Slashdot Mirror

And isn't. https://www.washingtonpost.com... .

Yet another lie from a Democrat... Shocked, Shocked I tell you.

The chick that said she was an Indian and isn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Two Pinocchios.

She should be run out of politics just as the Democrats keep telling us that everyone not a Democrat (or has fallen out of favor) should resign over a lie.

Drop her mic.

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

According to the diagram of the crash (In this WaPo article linked from another reply in this thread) it looks like the truck was making a left turn onto a side street, across the path of the Tesla coming from the other direction. The accident seems to have occurred here at US27A and NE 140 Ct.

So it was an un-signaled intersection, at a typical grade crossing of a rural 4-lane US highway divided with a grass median. This meant that the truck apparently crossed when it was not safe to do so. I don't see any report of the weather or time of day, but the road is quite straight and relatively flat, so the truck driver should have seen the Tesla coming. If the autopilot had been able to see the situation and react, that would have only been a bonus.

If there's one thing that makes autonomous driving hard, it's that other people are dumb and will do dumb things, some of which endanger YOUR life. No matter how much you try to idiot-proof things, the universe will always create a bigger idiot.

And it's a good thing he posted it to /r/privacy. If he'd posted it to /r/news he'd likely have been banned, then shadowbanned for his trouble while the mods and admins would send him messages saying that he was banned for wrongthink or something along those lines.

Ah yes, the revisionist steps forward providing a false narrative of what actually happened.

You mean to say that if he submitted to /r/news and was removed for having no evidence and then got a group of fifty people to submit and rapidly upvote each other's submissions all saying the same thing that wasn't yet proven, flooding /r/news and the front page spreading as yet unsubstantiated claims.

Society is becoming increasingly uninhabitable because some people can't seem to get it through their heads that a society is not just a question of whom you allow in but whom you do not allow in. All these assholes are getting flagged by the intelligence agencies and no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist.

The Orlando shooter was born in the United States.

The guy in Orlando was reported to the FBI directly by people twice for being a dangerous psychopath. And response? Nada.

The response was they investigated him twice. However, you have to prove that he is a dangerous psychopath before you can anything more. You can't simply throw a person in jail -- or exile a U.S. citizen from the country (however you propose to do that) -- because they watched bad videos and/or their coworkers say they're tied to multiple terrorist groups that, incidentally, totally hate each other.

On the other hand, you've just made a veiled threat of violence ("Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps"), so I suppose it's time to report you to the FBI and demand a response. No reason for your individual liberty to outweigh the risk of another McVeigh.

Society is becoming increasingly uninhabitable because some people can't seem to get it through their heads that a society is not just a question of whom you allow in but whom you do not allow in. All these assholes are getting flagged by the intelligence agencies and no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist.

The Orlando shooter was born in the United States.

The guy in Orlando was reported to the FBI directly by people twice for being a dangerous psychopath. And response? Nada.

The response was they investigated him twice. However, you have to prove that he is a dangerous psychopath before you can anything more. You can't simply throw a person in jail -- or exile a U.S. citizen from the country (however you propose to do that) -- because they watched bad videos and/or their coworkers say they're tied to multiple terrorist groups that, incidentally, totally hate each other.

On the other hand, you've just made a veiled threat of violence ("Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps"), so I suppose it's time to report you to the FBI and demand a response. No reason for your individual liberty to outweigh the risk of another McVeigh.

But radical Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Not a peep.

Drudge Report was all over the Istanbul bombing almost as soon as it happened. CNN reported too. As did Fox News...

Today — the next day — New York Times had their article. And Washington Post.

Are you taking your talking points from these dimwits, perhaps?

B does not solve the problem. Analyzing the video stream for the do-not-film IR signal is non-trivial; it will require CPU cycles (thus, energy) to do this, and that means that this "feature" will make your battery last not as long as it otherwise would when you are using your camera. This is a real shame, because the actual solution to the problem is people not taking their cameras into the movie theater, or those Yonder things... see https://www.washingtonpost.com... . Now, get off my lawn...

