Daniel Fellows

If there was a survey of 1015 people and half indicated that would purchase a certain product. The margin of error is 3.1 percent. How do I check to see if the margin for error is accurate?

Assuming an average score on the ACTs is 21, what is the standard deviation if 5% of students who take the test score a 34?

According to the Bureau of labor statistics, only 5% of the workforce are paid minimum wage. The other 95% are paid above minimum wage. So if companies pay their employees as little as they possibly can, then why do the vast majority of workers make more then the littlest amount possible?

Why do people claim the minimum wage is even needed when companies are already paying above the minimum even when they don't need too?

both my computer and Tv have slots to hook up coaxial cables. Is it possible to directly hook up the two, to display my computer on my Tv?

I know it may sound bizarre, I have never had any alcohol before, I just turned 21 and I plan to have some for the first time tomorrow. But I have no idea what is the best to consume, I have no idea what beers are better than others. I tend to prefer stronger tasting coffee, pop, and energy drinks. But I'm not sure if i'll prefer stronger beers as well.

So what do you think would be the best choice?

When he voted for:

tarp

the bailouts

to make the patriot act permanent

keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely

initially supported sopa

NDAA

Liberalism - Massive/invasive interference economically, minimal/selective interference socially

neo-Conservatism - Minimal/selective interference economically, massive/invasive interference socially.

Libertarianism - Minimal interference economically, minimal interference socially. Interference(In any) is applied solely upon violators of the natural(common) law.

When he voted for:

tarp

the bailouts

to make the patriot act permanent

keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely

initially supported sopa

NDAA

The minimum wage makes it more and more expensive for companies to hire workers. The minimum wage penalizes those who aren't the most skilled, and those who are knew to the workforce, for companies are less likely to pay these people the artificially increased wages produced by the minimum wage. By abolishing the minimum wage companies would be able to hire employees based off their skills and experience, rather than by hiring only the most skilled workers available, thus expanding the available jobs/workforce, rather than limiting it.

I know some people claim that companies would just lower everyone's wages if the minimum wage was reduced, however if that was so, why do companies today pay over the minimum wage for some employees if they aren't required to do so by law? That's because for those employees they are worth enough to these companies to be paid higher wages, which means, companies wouldn't just suddenly pay you less if the laws were abolished.

Another argument against this is, people in poverty wouldn't be able to make high enough wages to not be in poverty. However by getting them into the workforce they can over time work their way out of their poverty. For example, when I started out in the workforce, I worked at Wal-mart making $7.95 an hour, this is a terribly low wage, however after a few years with some hard work, my pay was increased to over $11 per hour. This is how people can get out of poverty, because even if they got a job with a really low wage, over time their pay would increase, thus allowing them to work their way out of poverty.

Taxation is theft

Abortion is murder

Capital punishment is murder

Marijuana(or any drug) use is a victim-less crime.

The way I see it there are only 3 ways to look at this.

1) If any nation has the right to Nuclear weapons then all nations have this right.

2) No nation has the right to Nuclear weapons

3) Some nations(including the only nation to have ever used these weapons in war) have the right to monopolize the control of Nuclear weapons into their hands alone, while preventing any other nation from obtaining such weapons.

The way I see it there are only 3 ways to look at this.

1) If any nation has the right to Nuclear weapons then all nations have this right.

2) No nations have the right to Nuclear weapons

3) Some nations(including the only nation to ever used these weapon in war) have the right to monopolize the control of Nuclear weapons into their hands alone, while preventing any other nation from obtaining such weapons.

Taxation is theft

Abortion is murder

Capital punishment is murder

Marijuana(or any drug) use is a victim-less crime.

For if you lowered taxes on the poor and/or raised taxes on the rich, would that really be fair? The answer is no, because one group of people are then forced to bear the burden of paying for everyone else, which isn't fair.

If you taxed everyone at the same rate, regardless of whether or not they are rich or poor, would that be fair? The answer is no. Because it doesn't matter at what percentage the taxes are set at, if everyone would be taxed the same, the poor would bear a bigger burden from the taxes than the rich, which isn't fair.

So doesn't this mean that the only truly fair way to tax people is to not tax them in the first place?

Or between Mafia style extortion and government taxation?

I think we would all agree that if someone was taxed at 100% it would be an act of theft. But where does the line get drawn? At what people does theft no longer becomes theft?

Isn't the only logical answer to this is that theft no longer occurs once the act of thievery ceases? As in, taxation at 1% is theft in the same way that taxes at 100% is theft.

Switzerland and Great Britain are polar opposites when it comes to gun laws. Switzerland has one of the highest level of guns per capita in the world, with some of the most lax gun laws in the world. While Great Britain has some of the most severe gun restrictions in the world. However, both have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. Does the fact that they both approach the issue in completely opposite ways, but both end up with the same result mean that the correlation between guns and crime or guns and the lack of crimes is completely irrelevant and merely circumstantial?