Gun ownership rates are also positively correlated with crime rates. While you may think that your a sane person, you may end up being the next George Zimmerman instead.
That depends on how you parse the data. States and locales that make it easy to legally own guns have lower crime rates than states and locales that make it hard to legally own a gun. As to the other sentence you quoted, what is wrong with being someone who protected himself from a thug who jumped him and was attempting to kill him? Oh, that's right, you bought the idea that a hispanic guy with a black great grandfather was a racist who was out to kill black people.
Except that, that is not what they did. They want you and I to rely on the police for protection, but they went out and hired private citizens for their own protection. That action says that they believe that the police are not sufficient protection and since they can afford to hire someone to protect them, they should be allowed to, but if you cannot afford to hire sufficient protection, you are out of luck, you should not be allowed to protect yourself.
They lose their cool and react in hate and threats.
Really? What evidence do you have of that? The word of an organization that opposes people owning guns? The only evidence we have that there were any threats is the claims by the paper that published the names and addresses of gun owners (the FBI investigated and found no credible threats). The only reason I can think of for the newspaper to publish that information is to attempt to shame those gun owners into giving up their guns (or more likely, to cause other people to not ever get guns because they would be embarrassed if others found out they owned a gun).
You just went and swapped between two different terms. You said that a semi-automatic weapon can be an assault rifle by federal definition than in order to back that up you said that it qualified as an "assault weapon". Guess what? An "assault rifle" is not the same as an "assault weapon". Guess what else? If the federal government ever re-instates an "assault weapon" ban, we don't know what it will include because it will be a matter of what gets written into the law. Right now, there is no federal definition of "assault weapon" (the law that defined the term has expired and not been renewed). However, there is an existing definition of "assault rifle" and that definition is: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons."
You just did what that definition explained that one should not do (of course that is the whole point of the term "assault weapon", to get people to confuse "assault weapon" with "assault rifle").
The full legal term is "assault weapon" when it's a semi-automatic rifle that is not select-fire (or full-automatic).
That is not true. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle that is not select-fire and to many people looks like a rifle that does have select-fire. Actually, to be precise that was the legal definition of an "assault weapon" when there was a legal definition of that term. At that time there was no functional difference between a regular semi-automatic rifle and an "assault weapon". There is currently no legal definition of the term "assault weapon", or if there is it varies state by state. The term "assault weapon" was created in order to deliberately evoke the idea of assault rifle.
Exactly correct. Legos are just like any other collectable. When the supply exceeds the demand, prices will plummet. That day will come soon. As the baby boomers dump their collections, either to pay for their retirement, because they are moving into smaller living quarters and don't have space or because they died and their heirs aren't interested, there will be a glut on the market of much of this stuff.
As long as the data the app is using is broken the app does not work. THE APP DOES NOT WORK. Or at least it does not work well.
Does it make any practical difference for the functionality of the Mars Climate Orbiter if the error was bad structural engineering or a unit conversion error? Does the fact that it was not bad structural engineering change the fact that it stopped working?
Or they could return to using the app that they used before they started using this one. The fact of the matter is that as things stand, the app is broken. It makes no difference to anyone outside of Apple whether the reason the app is broken is because it has bad data or because it has bad code.
Really, what part of the article tells us what they would do under a simplified tax code? The article tells us what they do under current tax law. It does not tell us what they would do under a changed tax law.
Without the data the app is worthless, from what I hear, with the data the app is worse than worthless. You are making a distinction that is not a distinction. Does any other app use the same data as Apple Maps? Does an Apple Maps user have the option of using different data? If the answer to both questions is "no", than whether the app stinks because it was badly coded or because the data it used is bad is irrelevant. In that case, the app stinks.
We can see if there is any reason to do that after we simplify the tax code. Just because something is possible does not mean that it will be worth actually doing it. You talk about simplifying the tax code, but want to put a complication in there right off the bat. That is why it never gets simplified, everyone has one or two complications they want to add. Simplify the tax code, if, once that has been done, there is still a problem with companies offshoring profits (not just that some companies are doing it, but that enough are doing it that it creates a problem) then is the time to introduce your suggested solution. I suspect that if the tax code was simplified very few companies would find the overhead of offshoring profits worth it.
You know the easiest way to reduce corporate ownership complexity is to reduce tax law complexity. Forget everything else. Make tax law simple and straightforward and lots of problems go away. Once you have done that, you can look at the remaining problems and start to come up with solutions. However, the problem with both offshoring profits and complex corporate ownership can for the most part be solved by simplifying the tax code.
Because it is not your data (well at least not all of it). That does not mean that there should not be some privacy protection, but let us keep straight what we are talking about. For the most part the data being talked about here is data that was collected by a private company. Some of it is data that was collected by the government. When you buy something from company A, the data of what you bought is company A's data. So is any other data that you gave them as part of making that transaction.