Do you even read the news? You ignorant moron!!
Here's some news for you illiterate moron:
http://www.dw.com/en/austria-a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

As for the rest of it, you learn some economics 101 and some money and banking 101. Its futile talking to an ignorant moron.

As per Washington Post, HINDUS are the most RACIST people on Earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Maybe it seems like it was only a few months ago that we heard about hospital security issues because that's when a hospital fell victim to ransomware.

I'd say you're being willfully ignorant.

1) 60% of the 22,000(ish) gun-related deaths recorded by the CDC in its most recent study were suicides.
And? That doesn't change my argument. Sensible gun laws would reduce the number of suicides and murders, maybe even equally. That's a lot of mothers out there avoiding funerals.

2) Gun crime as a whole is down nearly 50% since the 1990s, yet the media and the government would have you believe the opposite.
I haven't seen anything claiming it's rising, but fine I'll believe it.

3) Less than 5% of overall gun-related deaths involved a rifle of ANY kind. That's around 1,000 or so deaths caused by a long gun.
Yup, my high school paper noted that handguns have only one purpose - killing other humans (contrarians using the wrong tool for a job aside). I never blindly advocated restriction of all guns in America. Well, that actually brings us to the next point...

4) If you take Washington, DC, Detroit, and Chicago out of this count (note that these have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country), then not only does the gun violence drop WAAAAAY down (but wait, I thought guns were illegal so why do the criminals have them???). So do the overall violent crime statistics for our country.
Have you ever wondered why it worked in Australia? What is it about America where we have the highest gun murder rate in the rich world? One of the most obvious reasons is that Australia is surrounded by water. The government made a law that was difficult to break. Individual cities in America are surrounded by places without restrictive gun laws. Simple import/export. Do you know where Mexican cartels get their guns from? America. Do you know the source of guns in 99% of gun-related crimes in America? Law abiding gun owners. That's right, you. You probably don't keep your guns locked up - at least not well enough to prevent theft for sure. But what are the best ways to insure prevention of theft? Once stolen, where are the biggest trouble spots, where does law need to crack down on criminals trading? How are guns used legally and illegally? What's the best way to stop criminals but allow legal ownership? We can't know for sure. Why? Like most gun arguments, knowing the real stats is hard because we're not allowed to study or track anything related to guns. It's against the law to be knowledgeable about the facts. I'm sure you'll come up with several excuses for remaining willfully ignorant, but if you ever considered the entire situation and removed your own bias, you'd find that it's not worth it.

You may be willing to roll over and die like a coward at the hands of a criminal, but I am not.
Cute. Surprise, I'm a "safe" gun owner, I've studied several martial arts, practiced several ranges of scenarios, but I use the right tool for the right job. Situations can be different, and if you choose to pull your gun, it increases the chance that someone else does the same, and that it's used against you. I might be prepared to deal with that, but you'd be stupid not to consider the odds, and I wouldn't mind taking those scenarios off the table for all of us. I bet I'd win in almost any situation, but I'd rather live in a society that deals a little less with killing.

I know it is going to add up, but the NSA budget is around 10 billion. A trillion dollars is 100 years of NSA budget, or 20 years of combined US spying. The Utah data center cost was 1.5 billion, and "reports" say it was going to cost 2 billion to fill it with hardware, software and support, and that's for keeping track of the whole world. This bs will cost millions to the ISPs, that will spend more with the Russian connections they are already managing. It can get to billions, specially with the lack of optimization since each one will take care of it's own solutions, but certainly it's nowhere near a multitrillion-dollar expense.
BTW, I in no way support this type of law. I was just pointing out the huge overestimation.

There's a huge difference between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton: by the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, email had become the standard way to do things, there was an email system all set up for her, and there were regulations requiring her to use the official email system unless she had a good reason to do something else (and to routinely use her own email system required approval she never asked for and never got).

