Many mathematically proven that even if you call life rare, the sheer number of stars with the possibility of planets in a habitable zone means there is a crapload of civilizations out there. I have seen and heard about equations, but I have never seen a mathematical proof that extra-terrestrial life exists. These equations have assumptions, and these assumptions are put through probability tests, and nowhere is probability certain (you could have a probability of winning a coin toss at.5 [50 percent], but you could toss a coin a million times and still never get 'heads'); improbable perhaps but not impossible (and the Law of Averages isn't a Law but "a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" over a large sample." - ref: Wikipedia). Nowhere have I seen an equation that absolutely proves that life exists or has evolved independently anywhere in the universe except on Earth. One could deduce (from what we already know about life on Earth) and speculate from the use of statistics, but speculation is not proof.
I would presume any such Prime Directive would ultimately be abused/ignored like it has been on Star Trek. International Law is only arbitrarily enforced. Let's first get a grip on how we treat our own people and the other species which inhabit our planet, then maybe we could think about how we would treat extra-terrestrial life forms (if in fact there are any). The only downside to idealism is reality.
Security exploits (and exploiters) will always tend towards the path of least resistance, and that is the end user. It will always be easier to exploit human weaknesses than computer system weaknesses. One can 'educate' a firewall for example through patches or rules and this will often be 'good enough'. On the other hand, one can educate a human, and they will be highly inconsistent (and often times down right stupid) in adapting what they learn into practice.
Security systems need to be equally hardware and software based as much as they are based on human accountability, ineptitude, arrogance, ignorance and all the other human traits that will inevitably be the failure of any highly complex security system. Any security model that gives more emphasis to technology than to human vulnerabilities will ultimately fail.
If Windows 3.1 gets thrown away because Windows 95 is on the scene, and you have to spend another $100 for the same functionality, something was most definitely lost. I think you are confusing amortization with actual economic loss. Of course anybody can always choose to destroy property (or even burn money), but this is a tangent to the overall argument. If you buy a faulty product then this may, overall, lead to loss but this is not inherently a 'loss' (you are gaining a faulty product after all. Deal with it.)
There is no actual loss, but at the most a theoretical loss. One cannot lose something that one does not have. So yes one could say such losses are fictional because they never really occurred. One could say I lost money during the tech bubble because I never invested in Amazon.com etc when these stocks were rising quite quickly, but in reality I still have what I had before; which is basically no money.
The Broken Window fallacy is not directly comparable because it assumes "open source" is a negative. Open source software does not directly damage anything; it is however a competitor to other software, and more directly to closed source software. There is however no economic loss occuring (there is no broken window per se). The Broken Window Fallacy states that their are positive unintended outcomes (like the redistribution of wealth from repairing the window, etc) but in this case their is an overall economic loss (the loss of a window that is).
With open source software there is no overall economic loss, but instead there are economic gains (assuming this open source software is in fact free of financial restrictions). The economic gains are seen (at the least) from the adoption and use of this software from people that could not or would not otherwise use such software; and so the standard of living (and quality of living) goes up overall throughout the population. The only downsides are that closed source software has competition (and competition is never a bad thing).
Open source software (as with all things that are added to the 'market') creates wealth; the difference being that with closed source proprietary software this wealth is more concentrated (within the company that creates the software and the customers who successfully exploit this software for their own ends), whereas with FLOSS this wealth is (or at least has the capability of being) distributed more broadly throughout the population. Of course I'm not talking about 'wealth' from a purely monetary perspective, but from the economic perspective as wealth being a 'good' or a 'service'.
OK, I'm definitely not a networking guru (to put it euphemistically) but I'm wondering what the down sides are to only having 50 gateways.
I'm thinking two things: 1) You are concentrating access points (and thus increasing the likelihood of failure given concerted attacks [like DDoS for example]) 2) With a small definable limit of access points you are decreasing (or eliminating) the possibility of honeypots (and counter-surveillance)
Hi David, based on the overall discussion I think GalacticLordXenu's arguments are more concerned about the politics involved with being a Wikipedia editor rather than the actual content of Wikipedia. Of course the content is the end product, and the ultimate goal behind the politics of getting accurate content published, I think this is a point to be emphasized; the end product is often (or from my perspective seems to be) based a lot on politics. The political issues certainly need to be addressed. As I've stated in my original post things like "common sense" and "editorial judgement" need to be defined and elaborated upon within the rules. Vague policy statements and apparent arbitrary enforcement of these rules need to be improved. I would argue that if there were more transparency in the actual rules and enforcement of these rules then there would (probably) be less disgruntled editors. Everybody wants to be treated fairly, and it seems like this is the crux of the complaints.