You were the one who suggested that Democrats had passed a balanced budget, when in fact the ones who passed the balanced budget were Republicans (only when a Democrat was President). I am not sure what political agenda you are suggesting that I am pushing. The Democrats have never passed a balanced budget and the only time the Republicans did so was under a Democrat President (although even then it was only balanced on paper, not in actuality).
If the opinion that the authorities had only acted because of the publicity had been expressed in an opinion piece, I would have been fine with that. However, it was presented as part of a news story, with no evidence to back it up. Having seen your posts before, I am aware that you think that "journalists" should present opinions which you agree with as facts, however, this is why people do not trust "journalists", because they present opinions as facts.
Do you have an interest in keeping the entrenched media elite in their position of power...
I love that. You accuse me of wanting to keep the media elite in a position of power when I accuse the media of taking credit for action without providing evidence. The post you base your accusation on was one where I was critical of the media elite, yet it causes you to ask if I have an interest in keeping the media elite in a position of power.
It is one thing for you to read the article and conclude that the authorities only acted because of the publicity. It is a quite different thing for the reporter to say in the article that the authorities only acted because of the publicity, when they provide no evidence supporting that claim. The claim that the authorities only acted because of the publicity is opinion. That means it belongs on the opinion page, not in the news article, unless there are some facts presented in the article to support that opinion (even then it probably belongs on the opinion page, but that would make it more of a judgment call). This is why people no longer trust "journalists", because they do not clearly separate their opinions from the facts they present.
I do not have a problem with people reading about a prosecution like this and wondering if it was only investigated because of all of the publicity. However, it is quite another thing for a "journalist" to report that it was only investigated because of the publicity when they provide no evidence that such is the case. This story is a perfect example of why people no longer trust "journalists".
AT&T had that sense of ownership before the breakup. Today's telcos inherited that sense of ownership from the original AT&T, it is not a post-breakup phenomena. At one point before the breakup of AT&T, you were not allowed to connect a non-AT&T device to your telephone line. AT&T owned your phone. The first step that led to the breakup of AT&T was a lawsuit because AT&T would not allow you to connect your own modem to their phone lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but then where is the excuse to track people's movement?
Gun ownership rates are also positively correlated with crime rates. While you may think that your a sane person, you may end up being the next George Zimmerman instead.
That depends on how you parse the data. States and locales that make it easy to legally own guns have lower crime rates than states and locales that make it hard to legally own a gun. As to the other sentence you quoted, what is wrong with being someone who protected himself from a thug who jumped him and was attempting to kill him? Oh, that's right, you bought the idea that a hispanic guy with a black great grandfather was a racist who was out to kill black people.
Except that, that is not what they did. They want you and I to rely on the police for protection, but they went out and hired private citizens for their own protection. That action says that they believe that the police are not sufficient protection and since they can afford to hire someone to protect them, they should be allowed to, but if you cannot afford to hire sufficient protection, you are out of luck, you should not be allowed to protect yourself.
The question is, why is this information publicly available?
They lose their cool and react in hate and threats.
Really? What evidence do you have of that? The word of an organization that opposes people owning guns? The only evidence we have that there were any threats is the claims by the paper that published the names and addresses of gun owners (the FBI investigated and found no credible threats). The only reason I can think of for the newspaper to publish that information is to attempt to shame those gun owners into giving up their guns (or more likely, to cause other people to not ever get guns because they would be embarrassed if others found out they owned a gun).
Well, I for one do not have a problem with them publishing this. I have a problem with this being publicly available information.
You just went and swapped between two different terms. You said that a semi-automatic weapon can be an assault rifle by federal definition than in order to back that up you said that it qualified as an "assault weapon". Guess what? An "assault rifle" is not the same as an "assault weapon". Guess what else? If the federal government ever re-instates an "assault weapon" ban, we don't know what it will include because it will be a matter of what gets written into the law. Right now, there is no federal definition of "assault weapon" (the law that defined the term has expired and not been renewed). However, there is an existing definition of "assault rifle" and that definition is: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons."
You just did what that definition explained that one should not do (of course that is the whole point of the term "assault weapon", to get people to confuse "assault weapon" with "assault rifle").
The full legal term is "assault weapon" when it's a semi-automatic rifle that is not select-fire (or full-automatic).
That is not true. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle that is not select-fire and to many people looks like a rifle that does have select-fire. Actually, to be precise that was the legal definition of an "assault weapon" when there was a legal definition of that term. At that time there was no functional difference between a regular semi-automatic rifle and an "assault weapon". There is currently no legal definition of the term "assault weapon", or if there is it varies state by state. The term "assault weapon" was created in order to deliberately evoke the idea of assault rifle.