Colin Powell says he didn't send or receive classified information. Recently, a grand total of two emails that were sent to him were "retroactively classified" (to use Hillary Clinton's term). Neither of the two were classified "Secret" or above. In comparison, of Hillary Clinton's known emails, over 2100 contain classified information, 65 "Secret", 22 "Top Secret" (source)

In 2005, after Colin Powell but before Hillary Clinton, rules were developed over use of email. Colin Powell couldn't have broken them as they were put together after he was already gone, but Hillary Clinton absolutely broke them. She avoided using an official account set up for her to use, and went to great lengths to continue to use it rather than the official one. And she was required to take a training course every year about how to properly keep secrets, but there is no evidence she did so. She took the class once right after she got the job and then never took the class again.

And of course, even if Colin Powell was guilty of the exact same crimes as Hillary Clinton, that still wouldn't excuse her.

And it's obvious to anyone with common sense what her motive was: she wanted to control access to her emails. Some of her email could be embarrassing if someone read it (after filing an FOIA request) so she wanted to make sure there were no official copies of anything she didn't like. She committed conspiracy to avoid keeping Federal records that she was legally required to keep.

If you are willing to excuse Hillary Clinton for this kind of egregious lawbreaking, then you will have no moral right to complain later when President Trump does something just as bad. We're geeks here in ./ and we understand well enough to damn well know why what she did was stupid as well as illegal and wrong. Don't give her a pass for immoral behavior just because she is on your side. If you have to hold your nose and vote for her because you really really just can't even Trump, then fine and dandy, but just admit it to yourself: you would be voting for someone willing to break the law and lie about it (as proven by this email controversy).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-colin-powells-emails-are-not-like-hillarys/article/2000949

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misleading-democratic-spin-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/05/no-the-powell-and-condi-classified-emails-story-is-not-a-gamechanger-n2114842

I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.

None of the investigations had access to her emails because she had them on a private server. How do you do an investigation when you have no information to use to investigate?

As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break?

https://www.archives.gov/about...

I know it would be illegal now.

It was just as illegal back then.

Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make.

As a classification authority, she can't tell people to just remove classification markings (that others put there) and send unclassified since they are having problems with the classified fax machine. This is breaking the law.
Also, BECAUSE she is a classification authority, she should have been able to tell that the TS emails were not supposed to be emailed on the public internet. By the accounts I have seen, she received HUMINT, which is ALWAYS TS/HCS, not ever Unclassified.

You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer.

As I am not a part of the investigation, and they haven't said if she sent emails that were classified or not, I can only speculate on that point. It isn't required for her to have broken laws, but it helps to pin that SHE sent classified emails, not one of her underlings.

You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014.

The problem is, she sent over half the emails from 2014, claiming that the rest were personal email.

Also, the problem is:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Look at the size of the piles, there is no reason that there should have been that much of a difference in the number of emails she sent like that. The only reason for that difference is that Hillary didn't hand over emails that were related because they made her look bad.

You don't even have to believe me, believe the inspector general of the state department about the email server:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

At this point, if you still see nothing wrong with what she did, as Trump put it, she could murder someone on main street, and you would still cheer her on. She HAS broken the law, there is no doubt about it, the doubt is whether she will be charged before November, and if she isn't, it has more to do with politics than guilt.

I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.

None of the investigations had access to her emails because she had them on a private server. How do you do an investigation when you have no information to use to investigate?

As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break?

https://www.archives.gov/about...

I know it would be illegal now.

It was just as illegal back then.

Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make.

As a classification authority, she can't tell people to just remove classification markings (that others put there) and send unclassified since they are having problems with the classified fax machine. This is breaking the law.
Also, BECAUSE she is a classification authority, she should have been able to tell that the TS emails were not supposed to be emailed on the public internet. By the accounts I have seen, she received HUMINT, which is ALWAYS TS/HCS, not ever Unclassified.

You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer.