You already did address the quality issues in your previous post which was very informative and much appreciated.
FYI, I finally created a Wikipedia account (within the last hour), not to 'stir shit' or argue about politics but to actually try and improve Wikipedia articles (or perhaps create new ones). I enter this world of Wikipedia with some trepidation but with cautious optimism. I would prefer if I could offer feedback (that will be acted upon) to improve the rules and make the Wikipedia editorial environment more congenial to scholarship and less congenial to political infighting, but that is something I will think about for a later date.
Point taken, and I do sincerely appreciate the link. I have never noticed this link before, as I'm sure most casual users haven't either. The link is at the bottom of the page with all the other usual meta-data about privacy statements and copyrights that most people just take for granted. There is still no obvious statement (on the general WikiPedia pages, or in the disclaimer) that Wikipedia is in 'beta' or is in a "work in progress" state (as you claim). It's a point of contention that we may never agree on.
I do suggest that people do go to Wikipedia for end results, and in this regard it can be surmised that people think of Wikipedia is an end product. It is a question for pollsters to answer rather than a more informed end user as myself or a WikiPedia editor as yourself. Intentions are fine and good, but in the end it is what the general public gets out of it.
Have you ever tried to edit one of the many Wiki articles which have self-appointed "guardians"? As you've probably already read; no! Though I am more and more tempted, somewhat out of curiosity and somewhat out of a natural indignation I have towards people.
I hope I won't find it hard to find an "edit war"; it sounds challenging and engaging. If one seeks Truth and Logic in the spirit of Fun then it is just a game, but a game where everybody wins and the struggle is not so tedious.
Erm, it is most certainly not published as an end product... This is not apparent to me, or perhaps we need to define "end product". I would argue that to the casual Web surfer who looks up a definition or word on Google will often times be brought to Wikipedia and will be presented information as-is.
It certainly is presented as an end-product (IMHO), and there is no (or little information) to state otherwise. "citations needed" references etc are fine, but I would argue that these things have more value to Wikipedians than they do to the casual Web surfer.
If the front page and search listings of Wikipedia are not 'end products' then I would argue that Wikipedia should state this very obviously and have a disclaimer on each and every page stating thus.
Unfortunately, we have yet to perfect the wiki-based encyclopedia that the reader can use while not bringing their brain to the party. A condescending statement for sure (or so it seems), but it is a concept that needs to be addressed and not merely dismissed. I for one am not part of the "party" in the sense that I am primarily an end user (and definitely not an editor, though I am tempted).
...and yes, I did break the rules doing so because the rules were allowing nutcases to post false information to the public and get away with it. Sounds like me; more so when I was much younger (and too naive and idealistic to realize that this is often a wrong approach).
Sometimes (at the least) I would argue that being persistent and diligent and levelheaded will get you further than (in the long run) taking the easy route (like 'abusing' your authority, as you've apparently done, although with the best intentions).
For an extreme example of 'abuse', one could argue that torturing known (or highly suspected) terrorists is in the best interest of the US (or whatever government wants to garner information), but in the end it only shows that the good guys do bad practices and can't be trusted. It's not a perfect analogy for sure, but playing within the rules (however unfair or unreasonable they may be) is often better in the long run than ruining your reputation.
Wikipedia is an eternal work in progress. Your complaint is like complaining that you're running software straight from CVS HEAD and there are bugs. Yes Wikipdia is a work in progress, as are all encyclopedias.
The complaint however is not like running software straight from "CVS HEAD". Wikipedia is published as an end product, and there is no disclaimer or indication otherwise to indicate this. On Sourceforge for example, they will tell you outright that this is an alpha or a beta, but on Wikipedia there is no 'alpha' listing for articles. One could argue that an end user should read (and follow) the discussion areas, but this is like asking a software end-user to follow the diffs in a CVS.
Thanks for your reply. FYI, I have never edited a Wikipedia article (although, on occasion I felt like it; but the time involved [of due diligence] has prevented me). I was often thinking of creating a 'profile' on Wikipedia (a user name associated with an edit history), but my ideals have prevented me. By that I mean, as a university and college trained non-expert as I am, I have always felt the need to deeply research anything I 'publish', and for that reason I have not found it practical (time-wise). The seemingly Laissez-faire attitude and oligarchical structure of the Wikipedia community has also inhibited me from getting involved. I sincerely hope things change, but it would need to be a top-down approach to change, which seems unlikely.
