Another way is that black people do a lot more murder on a per capita basis.
Absolutely. And they kill much more inside their race than outside it, by a factor of 5:1. Proximity appears to be a major factor in the statistics.
the chances of getting killed by a white guy are less for a black person than the reverse.
No, that's not what your numbers show. It's a subtle distinction, but while your numbers do, in fact show that on a per capita basis, blacks commit more murders of whites than whites do of blacks, they also show that per capita, more blacks are killed by whites than whites are killed by blacks.
There are fewer whites murdering blacks than blacks murdering whites. But there are so many fewer blacks than whites that each black has a higher chance of being killed by one of the few murderous whites than a white has of being killed by one of the few murderous blacks.
No, but your statement means that you don't understand conditional probabilities, otherwise you'd have realized that his numbers are not enough to draw that conclusion.
Conditional probabilities? If a white is murdered by a black, what are the chances that he is also murdered by a white? Is it large enough to really matter?
Otherwise, if these conditionals did not matter, a random person, irrespective of skin color, would be about 5 times more likely to be murdered by a white person than by a black one from population size alone.
You're the one extrapolating to a perfectly smooth, round, random person, not me. My statement said nothing about such a critter, and follows from the data given. Assuming people are murdered but a single time by a single perpetrator (which is by far the usual case), then you can indeed make such statements, just as you can make statements about the black death rate from diabetes and the white death rate from heart attacks without knowing about the black death rate from heart attacks or the white death rate from diabetes.
Although the math doesn't require an absolute population value, it's a bit easier to reason about it if one is used, so I'll round the population of the country to 300 million.
If whites are 70% of this population and 500 whites per year are murdered by blacks, then the white population is 210 million, and the rate of whites murdered by blacks is 500 per 210 million -- about 2.4 whites per million are murdered each year by blacks.
If blacks are 13% of this population, and 200 blacks per year are murdered by whites, then the black population is 39 million, and the rate of blacks murdered by whites is 200 per 39 million -- about 5.1 blacks per million are murdered each year by whites.
Ergo, as I said, these numbers, if believed, show that a black person is twice as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person is to be killed by a black person.
Well, only approximately, since 5.1 is not exactly twice 2.4, but that wasn't your quibble now, was it?
As other commenters have pointed out, that statement is fairly meaningless without further context, but I'm not the one who posted the context-free numbers. All I did is point out one conclusion from them. Another conclusion, of course, is the one probably intended by the original poster, e.g. that on average, black people commit more interracial murders than white people, but that conclusion likewise requires additional context before you could consider it to be actionable data.
Here's one piece of context for you -- "on average" has its own problems. As Dylan Roof illustrates, a single white guy easily supplied 4.5% of the carnage in that white-on-black number.
Should that make blacks feel safer or less secure?
500 white people are killed by blacks every year and 200 blacks are killed by whites every year. One group is 70% of the country, the other is 13% of the country.
If your numbers are accurate, it means that a black person is twice as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person is to be killed by a black person.
But when you combine the current tax subsidies with the current interest rates, the fact that you pay up front for the battery is not really that big of a deal.
As I wrote in the comment above yours, I only paid $10K for a brand new EV. I paid cash, but even if I had financed my car, at today's rates it would have cost about $175/month for five years, and the drive train warranty is that long, and the battery warranty is eight years, so that's not really less economical than buying any new car.
Whenever anybody asks me about the energy cost to run my car, I explain that it's down in the noise; I pay $1.00 a week for unlimited charging, and even though I also only put about 5000 miles a year on the car, the penny per mile that the electricity costs is less than the cost of new tires.
Mitsubishi's i-Miev was cheap to begin with and is not very well marketed. I bought one in 2014, and it worked great.
Last August, the dealership was getting rid of the 2016 models. I gave my 2 year old one to my daughter, and got a brand new one for less than $17500 TT&L. After the federal $7500 tax credit, that came to less than $10K.
On the one hand, the federal tax credit is not refundable, which means that you have to owe at least that much to make use of it. On the other hand, the credit is baked into the price of most used electric EVs.
If you really don't have far to drive, and you're bigger on functionality than aesthetics, the i-MiEV is a great little car. Especially if you're a two-car family and have another vehicle for longer trips.
And here in the People's Republic of Austin, you can get subsidized electricity for it, as well. The electricity costs $50.00 / year, and the nearest all-you-can-eat charging buffet is less than half a mile from my house, so the city is subsidizing my limited exercise program. (To be fair, there is at least one true environmental reason why they do this; Austin is big enough, and the climate is such, that they have to worry about smog and ozone, and every little bit helps.)
What kind of person naturally assumes that the first thought that comes to mind for somebody else couldn't possibly be supported by prior experience and reporting?
If you are representative, then you are right -- the argument that "content providers will learn that people who watch a pirated stream will not pay for the content when the pirate stream is somehow prevented" is not valid.