As I am not a part of the investigation, and they haven't said if she sent emails that were classified or not, I can only speculate on that point. It isn't required for her to have broken laws, but it helps to pin that SHE sent classified emails, not one of her underlings.

You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014.

The problem is, she sent over half the emails from 2014, claiming that the rest were personal email.

Also, the problem is:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Look at the size of the piles, there is no reason that there should have been that much of a difference in the number of emails she sent like that. The only reason for that difference is that Hillary didn't hand over emails that were related because they made her look bad.

You don't even have to believe me, believe the inspector general of the state department about the email server:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

At this point, if you still see nothing wrong with what she did, as Trump put it, she could murder someone on main street, and you would still cheer her on. She HAS broken the law, there is no doubt about it, the doubt is whether she will be charged before November, and if she isn't, it has more to do with politics than guilt.

How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?

By definition a civilian with a firearm will never stop a mass shooting because if they did, then there was not a mass shooting and if they did not, then they failed to shop a mass shooting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

During Bush's time the Democrats fought a lot of things, but never went full retard.

How how short some memories are, here is just one list of examples of how 'full retard' they went: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I even seem to recall a mock impeachment trial in the basement of the capitol for Bush, yet still nothing similar for Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ... and that despite the fact Obama has done far more egregious and impeachable things... things that Democrats are ok with now, but will be screaming bloody murder over President Trump using the precedent of and riding even further.

I think Robert Epstein is giving Alphabet (Google) way too much credit in it's ability to "manipulate" people. It is a mega corporation that is only getting bigger. Economies of scale still apply and they're probably trying a lot harder to keep cutting edge rather then manipulating things.

I think you're misunderstanding both his point, and Google usage in the english-speaking world. I'll grant you one thing, though: Google's failures are astonishing. It's possible that they only thing keeping them from being as evil as any Saturday morning cartoon villain is that they're as incompetent as any Saturday morning cartoon villain.

If you have an Android smart phone with Google Play Services installed (ie, if you're a normal person) Google knows *everything* about you. Ask yourself if there's a single technical barrier to them recording everything you're saying -- there isn't. Most smartphone users leave all the features turned on, but even if you turn them off you're trusting that your preference is being respected.

My experience has been that Google news provides the least biased news source. But as everyone here will know, you get your sources from several places to avoid any bias they might have.

In case you haven't kept up with it, media companies nowadays are facing the stark reality that the VAST majority of traffic is not from their home page. No one goes to the front page of, say, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ anymore. People visit a specific article from a link they see on social media. All of that incoming traffic is alterable in its presentation, which is either a Google Ad, via Facebook or Twitter social media (subject to manipulation).

You or I understand how the internet works and can isolate things. The vast majority of the public doesn't. Many of them don't even realize that they *can* be manipulated for advertising (or any other) purposes.

As for search sources whenever I try others like Bing and DuckDuckGo I still find what I'm looking for faster with Google.

Bing is kind of the saving grace, but even MS hasn't been able to get it be a great success. No one out of the tech industry and one or two interest groups has even heard of DuckDuckGo. You're underestimating the sheer number of people who have only the vaguest notion of what a URL is nowadays. They just type the site they want into the address bar (eg, "cnn") and rely on what comes back. For them, Google IS the internet in a way that hasn't been seen since the days of AOL, or how someone using Mosaic might view their Yahoo home page.

I suspect that if Alphabet were to really try and manipulate people their credibility would drop like a rock and we would all find other sources for information.

No. If Alphabet were to really try and manipulate people you'd never know it at all. Facebook has as much as admitted that it can affect the emotions of its user base by altering the news feed they see and can alter the outcome of elections by deciding who gets prompted to vote and who doesn't. There's no reason either of those can't be extrapolated to a) all of the advertising you see, globally, since Google basically controls the ad market that isn't FB, and b) every other thing that can be done to affect how your interaction with your smartphone works.

Justice Stevens, is that you?