In many ways I am a 'fan' of Wikipedia, and so my comments should be taken with appropriate context. From an end-user perspective I think that the people who are actually involved in the politics are perhaps too cynical (through their experiences). I personally find Wikipedia valuable, but I am also educated enough not to believe everything I read. Let's hope things work themselves out.
And as an example:
The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. - "context" needs to be defined, and more importantly: - "common sense" needs to be defined or eliminated altogether (the vast majority of people do not have 'common sense' IMHO, or do they mean 'common consensus'?) - "editorial judgment" is just judgment. Without accountability such judgment is meaningless (I'm not just speaking of pseudo-anonymous administrators, but of the Big Guy [Jimbo] himself). Of course we need to define 'accountability' as well. With anonymous and pseudo-anonymous postings allowed this can be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible. I think if I racked my creative side I could come up with some rules, like for example those people who are administrators should supply credentials (to the executives at least; of who they are and what their credentials actually are [especially if they are making false claims in the discussion area]).
I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community. Therein lies the solution, and the problem; there does need to be consistent and enforcible rules that are devoid of ambiguity and self-interest, with a measured degree of accountability.
The Chinese government doesn't have to physically attack Western news agencies that do business in China because: 1) They merely have to threaten to remove these businesses from China. 2) They already have the resources to block Web sites without 'hacking' them 3) There are plenty of anti-Western geeks in China who are more than willing to 'make a point'
As the world turns against them, and their looming food and environmental disaster grows larger, time is running out for China. It's only a matter of time before they implode. I think they'd rather expand than implode if things got too dire for China. There are many other small (and not so small) countries in Asia besides Tibet that they can use, and there is a fair amount of appeasement that happens when super powers misbehave.
I think everyone needs to (re)read 1984. The problem is that all the wrong people seem to be interested in science fiction. It seems like the Government looks to science fiction for inspiration.
Star Wars at one time was just a movie, then Ronald Reagan watched the movie...
How bad would a DNA database security breach be? That all depends on how the attacker chose to interpret the data-- or, more importantly, the attacker's highest bidder. I'm sure insurance companies and at least some employers would be interested in this information. If not very useful now, then DNA will certainly be a wealth of information for the future (when new discoveries are made relating to behavioral traits, ethnic background, physical "diseases", etc).
Are you proposing anarchy over education? No. Anarchy itself is impossible. Even when there are no formal laws people will naturally tend towards rules. There are "laws" in "primitive" hunter/gather societies for example, and there are impromptu "laws" when there is an absence or removal of normal policing. And so too, even young children create their own "laws" of the playground, so to speak. The concept of anarchy can only conceptually be realized if there are no formal laws (or rules) of behavior. The human species seems naturally disinclined towards anarchy.
You originally said: "It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime." Yes this is true, because "crime" is something that is created (through laws), and more generally it is a concept. We can act upon our conceptions, but there is no physical genetic place in our brains where a general conception such as "crime" occurs.
Yes poor people will always be inclined to certain crimes; like theft or drug dealing (those crimes that are inclined to make them money), and violence (there is stress inherent in being impoverished).
Education alone is great, but it can only help if it will dis-impoverish people. If one gives everybody the same education, for example, then this will not get rid of an underclass. The best solution for dealing with "crime" will be by making the discrepancies between the rich and poor more trivial. Since those in power generally want to keep their advantage, this would seem a dubious undertaking.
...but to discount genetics as a factor of intelligence and thus also societal success just because it seems racist is to be putting illogic and superstition above science. Nope. I would say the opposite (when it comes to studying "races" that is). If we could easily define a "race" (an isolated group that can only breed with itself) and "intelligence", then we may have something to study.
White skin, curly hair, bone density, height, nose shape, and yes, intelligence. I will just make a few points here (since this topic is more complex than is apparent).
1. Curly hair (for example): - is a phenotype which is easily definable. - intelligence is not a phenotype (comparing apples to oranges) - intelligence can't even be described as a genotype since there is no intelligence gene. Intelligence can hardly even be described by professionals since their is much debate about what intelligence actually is. Intelligence can best be described as a theory (of the mind)
2. White skin - Defining a person's skin colour is itself presumptuous. Skin colour, like many phenotypes is a highly continuous trait both within closed populations (I won't call them races, because from a biological perspective there are no "races" within the human population), and throughout all populations.
