Slashdot Mirror

The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles. This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety. From Here

Without knowing the percentages of one and two officer cars and the specifics of their deployment, this statistic indicates nothing. There's simply not enough information. Assuming 1/2 of the cars have a single officer, and 1/2 of the cars have 2 officers, and they are evenly deployed, one could conclude that each officer in a 2 officer car is .833% safer than the officer in a one officer car. That's not the only problem here. Why are we citing a study from 1960 to 1962? Hasn't the nature of crime and the style of officer deployment changed at least a little in the last 50 years?

You watch too much TV. Its hard to have dialog in the show unless there are partners.

Seriously, the only places you see two officer cars are in areas where crime is so rampant that cops are afraid
to go alone.

Even cities that are known for two officer cars don't use that model all the time (NYC for example typically use one officer cars in the burbs). San Diego actually found it safer and more efficient to have only one officer per car.

The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles. This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety. From Here

Every time a single officer is killed it becomes a big emotional issue but most departments run single officer cars in most areas for most of the time, with some exceptions for high crime cities.

properly regulated as in ?
- USians can't drive very efficient european diesel cars
- the emergence of the SUV was due to govt regulation
  http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3308

Instead of popping corks and celebrating the possible end of the SUV boom, it would be more constructive for groups like the Sierra Club to consider the origins of the SUV boom, in which, ironically, they played an important role. Because what “people were thinking,” when they bought SUV‘s was partly the result of the unintended consequences of fuel economy standards supported by the environmentalists themselves

In the 1970s the United States began enacting “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards for new vehicles. These laws effectively applied to Canada as well, where the government harmonized Canadian efficiency standards with U.S. regulations.

The CAFE standards had a perverse effect: they made certain kinds of cars, such as the family station-wagon, uneconomic for automakers to produce within the constraints of the fuel economy standards. But many people - especially those with children- still wanted large vehicles. So they bought vans or light trucks subject to looser fuel standards. Over time, those choices led to the development of environmentalist nightmares: the minivan and the SUV. Because they were required to be very big in order to qualify as light trucks, the new minivans and SUVs generally had substantially worse mileage than the station wagons that they replaced.

- don't forget that safety and fuel economy generally stand in opposition to each other. Barebone car with a very efficient engine would drive miles on a teaspoon of gas but it won't exist because cars have to have a shitload of safety stuff and the kitchen sink installed and that shit has some serious mass. I am not saying that safety is bad, i am saying that regulation homogenized the market and reduced the available choice.

"Of course if Unions were the problem then the EU where unions are far more powerful would have far worse problems... they don't..."

Many European countries are open to privately run, publicly funded schools (such as Swedish Freeschools or Dutch independent schools).

Also some European governments are working on ways to sack bad teachers faster.

Finally some corroboration of our Global Cooling campaign.
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?Pu bID=864

Drs. Tim Ball and David Suzuki.

They have gotten in trouble for using accounting tricks to even out their numbers

They must have learned that trick from the Manitoba NDP. That's the "Oh, we don't count that expenditure" method.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=5 05

First of all, I shouldn't have said or agreed with the term, "environmentalist wackos", as if all were. So no, I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Here are some citations about toxic chemicals in solar cell production. Granted, there are toxic chemicals used in almost any manufacturing process.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/man_pro_implicati ons.html?print

http://www.pv.bnl.gov/art_168.pdf


Here are a few articles about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ethanol production:

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=1 80

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

From the sci.skeptic FAQ, here is a definition of "New Age" beliefs (so I am not the only one who associates the two):

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_7.html


Finally, I have no idea what the remark about chemistry is supposed to mean. Yes, I understand the tremendous amount of knowledge about chemistry that arose from the study of alchemy, but what does that have to do with your argument?

I'm sure that astrologers at one time provided much of the basis of astronomical observation, but I think astrology is ridiculous. Again, so what?

Who told you that? King Ralph? Manitoba has been the biggest spender for a long time.

The subdivided and affordable housing you describe sound like good ideas.

As far as nationalizing drug research, I'm skeptical. The profits drug companies make reflect the value people place on innovative drugs. It's like sports. It may seem outrageous that guys like Shaq makes millions, but if there weren't those millions to be made, the NBA wouldn't attract the world class athletes it does. I don't want an FDA quality agency in charge of curing cancer or alzheimers. I'd prefer the scientific equivalent of the Los Angles Lakers: Biotechnology All-Stars. Price controls are even more misguided. Our medical system isn't perfect, but moving it in the right direction might best be done by looking to the success of Singapore.

I just realized this is way off topic... uh, and what about those Indian programmers, huh? We're gonna have to keep sharp if those folks aren't going to make the American programmer a relic.

Now if we can only convince Environmentalists that wind power is a good idea.

Think I'm smoking crack? Well check out this story from the NY Times about the enviro fight against windmills in Cherry Valley, NY:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/nyregion/28WIND. html?ex=1031568343&ei=1&en=0920b9cbdc48601 9

And there is this story about enviros against wind power in Moosic Mountain Ridge, Philadelphia
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/3693755.htm

If you want a good site to view on how the Enviromentalists have shifted from Science to Socialistic Demigogery check out this site from GreenPeace co-founder Patrick Moore:
http://www.fcpp.org/publications/conversations/pat rickmoore.html

I love this quote from Dr. Moore:
"Many factors including a lack of science education, a need to perpetuate themselves and "means justifies the end" thinking. The worst aspect is what I describe as the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists who are using green rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporatism and class warfare than with ecology or the environment."

Remember this is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Not exactly your average "evil right-wing" nutcase.

Brian Ellenberger