If we vote for Donald Trump, will he order air strikes against CraigsList scammers in non-allied countries?

Donald Trump is the political equivalent of a Craigslist scammer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Actually, someone working at Pulse Orlando took the trouble to post an emergency message on their Facebook page to the folks who were there: "... Pulse Orlando posted a haunting message on Facebook: “Everyone get out of pulse and keep running.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/12/it-was-just-complete-chaos-survivors-of-orlando-massacre-recall-desperate-struggle-to-stay-alive

That someone presumably on the scene had both the presence of mind and the courage to type out that message during the attack impressed me greatly.

But I guess that if everybody had their phones locked up in a bag that would have been an especially futile gesture indeed. Perhaps luckily for some who survived the attack, Alicia Keyes wasn't on the bill that night.

You might be surprised, but there are far less restrictions on children owning guns than you would expect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://smartgunlaws.org/minimu...

Buying guns can happen at 16 in Vermont, and some states don't appear to even have minimum age laws.

Okay, so how come Germany has extradited other hackers to the US?

Link here

Either all of that, or he's wrong and a legal standard will be set where it is the owner of the equipment who is liable, whether it is operating in autonomous mode or not. If that's the case, nothing much will change.

I'm still half of the mind that autonomous cars are already in a Segway type situation, where you have all these wonks predicting that they're poised to transform all of society etc. but the logic just doesn't hold up:

A.) Americans like driving.
B.) Car manufacturers market various car models with features that cater to the fact that Americans like driving, because it's profitable.

...and the biggie...

C.) Does anyone really believe autonomous cars will be sold to consumers without the ability for a human driver to take over in emergency situations? But if the autonomous mode can be disabled, then 1.) You will still need a drivers license to own an autonomous car, so no increase in convenience and no benefit to the disabled; 2.) The implication is that as the "driver," you must be alert to the possibility of emergency situations at all times, even in autonomous mode. This means you will have to pay attention as if you were actually operating the vehicle, which negates a lot of the value of a self-driving car. What's more, various cognitive processes will probably cause people to think they're in an emergency when they're not, causing people to turn off autonomous mode way more often than necessary, making the road much more unpredictable and (ironically) unsafe.

So will autonomous cars be a thing? Almost certainly. In fact, it seems they already exist. Will private ownership of autonomous cars by US consumers ever be a thing? Don't bet on it.

"Fine," you say. "Autonomous cars will be like fleets of robot taxis that you hire." But if most of the drivers on the road are still driving their own cars, then that negates a lot of the safety and environmental claims. Autonomous cars won't be able to optimize coordinated driving for fuel efficiency, for example, and all the marketing and all the newspaper headlines will be around how well they cope with unpredictable human driver behavior.

And if it goes the other way and you start seeing autonomous cars bumper-to-bumper like taxis in NYC, how long will it be before someone asks whether these robot taxi companies are paying their share of the taxes used to pave the roads, install traffic lights, etc.? And then there's still the issue of who's liable if a blind guy gets in an accident in a robot taxi. Or if blind guys aren't allowed to hire robot taxis, who goes to court over the Americans With Disabilities Act?

Don't worry, though. Once Google evolves into a full-blown defense contractor, it will still be able to sell autonomous vehicles to the Pentagon.

Actually, it's right there in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Every signed petition form and written letter is following the same legal channel as a lobbyist. A lobbyist just opens the discussion by saying "I represent this many people associated with this organization, and they have this concern". A Washington Post op-ed piece says it well:

How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?

Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.

This week they're financing Al Qaeda, and get very upset when the Russians bomb them.

Let's start by toning down the hyperbole. No one is advocating that everyone be armed. Please stop repeating this.