But if you would pay if you could, then the conclusion that "money spent on preventing piracy has a negative ROI" is still true -- perhaps they would make more money rearranging things so that you had a chance to acquire the content legally.
FWIW, I believe you, and I believe you are fairly representative, yet I can believe there are others for whom the original argument does actually apply.
A restated version of the argument is this: money spent on content protection (a) may coerce some pirates into paying for content, (b) will deter some pirates who wouldn't pay anyway and who will simply stop watching, thus giving your content less mindshare in the world and reducing your available free advertising, (c) will deter some who only pirate because they have no available legal means of acquiring the content, and (d) may actually encourage some to pirate because now it's a challenge.
This means that content protection is only viable if its cost exceeds the revenue gained from (a) by more than the lost revenue and lost opportunity costs from not dealing with (b), (c), and (d) properly.
"Target Sweden" is not a plan name, it's a proper noun. It's understandable that you didn't catch that because the editors didn't capitalize it properly.
I'd tell you where it is, but then we'd have to move it.
That assumes facts not yet in evidence. Yes, the ISP has filed an application, but they haven't yet been granted an actual trademark. I have no idea what will happen here, but a lot of courts and national trademark registrars would take a dim view of someone finding out that somebody else just started using a name, and then rushing out and trademarking it and claiming to the world that they were there first.
they do get to decide who can use it, right?
Copyright trolls like righthaven and prenda and this new Swedish one) need to die, but this isn't the right way to kill them.
To the uninitiated (especially the uninitiated who conflate copyright law with trademark law, which the ISP is stupidly encouraging here by saying "nyah, nyah, nyah, you guys don't respect intellectual property so you have no moral standing"), the ISP's actions could look a lot like someone stealing an unreleased (or just-released) song and claiming they wrote it.
It's really hard to imagine that the ISP just happened to come up with that name themselves, that they really had a plan to use it "in commerce" (which is, after all, what trademark law is all about), and that they had no idea the the troll was planning on using the same name. All of these things will come out in an official setting, and it won't be pretty, and it could set back the cause of fighting copyright trolls a bit, because it really makes the ISP look like it's run by douchebags.
Because I thought Occam's Razor fully explained what the answer would be.
But since you pointed out the paucity of my research, I went ahead and spent another 10 minutes on this. I found out that if you enter "Spridningskollen" in the box at:
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. And they kill much more inside their race than outside it, by a factor of 5:1. Proximity appears to be a major factor in the statistics.
No, that's not what your numbers show. It's a subtle distinction, but while your numbers do, in fact show that on a per capita basis, blacks commit more murders of whites than whites do of blacks, they also show that per capita, more blacks are killed by whites than whites are killed by blacks.
There are fewer whites murdering blacks than blacks murdering whites. But there are so many fewer blacks than whites that each black has a higher chance of being killed by one of the few murderous whites than a white has of being killed by one of the few murderous blacks.
It does seem to have riled up a few people who assumed that somehow the numbers were themselves more meaningful, doesn't it?
Conditional probabilities? If a white is murdered by a black, what are the chances that he is also murdered by a white? Is it large enough to really matter?
You're the one extrapolating to a perfectly smooth, round, random person, not me. My statement said nothing about such a critter, and follows from the data given. Assuming people are murdered but a single time by a single perpetrator (which is by far the usual case), then you can indeed make such statements, just as you can make statements about the black death rate from diabetes and the white death rate from heart attacks without knowing about the black death rate from heart attacks or the white death rate from diabetes.
Although the math doesn't require an absolute population value, it's a bit easier to reason about it if one is used, so I'll round the population of the country to 300 million.
If whites are 70% of this population and 500 whites per year are murdered by blacks, then the white population is 210 million, and the rate of whites murdered by blacks is 500 per 210 million -- about 2.4 whites per million are murdered each year by blacks.
If blacks are 13% of this population, and 200 blacks per year are murdered by whites, then the black population is 39 million, and the rate of blacks murdered by whites is 200 per 39 million -- about 5.1 blacks per million are murdered each year by whites.
Ergo, as I said, these numbers, if believed, show that a black person is twice as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person is to be killed by a black person.
Well, only approximately, since 5.1 is not exactly twice 2.4, but that wasn't your quibble now, was it?
As other commenters have pointed out, that statement is fairly meaningless without further context, but I'm not the one who posted the context-free numbers. All I did is point out one conclusion from them. Another conclusion, of course, is the one probably intended by the original poster, e.g. that on average, black people commit more interracial murders than white people, but that conclusion likewise requires additional context before you could consider it to be actionable data.
Here's one piece of context for you -- "on average" has its own problems. As Dylan Roof illustrates, a single white guy easily supplied 4.5% of the carnage in that white-on-black number.