3. When Philippe Rushton did his studies on race and intelligence in the early 1990s, his findings were summarily disproven by biologists, etc.
4. One fact I learned in school (ref: my class notes; you will have to take my word for this), is that between a parent and child, their political views will be more statistically similar than their genetic traits. Expanding this comparison to larger populations (like the "black" population, let's say the Somali's), would be highly dubious.
... we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education. Laws cause crime. Without laws there would be no crime.
From Wikipedia: "Crime is the breach of a rule or law for which a punishment may ultimately be prescribed by some governing authority or force."
Or from a more formal source: "An act in violation of the penal laws of a state or the United States. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law." Ref: http://www.id.uscourts.gov/terms-cd.htm
So the more laws there are, the more criminals there are; and the harsher the laws are, then the harsher the crimes are.
"Crime" is an arbitrary, social and legal construct. That being said, it makes no sense to be able to find a "crime" gene anymore than it makes sense to find a warez gene or a P2P gene.
When one starts work in the financial services industry as a "registered person" (e.g., a trader, broker, etc.) one is fingerprinted. Every time I've moved from one firm to another, I've been fingerprinted again. I'm pretty sure these are checked against criminal databases each time. And yet stock fraud / securities fraud, insider trading, etc. is still going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but one has to know one's limits as well, hence the "reality". To put it another way; "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".
I would presume any such Prime Directive would ultimately be abused/ignored like it has been on Star Trek. International Law is only arbitrarily enforced. Let's first get a grip on how we treat our own people and the other species which inhabit our planet, then maybe we could think about how we would treat extra-terrestrial life forms (if in fact there are any). The only downside to idealism is reality.
Security exploits (and exploiters) will always tend towards the path of least resistance, and that is the end user. It will always be easier to exploit human weaknesses than computer system weaknesses. One can 'educate' a firewall for example through patches or rules and this will often be 'good enough'. On the other hand, one can educate a human, and they will be highly inconsistent (and often times down right stupid) in adapting what they learn into practice.
Security systems need to be equally hardware and software based as much as they are based on human accountability, ineptitude, arrogance, ignorance and all the other human traits that will inevitably be the failure of any highly complex security system. Any security model that gives more emphasis to technology than to human vulnerabilities will ultimately fail.
I do sympathize with your arguments.
Best regards,
UTW
There is no actual loss, but at the most a theoretical loss. One cannot lose something that one does not have. So yes one could say such losses are fictional because they never really occurred. One could say I lost money during the tech bubble because I never invested in Amazon.com etc when these stocks were rising quite quickly, but in reality I still have what I had before; which is basically no money.
The Broken Window fallacy is not directly comparable because it assumes "open source" is a negative. Open source software does not directly damage anything; it is however a competitor to other software, and more directly to closed source software. There is however no economic loss occuring (there is no broken window per se). The Broken Window Fallacy states that their are positive unintended outcomes (like the redistribution of wealth from repairing the window, etc) but in this case their is an overall economic loss (the loss of a window that is).
With open source software there is no overall economic loss, but instead there are economic gains (assuming this open source software is in fact free of financial restrictions). The economic gains are seen (at the least) from the adoption and use of this software from people that could not or would not otherwise use such software; and so the standard of living (and quality of living) goes up overall throughout the population. The only downsides are that closed source software has competition (and competition is never a bad thing).
Open source software (as with all things that are added to the 'market') creates wealth; the difference being that with closed source proprietary software this wealth is more concentrated (within the company that creates the software and the customers who successfully exploit this software for their own ends), whereas with FLOSS this wealth is (or at least has the capability of being) distributed more broadly throughout the population. Of course I'm not talking about 'wealth' from a purely monetary perspective, but from the economic perspective as wealth being a 'good' or a 'service'.
OK, I'm definitely not a networking guru (to put it euphemistically) but I'm wondering what the down sides are to only having 50 gateways.