As long as there's people with guns and people without guns, there'll be situations where people without guns get mowed down by people with guns. And every single time the solution is more guns to more people in more places. Where does it end? Do you think a bunch of drunken people at a night club armed with guns is a good idea? You think 6-8 years olds with guns is okay? You think 9yos should be firing Uzis? There is no end for some people, not until every toddler and up is armed 24x7. Unless they don't want to, but then they're naive for not wanting to since they can't stop the bad guys. Yes, there are those who want to push guns into the hands of all that are reluctant too, just like they won't eat broccoli.

Also, your premise is flawed. More guns = more murder. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Have you actually read the paper in your first link? Here's data from their Table 2:

Gun ownership 1.009 (1.004, 1.014) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
Percentage Black 1.052 (1.037, 1.068) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
Violent crime rate 1.048 (1.010, 1.087) .013 For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%
Nonviolent crime rate 1.008 (1.003, 1.013) .002 For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%

Well, the proportion of households with firearms has been debated ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/03... ). That article suggests that the proportion of firearms owners has been either constant or increased. Which, according to the study you linked, SHOULD increase firearms deaths, all other things being equal. Of course, things are not equal. But consider the changes in America over the past ~10 years:

-reduced economic security
-persistent high unemployment
-amplified racial tensions
-increased use/abuse of prescription drugs
All of these should ALSO contribute to higher firearms deaths. And yet the numbers have declined. How to do you reconcile this?

Some studies suggest that ownership rates are declining, yet firearms continue to sell because existing owners are stockpiling. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/n... ) A doubling of firearms from 4 to 8 is a huge proportional increase, but we haven't seen a commensurate rise in violent deaths within this gun-owning demographic, which is disproportionately rural, middle-class, white men. ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... ) How do you explain this, given your assertion that more guns = more murder?

Let's concede that in an absolutely literal sense, firearms and deaths are positively correlated....in the way that 0.00001 is technically a positive non-zero number.

From the table above, income inequality has 5x as much of an impact on violent deaths as firearms proliferation. Same for the pre-existing violent crime rate.

Taking steps to fix society's other ills will do more to reduce the violent death rate than purely controlling the number of firearms. Given that time and labor are limited resources, allocating them efficiently to solve problems is paramount. If the weapons proliferation alone is a small fraction of the cause of deaths in America as I've demonstrated above, then focusing our efforts here is a misallocation of our energy.

And this doesn't even touch on the logistical difficulty/inefficiency of trying to collect 300 million+ weapons from a country the size of a continent. If the US's War on Drugs is anything to go by, expect an abject failure in a weapons crackdown.

how do you account for MILLIONS of weapons being dumped into the population's hands every year yet murders decline?

The people who are at prime murdering age have been either a) exposed to less lead after the EPA was formed or b) incarcerated (US has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world).

Plus, since the average gun owner now own 8.1 guns yet only has two hands, there bound to be diminishing murder returns per gun. Also (and this is true) the number of households that own guns has gone down. This decrease alone accounts almost precisely for the decrease in murders.

Also, your premise is flawed. More guns = more murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...

Please tell me what you mean by "gun culture" and where you got your supporting evidence; also please tell me exactly how you propose to "inderdict", and then perhaps we can discuss it.

Please send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope and $17 in US currency or Steam gift cards, and I will send you instructions on how to google information yourself.

I invite you to read a good book on the gun culture of the USA.

And I invite you to read about some up-to-date research showing that more guns = more crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Get back to me when you finish the article.

In simpler terms: Apple saved us a bunch of bullshit like a student being expelled over a rifle emoji.

Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) Slashdot doesn't render emojis correctly, but here's a quote from the article:

A grand jury in New York City recently had to decide whether ðY'® ðY" represented a true threat to police officers. A Michigan judge was asked to interpret the meaning of a face with a tongue sticking out: :P. Emoji even took a turn in the Supreme Court last year in a high-profile case over what constitutes a threat.

