovereign nations, are the only people to use Nuclear weapons on a population, and etc, etc, etc. Part of wanting somethings, everything, is the belief or desire to one day use it. It is nonsensical to provide police tanks and military grade rifles with the assumption that it will somehow how minimize the use of such things. That if everyone simply had a gun than somehow everyone would be safe from guns. It is religious like logic that requires an illogical foundation of ideas. Basic concepts of supply and demand go straight out the window. Good guys need guns because bad guys will always find a way to get guns makes no sense. Guns are mass manufacturer by "good guys" to be sold to "good guys". It is from that infrastructure that "bad guys" wind up with guns. There are not underground bunkers in poor heavily policed communities manufacturing guns. Illegal guns sales as a market does not keep the gun industry afloat. Bad guys with guns are not the reason why guns are so abundant and easily obtained. Private ownership of guns does not make people more safe. Statistically gun ownership only increase various dangerous variables like suicide and accidental shootings. And of course theft is one of the main ways "bad guys" get guns. From Columbine to Sandy Hook the weapons used were legal one purchased with safety in mind which were taken by a mentally ill family member and used to kill many. It is what the 2nd Amendment decrees is nonsense. It is a cowardly call for inaction that seeks victory through false formality. We have amended the constitution numerous times. Rather than debate the intentions of people whom have been dead for a couple hundred years why not do as structured and intended by the Constitution and amend it. Make the language clear and the law reflective of modern society. Article Five is, unlike the 2nd Amendment, is unambiguous and exists free of challenge or debate. Ultimately though we citizens of the United States must first stop wanted to kill. We accept that killing is not necessarily a bad thing. We empower our government to kill and even torture. So it is no surprise we empower ourselves with the means.

Much of the successes gained in rolling back the New Deal were made possible by having numbers on federal courts. In order to maintain that advantage towards the long game Conservatives still need to win the White House. Still need to be in position to place federalist judges. Angry Southern votes have pushed the majority of every voting demographic out of the republican party. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBT, and etc all went Democrat by over 70% in the last couple elections. Lose the White the House for another 8yrs and Conservatives may lose the Courts. Scalia and Kennedy will both be 80yrs by the time Hillary is elected. Lose either of them during her terms and the dam begins to crack. Corporation person-hood, Voting rights, Presidential authority, privacy, torture, and a long list of tight conservative 5-4 victories will be at risk.

1 - You do realize that this is a redundant statement? Irreducible complexity is also a mental construct. 2 - Evolution has been observed countless times at the DNA level and full species scale. 3 - This is simply inaccurate. Evolution is not lineal. It is not one baby step at a time. Mutations, changes to DNA, can have large or small impacts. It can happen in just a few generations or take millions. It is random. Your small step by small step tiny change by tiny change isn't random.

In my opinion a big part of what the Republican party is currently experiencing is a result of their Southern Strategy. They pandered to evangelicals and southern bigots to win electoral votes cynically assuming the angry low information voter would be low maintenance. However the opposite has turned out to be true. They have been a high maintenance faction who have only gained leverage over the party by driving other groups out. The Republican is no longer viable as a major party without those angry supporters gained through the Southern Strategy. It is self inflected wound that is starting to appear fatal.

@ forex, you're treating complexity as lineal when it isn't. The addition of components one step at a time is not accurate. The difference between various cells and organisms is in coding and expression and not the addition of new chemistry. You are also ignoring that there is interaction. How changing one thing changes the environment for everything else. Three mutations can can result in thousands of process differences. It is important to also not treat it as absolute. The overwhelming majority changes results in either death or nothing at all. For every successful adaptation an calculable number of living components died, failed, didn't thrive, or how every you want to reference it. A car engine with maintained with always only be a car engine. It won't grow or shrink, it won't replicate, it won't die or decay, a car engine it not a living thing. It is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be to grab a hand full of dirt and trying to work backyards to recreate the organic living structures it was produced from like leafs, worms, animal hair, bone, and etc, etc, etc, etc.

The general election is still a year plus away. Currently Hillary is running unopposed basically. Meanwhile the Republican primary is a media firestorm. All the pundit talk, headlines, blogging, facebook posting, tweeting, and etc is about the Republican primary because nothing is happening on the other side. So it is no surprise candidates in that race have gaining numbers on Hillary who at this point has a low smoldering campaigning capturing few headlines. Wait until the the primaries are over. Wait until the real race, the general election, the fight starts in the spring. There are many narratives that have yet to play out. We haven't been hit with the "First Women" president narrative yet. We will also get hit with an Obama retrospective as his years in office draw to a close. Oh yeah, there is also this guy named Bill who has thus far stayed out of site who will be out in force. He is sort of a big deal in many circles. The real show hasn't begun yet. Hillary hasn't started competing yet. Even still she is ahead. Bad sign for the right.

Considering the political structure within Israel where the electorate favors a specific heritage and all the population (born and tied to by heritage) within its borders do not the same rights and protections under law I would argue that Israel is an example of Conservatism. It is as close to a police state that currently exists in a non dictatorship. The merits of Israel's system and actions can be and are and often debated. However for the sake of this discussion I don't personally think Israel can be used as an example of conservative policy success. Israel's situation is far from ideal and in a perpetual turmoil. Who is to blame for that is not the topic of this thread.