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
Outlawing the slave trade in/by the United Kingdom, followed by outlawing slavery in the UK.
Exactly correct. Legos are just like any other collectable. When the supply exceeds the demand, prices will plummet. That day will come soon. As the baby boomers dump their collections, either to pay for their retirement, because they are moving into smaller living quarters and don't have space or because they died and their heirs aren't interested, there will be a glut on the market of much of this stuff.
As long as the data the app is using is broken the app does not work. THE APP DOES NOT WORK. Or at least it does not work well.
Does it make any practical difference for the functionality of the Mars Climate Orbiter if the error was bad structural engineering or a unit conversion error? Does the fact that it was not bad structural engineering change the fact that it stopped working?
Or they could return to using the app that they used before they started using this one. The fact of the matter is that as things stand, the app is broken. It makes no difference to anyone outside of Apple whether the reason the app is broken is because it has bad data or because it has bad code.
Really, what part of the article tells us what they would do under a simplified tax code? The article tells us what they do under current tax law. It does not tell us what they would do under a changed tax law.
Without the data the app is worthless, from what I hear, with the data the app is worse than worthless. You are making a distinction that is not a distinction. Does any other app use the same data as Apple Maps? Does an Apple Maps user have the option of using different data? If the answer to both questions is "no", than whether the app stinks because it was badly coded or because the data it used is bad is irrelevant. In that case, the app stinks.
We can see if there is any reason to do that after we simplify the tax code. Just because something is possible does not mean that it will be worth actually doing it. You talk about simplifying the tax code, but want to put a complication in there right off the bat. That is why it never gets simplified, everyone has one or two complications they want to add. Simplify the tax code, if, once that has been done, there is still a problem with companies offshoring profits (not just that some companies are doing it, but that enough are doing it that it creates a problem) then is the time to introduce your suggested solution. I suspect that if the tax code was simplified very few companies would find the overhead of offshoring profits worth it.
You know the easiest way to reduce corporate ownership complexity is to reduce tax law complexity. Forget everything else. Make tax law simple and straightforward and lots of problems go away. Once you have done that, you can look at the remaining problems and start to come up with solutions. However, the problem with both offshoring profits and complex corporate ownership can for the most part be solved by simplifying the tax code.
Because it is not your data (well at least not all of it). That does not mean that there should not be some privacy protection, but let us keep straight what we are talking about. For the most part the data being talked about here is data that was collected by a private company. Some of it is data that was collected by the government. When you buy something from company A, the data of what you bought is company A's data. So is any other data that you gave them as part of making that transaction.
So, you think the way to go is to drive up costs? That will work out well for everyone. /s
You were the one who suggested that Democrats had passed a balanced budget, when in fact the ones who passed the balanced budget were Republicans (only when a Democrat was President). I am not sure what political agenda you are suggesting that I am pushing. The Democrats have never passed a balanced budget and the only time the Republicans did so was under a Democrat President (although even then it was only balanced on paper, not in actuality).
It is still conjecture and there are no facts presented to support that conjecture.
Do you have an interest in keeping the entrenched media elite in their position of power... I love that. You accuse me of wanting to keep the media elite in a position of power when I accuse the media of taking credit for action without providing evidence. The post you base your accusation on was one where I was critical of the media elite, yet it causes you to ask if I have an interest in keeping the media elite in a position of power.
Except that it would not work that way. It would just result in more shell corporations and a more complicated corporate structure.
It is one thing for you to read the article and conclude that the authorities only acted because of the publicity. It is a quite different thing for the reporter to say in the article that the authorities only acted because of the publicity, when they provide no evidence supporting that claim. The claim that the authorities only acted because of the publicity is opinion. That means it belongs on the opinion page, not in the news article, unless there are some facts presented in the article to support that opinion (even then it probably belongs on the opinion page, but that would make it more of a judgment call). This is why people no longer trust "journalists", because they do not clearly separate their opinions from the facts they present.
I do not have a problem with people reading about a prosecution like this and wondering if it was only investigated because of all of the publicity. However, it is quite another thing for a "journalist" to report that it was only investigated because of the publicity when they provide no evidence that such is the case. This story is a perfect example of why people no longer trust "journalists".
Today, there's a sense of ownership by the telcos
AT&T had that sense of ownership before the breakup. Today's telcos inherited that sense of ownership from the original AT&T, it is not a post-breakup phenomena. At one point before the breakup of AT&T, you were not allowed to connect a non-AT&T device to your telephone line. AT&T owned your phone. The first step that led to the breakup of AT&T was a lawsuit because AT&T would not allow you to connect your own modem to their phone lines.