Flashback to 1997, I recall working in a startup where we were partnered w/Orbital (in VA/Chandler Az) on a high altitude system using airships (balloons) as an alternative to Orbcomm and Iridium back in the day. The transceivers were to handle IP traffic. OSC was to supply the electronics, and we teamed with Gore Industries for the airships (to be flown at 120000ft) since Gore was the main vendor for materials on those high alt balloon experiments. The effort of course, collapsed with the space industry at the time. Looking at the people involve, Space Data has merit in the idea, but NDAs w/Google is another investigation that will determined this lawsuit's outcome.

Those were fun days, the Internet was just ramping up from dial up, Iridium was driving great ideas in the space communications industry and mobile phones were taking off.

Funny thing was back then, our balloon competitor was Alexander Haig and his odd partner-- and tackling regulations to get their balloon system off the ground via gov't permission instead of focusing on tech.

Fun days I sure miss...

Will the banks stop doing business with Microsoft for fear of being accused of money laundering for the drug lords?

No, because Obama told the Feds to back-off on that.

Bad at her? spoken like a deluded fool for whom up and down and down is up.
IE, typical conservative.

no less a person than Madeleine Albright stated that "Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment at State Was to ‘Restore America’s Reputation"
And if you ask people in other countries, yes, contrary to the popular conservative myth, our standing in the world IS improved over Bush.
Obama didn't make us a laughingstock.
Bush did.
And Obama, with Hillary's work as Sec State, fixed it.

As senator she consistently fought for healthcare for the 9/11 responders, even as the bills were sidelined multiple times by the GOP.

Know how conservatives like to bash muslim countries by pointing out how (some of them) treat women and LGBT (while ignoring how poorly conservatives treat them)? As Sec State she spoke for womens and LGBT rights worldwide, even right in oppressive nations leader's faces, on their own soil.

She got expanded healthcare and leave benefits for military families.

That ceasefire between Isreal and Hamas? She negotiated it.

Know those islands China keeps claiming in the south sea? It's her actions that interjected the US into the dispute over concerns of keeping navigation of the oceans open.

She oversaw and was responsible for the New START Treaty.

Yes, she was a good Senator and good Sec State. Yes she wasn't perfect, as seen in the Libya bombing campaign. But no one is perfect, and for all the work she did do that never makes the front pages, all you idiots can focus on is one or two things and then claim she did nothing else. I mean seriously, this is the same old Hillary Derangement Syndrome that ignores reality. its worse and even more intractable than ODS ever was. She could literally cure cancer and you idiots would say she's putting doctors out of work.

More food for thought:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

As a German, I would like to interject that IMHO with the current crop of presidential candidates Godwin's law has outlived it's usefulness.

Anyhow, here's the creator of said law on the matter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Not that Trump will care, he revoked the WaPo's press credentials.

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.

Of course he would. The press has changed over the years. They've become addicted to the special press access that they get to people where they get force fed whatever those people decide to feed them. Like scraps from the table. The Post forgot that's what the access gives them and they lost it. Now they have to do reporting the old fashioned way or just write opinion pieces and regurgitate what others report.

Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.

Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.

He also promises to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the media easier.

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.

Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.

Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.

He also promises to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the media easier.

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.

Pair this with the recent problems at Reddit... :-/

“He was quite religious,” said the friend, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

So it was one of Mateen's friends speaking on condition of anonymity, not his ex-wife.

Which is weird, because it appears the server wasn't actually wiped, and the official Clinton position is to avoid directly answering the question of whether the emails where wiped or simply deleted and/or claim not to know what "wiping" is.

So it appears she didn't do that right either.

Yes, correct. But he also called 911 prior to shooting up joint pledging his allegiance to ISIS.

Yes, and he had also claimed to be a member of Hezbollah, which is an arch-enemy of ISIS, and previously claimed allegiance to al Qaeda, which doesn't get on with either ISIS or Hezbollah. The guy was off his rocker.

Wake up to what's happening in your country. We're sliding towards fascism, and need to start thinking really hard instead of dismissing valid historical comparisons because of a cute internet "law".

If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

- Mike Godwin

First, that's not a real quote. It's one of many that people paraphrase or flat out make up. Which is strange because he says enough controversial stuff you would think people with have to make up stuff.