I'm thinking two things:
1) You are concentrating access points (and thus increasing the likelihood of failure given concerted attacks [like DDoS for example])
2) With a small definable limit of access points you are decreasing (or eliminating) the possibility of honeypots (and counter-surveillance)
Hi David, based on the overall discussion I think GalacticLordXenu's arguments are more concerned about the politics involved with being a Wikipedia editor rather than the actual content of Wikipedia. Of course the content is the end product, and the ultimate goal behind the politics of getting accurate content published, I think this is a point to be emphasized; the end product is often (or from my perspective seems to be) based a lot on politics. The political issues certainly need to be addressed. As I've stated in my original post things like "common sense" and "editorial judgement" need to be defined and elaborated upon within the rules. Vague policy statements and apparent arbitrary enforcement of these rules need to be improved. I would argue that if there were more transparency in the actual rules and enforcement of these rules then there would (probably) be less disgruntled editors. Everybody wants to be treated fairly, and it seems like this is the crux of the complaints.
You already did address the quality issues in your previous post which was very informative and much appreciated.
FYI, I finally created a Wikipedia account (within the last hour), not to 'stir shit' or argue about politics but to actually try and improve Wikipedia articles (or perhaps create new ones). I enter this world of Wikipedia with some trepidation but with cautious optimism. I would prefer if I could offer feedback (that will be acted upon) to improve the rules and make the Wikipedia editorial environment more congenial to scholarship and less congenial to political infighting, but that is something I will think about for a later date.
Best regards,
UTW
Point taken, and I do sincerely appreciate the link. I have never noticed this link before, as I'm sure most casual users haven't either. The link is at the bottom of the page with all the other usual meta-data about privacy statements and copyrights that most people just take for granted. There is still no obvious statement (on the general WikiPedia pages, or in the disclaimer) that Wikipedia is in 'beta' or is in a "work in progress" state (as you claim). It's a point of contention that we may never agree on.
I do suggest that people do go to Wikipedia for end results, and in this regard it can be surmised that people think of Wikipedia is an end product. It is a question for pollsters to answer rather than a more informed end user as myself or a WikiPedia editor as yourself. Intentions are fine and good, but in the end it is what the general public gets out of it.
Best regards,
UTW
I hope I won't find it hard to find an "edit war"; it sounds challenging and engaging. If one seeks Truth and Logic in the spirit of Fun then it is just a game, but a game where everybody wins and the struggle is not so tedious.
Best regards,
UTW
It certainly is presented as an end-product (IMHO), and there is no (or little information) to state otherwise. "citations needed" references etc are fine, but I would argue that these things have more value to Wikipedians than they do to the casual Web surfer.
If the front page and search listings of Wikipedia are not 'end products' then I would argue that Wikipedia should state this very obviously and have a disclaimer on each and every page stating thus. Unfortunately, we have yet to perfect the wiki-based encyclopedia that the reader can use while not bringing their brain to the party. A condescending statement for sure (or so it seems), but it is a concept that needs to be addressed and not merely dismissed. I for one am not part of the "party" in the sense that I am primarily an end user (and definitely not an editor, though I am tempted).
Best regards,
UTW
...and yes, I did break the rules doing so because the rules were allowing nutcases to post false information to the public and get away with it. Sounds like me; more so when I was much younger (and too naive and idealistic to realize that this is often a wrong approach).Sometimes (at the least) I would argue that being persistent and diligent and levelheaded will get you further than (in the long run) taking the easy route (like 'abusing' your authority, as you've apparently done, although with the best intentions).
For an extreme example of 'abuse', one could argue that torturing known (or highly suspected) terrorists is in the best interest of the US (or whatever government wants to garner information), but in the end it only shows that the good guys do bad practices and can't be trusted. It's not a perfect analogy for sure, but playing within the rules (however unfair or unreasonable they may be) is often better in the long run than ruining your reputation.
Best regards,
UTW
The complaint however is not like running software straight from "CVS HEAD". Wikipedia is published as an end product, and there is no disclaimer or indication otherwise to indicate this. On Sourceforge for example, they will tell you outright that this is an alpha or a beta, but on Wikipedia there is no 'alpha' listing for articles. One could argue that an end user should read (and follow) the discussion areas, but this is like asking a software end-user to follow the diffs in a CVS.
Thanks for your reply. FYI, I have never edited a Wikipedia article (although, on occasion I felt like it; but the time involved [of due diligence] has prevented me). I was often thinking of creating a 'profile' on Wikipedia (a user name associated with an edit history), but my ideals have prevented me. By that I mean, as a university and college trained non-expert as I am, I have always felt the need to deeply research anything I 'publish', and for that reason I have not found it practical (time-wise). The seemingly Laissez-faire attitude and oligarchical structure of the Wikipedia community has also inhibited me from getting involved. I sincerely hope things change, but it would need to be a top-down approach to change, which seems unlikely.