Should that make blacks feel safer or less secure?
If your numbers are accurate, it means that a black person is twice as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person is to be killed by a black person.
Ah. So same as any lottery, really.
But when you combine the current tax subsidies with the current interest rates, the fact that you pay up front for the battery is not really that big of a deal.
As I wrote in the comment above yours, I only paid $10K for a brand new EV. I paid cash, but even if I had financed my car, at today's rates it would have cost about $175/month for five years, and the drive train warranty is that long, and the battery warranty is eight years, so that's not really less economical than buying any new car.
Whenever anybody asks me about the energy cost to run my car, I explain that it's down in the noise; I pay $1.00 a week for unlimited charging, and even though I also only put about 5000 miles a year on the car, the penny per mile that the electricity costs is less than the cost of new tires.
Last August, the dealership was getting rid of the 2016 models. I gave my 2 year old one to my daughter, and got a brand new one for less than $17500 TT&L. After the federal $7500 tax credit, that came to less than $10K.
On the one hand, the federal tax credit is not refundable, which means that you have to owe at least that much to make use of it. On the other hand, the credit is baked into the price of most used electric EVs.
If you really don't have far to drive, and you're bigger on functionality than aesthetics, the i-MiEV is a great little car. Especially if you're a two-car family and have another vehicle for longer trips.
And here in the People's Republic of Austin, you can get subsidized electricity for it, as well. The electricity costs $50.00 / year, and the nearest all-you-can-eat charging buffet is less than half a mile from my house, so the city is subsidizing my limited exercise program. (To be fair, there is at least one true environmental reason why they do this; Austin is big enough, and the climate is such, that they have to worry about smog and ozone, and every little bit helps.)
You don't have to do anything; it just is.
Requiring people to share everything they create is not workable in any world I want to live in.
Well, your sig was, anyway.
People do [that] all the time, [asshole].
I'll take one if the company is profitable. Hell, maybe even if it's not -- I could use the tax write-off.
There's an implied subject: Men's [brains] suffer a life-long 50% IQ drop when they reach puberty.
Anybody can be asked anything by anybody.
Is god telling you that Dunbal's answer is wrong?
Maybe it's not a natural assumption. Maybe it's a considered position, reached after looking at evidence.
Those $5 computers are easy to buy if you're willing to spend $50.
But if you would pay if you could, then the conclusion that "money spent on preventing piracy has a negative ROI" is still true -- perhaps they would make more money rearranging things so that you had a chance to acquire the content legally.
FWIW, I believe you, and I believe you are fairly representative, yet I can believe there are others for whom the original argument does actually apply.
A restated version of the argument is this: money spent on content protection (a) may coerce some pirates into paying for content, (b) will deter some pirates who wouldn't pay anyway and who will simply stop watching, thus giving your content less mindshare in the world and reducing your available free advertising, (c) will deter some who only pirate because they have no available legal means of acquiring the content, and (d) may actually encourage some to pirate because now it's a challenge.
This means that content protection is only viable if its cost exceeds the revenue gained from (a) by more than the lost revenue and lost opportunity costs from not dealing with (b), (c), and (d) properly.
Glass or plastic?
Fracking industry bought off scientists, skewed geophysical science research for decades
I'd tell you where it is, but then we'd have to move it.
That assumes facts not yet in evidence. Yes, the ISP has filed an application, but they haven't yet been granted an actual trademark. I have no idea what will happen here, but a lot of courts and national trademark registrars would take a dim view of someone finding out that somebody else just started using a name, and then rushing out and trademarking it and claiming to the world that they were there first.
Copyright trolls like righthaven and prenda and this new Swedish one) need to die, but this isn't the right way to kill them.
To the uninitiated (especially the uninitiated who conflate copyright law with trademark law, which the ISP is stupidly encouraging here by saying "nyah, nyah, nyah, you guys don't respect intellectual property so you have no moral standing"), the ISP's actions could look a lot like someone stealing an unreleased (or just-released) song and claiming they wrote it.
It's really hard to imagine that the ISP just happened to come up with that name themselves, that they really had a plan to use it "in commerce" (which is, after all, what trademark law is all about), and that they had no idea the the troll was planning on using the same name. All of these things will come out in an official setting, and it won't be pretty, and it could set back the cause of fighting copyright trolls a bit, because it really makes the ISP look like it's run by douchebags.
Try here.
Scroll down to "Swedish trademark database" and click the link first.
Be warned that it's one of those websites that tries to put your browser to sleep.
But since you pointed out the paucity of my research, I went ahead and spent another 10 minutes on this. I found out that if you enter "Spridningskollen" in the box at:
https://was.prv.se/VarumarkesD...
you will, in fact, find out that the trademark was applied for on August 31st.
I know nothing about Swedish trademark law, but most countries are not amused by this sort of stunt.
You're welcome.
this month.