It's amazing the lengths that the press is going after Trump by flat out lying or at least playing word games.

This is one of my favorites 'You were born in a Taco Bell': Trump's rhetoric fuels school bullies across US If you read the article, you will see a few paragraphs in that Trump never used that phrase; it was one of the kids there.

And Obama is pretty restricting on the press. You don't hear about it as often because they put up with it since they support his policies.

https://cpj.org/reports/2013/1...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Actually, no, that chart doesn't prove otherwise. It shows that the gun death rate is dropping while the number of guns is increasing, but it does not prove that increasing the number of guns resulted in the decrease in gun deaths as you imply. It could just as easily be true that the increased number of guns resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred, but that this was overshadowed by the sharp decline in gun deaths caused by a general reduction in crazy people, a general increase in incarceration of dangerous felons, or even the reduction of lead in gasoline.

For this reason, if you wanted to prove your theory correct, you would need more than just a vague inverse correlation in a single graph. You'd have to start by comparing the rate of gun ownership increases in various areas and the rate of decrease, to determine whether those two numbers are correlated in some way, and if so, in which direction.

Unfortunately, even that won't really prove your point one way or another, because there's every possibility that the increase in gun ownership could be caused by the increasing violence in an area. So a proper study would have to factor in the timing of changes in the slope of those lines over a long period of time at a fine-grained level.

Fortunately, a team of Stanford law professors have done that study. Unfortunately for you, they found precisely what the GP said—that every action that made it easier for people to own guns resulted in a statistically significant increase in the amount of gun violence without increasing the probability of bystanders preventing crimes.

This whackjob was apparently a bad egg long, long ago.
Cheering while watching the events of 9/11. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

No... That's your job. You wouldn't want me to call you a mentally retarded idiot who can't even grasp how onus probandi works, now would you?

And then, after you you have compiled all those cases, compare them to the number of cases where an armed civilian committed an actual mass shooting.
Just remember to compare actual prevented cases of proven attempts of mass shootings. Not scuffles and personal shootouts where a third person intervened.
Cause then you'd have to include ALL the shootings in your comparison. Not just mass shootings.
Arguably... even suicides. Cause cops sometimes prevent those by disarming people.

And don't forget to include the cases where civilians decide to go all Rambo - and end up getting killed or killing and wounding innocent bystanders.

Guess what - civilians with guns NEARLY NEVER stop mass shootings despite all (ALL OF THEM) US states allowing concealed carry, and 11 of them allowing unconcealed carry (plus 4 more with certain caveats).
But they sure do cause them.

Show me a US mosque where they actually encourage murdering homosexuals.

Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.

Here you go:

Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources

Robertson, who recently spent four years in prison in Florida on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago, has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality. The targets of Mateen’s bloody rampage were members of the gay community of Orlando, 120 miles from the 29-year-old’s home in Fort Pierce.

Here's ANOTHER .

These ISLAMIC guys actually do go out and kill gays - all across the ISLAMIC world:

Horrific moment ISIS kill four gay men by throwing them from a roof

And guess what all the countries that punish homosexuality by death have in common?

You got the stones to answer there?

Naaah, you got no balls.

So I'll tell you: Every country that punishes homosexuality by death is ISLAMIC.

How many people have Westboro Baptist Church members killed? Oh, and Fred Phelps, leader of that church? He was a DEMOCRAT. You dumbass.

Now, do YOU have the BALLS to say how many people murderous Christians slaughtered over Piss Christ?

Do you?

Or are you still just an ignorant chickenshit blowhard too spineless to answer a simple question that demonstrates your strawman out to be a farce?

So, again, because you're GUTLESS:

NOT ONE CHRISTIAN KILLED ANYONE OVER PISS CHRIST

You need to grow a fucking brain. And once it's functional enough to enable you to become non-sessile, you can go fuck your stupid self.