In many ways I am a 'fan' of Wikipedia, and so my comments should be taken with appropriate context. From an end-user perspective I think that the people who are actually involved in the politics are perhaps too cynical (through their experiences). I personally find Wikipedia valuable, but I am also educated enough not to believe everything I read. Let's hope things work themselves out.
Best regards,
UTW
And as an example: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. - "context" needs to be defined, and more importantly:
- "common sense" needs to be defined or eliminated altogether (the vast majority of people do not have 'common sense' IMHO, or do they mean 'common consensus'?)
- "editorial judgment" is just judgment. Without accountability such judgment is meaningless (I'm not just speaking of pseudo-anonymous administrators, but of the Big Guy [Jimbo] himself). Of course we need to define 'accountability' as well. With anonymous and pseudo-anonymous postings allowed this can be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible. I think if I racked my creative side I could come up with some rules, like for example those people who are administrators should supply credentials (to the executives at least; of who they are and what their credentials actually are [especially if they are making false claims in the discussion area]).
I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community. Therein lies the solution, and the problem; there does need to be consistent and enforcible rules that are devoid of ambiguity and self-interest, with a measured degree of accountability.
The Chinese government doesn't have to physically attack Western news agencies that do business in China because:
1) They merely have to threaten to remove these businesses from China.
2) They already have the resources to block Web sites without 'hacking' them
3) There are plenty of anti-Western geeks in China who are more than willing to 'make a point'
Star Wars at one time was just a movie, then Ronald Reagan watched the movie...
You originally said: "It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime."
Yes this is true, because "crime" is something that is created (through laws), and more generally it is a concept. We can act upon our conceptions, but there is no physical genetic place in our brains where a general conception such as "crime" occurs.
Yes poor people will always be inclined to certain crimes; like theft or drug dealing (those crimes that are inclined to make them money), and violence (there is stress inherent in being impoverished).
Education alone is great, but it can only help if it will dis-impoverish people. If one gives everybody the same education, for example, then this will not get rid of an underclass. The best solution for dealing with "crime" will be by making the discrepancies between the rich and poor more trivial. Since those in power generally want to keep their advantage, this would seem a dubious undertaking.
Best regards,
UTW
...but to discount genetics as a factor of intelligence and thus also societal success just because it seems racist is to be putting illogic and superstition above science. Nope. I would say the opposite (when it comes to studying "races" that is). If we could easily define a "race" (an isolated group that can only breed with itself) and "intelligence", then we may have something to study. White skin, curly hair, bone density, height, nose shape, and yes, intelligence. I will just make a few points here (since this topic is more complex than is apparent).1. Curly hair (for example):
- is a phenotype which is easily definable.
- intelligence is not a phenotype (comparing apples to oranges)
- intelligence can't even be described as a genotype since there is no intelligence gene. Intelligence can hardly even be described by professionals since their is much debate about what intelligence actually is. Intelligence can best be described as a theory (of the mind)
2. White skin
- Defining a person's skin colour is itself presumptuous. Skin colour, like many phenotypes is a highly continuous trait both within closed populations (I won't call them races, because from a biological perspective there are no "races" within the human population), and throughout all populations.
3. When Philippe Rushton did his studies on race and intelligence in the early 1990s, his findings were summarily disproven by biologists, etc.
4. One fact I learned in school (ref: my class notes; you will have to take my word for this), is that between a parent and child, their political views will be more statistically similar than their genetic traits. Expanding this comparison to larger populations (like the "black" population, let's say the Somali's), would be highly dubious.
... we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education. Laws cause crime. Without laws there would be no crime.From Wikipedia:
"Crime is the breach of a rule or law for which a punishment may ultimately be prescribed by some governing authority or force."
Or from a more formal source:
"An act in violation of the penal laws of a state or the United States. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law."
Ref: http://www.id.uscourts.gov/terms-cd.htm
So the more laws there are, the more criminals there are; and the harsher the laws are, then the harsher the crimes are.
"Crime" is an arbitrary, social and legal construct. That being said, it makes no sense to be able to find a "crime" gene anymore than it makes sense to find a warez gene or a P2P gene.