The media? Bullshit. If anything the media goes out of their way to bury the rate of gun accidents. Most of the gun accidents involving death or grave injury of young children barely make it past the local media, if they even make it to the local media. By digging you can uncover around 1 death or grave injury per day of this sort, but the fact that they almost never make national news suggests they are strongly underreported.
There is an appalling rate of gun accidents in this country. Many of these involve the death of serious injury of children (with children themselves often pulling the trigger). Yet the irresponsible gun owners who left their loaded and unlocked firearms sitting around almost never face any punishment.
If you really think you need a weapon on you at all times for defense, you can keep that opinion. But if you are lazy and you leave that weapon around and someone is hurt, you should be prosecuted the same as if your finger was on the trigger and you did it on purpose. This would not harm responsible owners in any way, shape or form. This would not prevent responsible people from purchasing weapons if they want them. It would however send a strong message to buyers that they need to be responsible for their purchases.
In the US we average one accidental gun death of a child every day. These are not gang members missing their target, these are kids getting their hands on some stupid fuck's gun and pulling the trigger.
no. i asked for better-than-anecdotal. so far all you have offered is anecdotal. i already stated why your example of municipal broadband does not in any way support your earlier argument of people being unfairly prevented from starting their own isps.
if you want terms, let's just start with the major news networks. no editorials from them, just news. i'll even let you call fox news a news network if it helps you out. no chat sites though, this has to be something that was actually reported as news. can you do it? hell i would have even been happy with the ars technica article if it had actually supported your argument; unfortunately for you it instead refuted it.
if you run cable for a municipal broadband, you are not running the operation once the cable is in. otherwise it would not be a municipal operation. you can make money from the install, and maybe even contract money on the support, but it is not your resource and you don't have control over it. a municipality blocking the installation of a municipal broadband install is not in any reasonable way similar to a municipality blocking a company from running their own cable.
so keep trying. maybe you can provide better-than-anecdotal evidence for your claim that municipalities are intentionally preventing companies from installing broadband, but you haven't done it yet. hell i've seen municipalities in very blue states that have allowed 3, 4, or even 5 companies to all run their broadband installations through some or all of the community, and that's obviously not including various option some have with satellite internet.
The problem you still have with that though is you are assuming she knows the status of everything sent to her, and more importantly knows that there is something of classified status being sent to her there. At that point you are entering a meta zone where you are making assumptions about what a person knows, when you cannot prove it one way or the other.
I'm honestly not a big fan of hers. I'm just saying that she is being exposed to far more scrutiny than previous secretaries of state, even though we've seen that at least one previous secretary of state did the exact same thing with email while he was there and received no such retaliation for it. To really convince me that something terrible happened here, I need to see that she actually set out to do something nefarious or at the very least was aware that what she was doing was illegal. I have not seen anyone meet that yet.
And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later
At that point you would be disseminating information, not just receiving it. Do you have any proof that she was sending out classified information through her private email server? It was less-than-brilliant of her to set up an email server where she could receive work email that could potentially be classified, but if she actually sent out classified material through it that is another problem.
As the saying goes, don't assume malice when stupidity can explain it.
If the GOP were to manage to somehow knock Hillary out of the race for president, things actually get much worse - not better - for their cause. As much as they hate Hillary, they are overlooking the fact that Sanders beats every GOP candidate in national polling by even larger margins than does Hillary. Knocking her out would only guarantee their defeat.
The Bern is just another delusional socialist, there is no money to do what he is promising.
Neither of those statements are true. First, there is nothing "delusional" about his goals.
Second, the money is there it just is not allocated for it currently. In the case of health care, the overwhelming majority of Americans could get better care for less money if they were able to opt to pay - via their taxes - to be in Medicaid instead of having to purchase on the free market.
In the case of higher education, there is no investment ever made by any government anywhere that had a better rate of return than higher education. Government spending on higher education pays back at 6:1 or better, and that is a low estimate. A better trained and educated populace also has massive payouts down the road in lower crime and poverty levels. Furthermore this doesn't mean everyone goes to Harvard to study whatever they feel like; a lot of people will be going to community or Vo-Tech schools, in accordance with their abilities and interests. This has just as much of an impact on the well-being of our nation as anything else that any level of government or non-profit organization could ever do.
The top 20%tile are paying 90% of the taxes,
That is not even remotely close to true. In fact it is closer to the other way around, the bottom 50% of tax payers collectively contribute more than 80% of the federal take-in in income tax The people at the top take in the most money but pay back very little of it.
Here we thought unicode support was just broken in comments and discussion, apparently it doesn't work anywhere here...
I know this came up in the discussion back on February 2 after someone accidentally bought slashdot, but apparently it still isn't that important a month later...
With all the fun description in the article I did not see any mention of how many people can fly on this. I was never able to fly on the Concorde, though I have walked through the one on display at the USS Intrepid. Walking through it one thing that I noticed immediately was how small it actually was; it took about as many passengers as a large EmbraerJet - and far fewer than a 747 or even 737.
I don't want to try to oversimplify aeronautical engineering - and I am certainly not an aeronautical engineer myself - but in the current economy it certainly seems that something this expensive will only be viable if it can take a larger number of passengers than the Concorde could.
There is no better investment a government can make than in education; the ROI is usually around 6:1 or better.
There is actual data on this, and the ROI on education spending in the US is nil. That is, increased educational spending does not lead to better educational outcomes in the US.
You might be thinking of K-12 spending, which is a very different matter than higher education spending. There have been difficulties correlating increased spending on K-12 public education with better outcomes, though that is largely due to the fact that people want a yes/no answer to a vastly multifactorial problem.
However when it comes to higher education, there is no disputing the fact that making it more accessible to people across the board (which requires investment) reaps dramatic rewards. People make more money, they are less likely to be involved in crime, they help their communities, the list goes on and on. A lot of people also errantly assume that this means everyone goes to the local state university and gets a 4 year degree in any topic of their choosing, this is not the case nor has Sanders ever called for it. Many people will go to community colleges, many will go to vocational / technical colleges. Yet others might go to truck driving schools or police academies. These are all avenues that would not have been open to these people with only a high school degree. These are all ways to improve peoples' quality of life without giving them money directly, and to see those rewards truly propagate through the community as well.
Single payer healthcare is also a proven economic winner as the increased efficiencies, reduction in disgusting payouts to CEOs, and uniform accessibility improve things across the board.
Half the US health care system is already public,
Not by dollar spent, it isn't. Most of the money is on the private side. Similarly not by subscribers who use their health care, either; there are more subscribers in private plans than in public plans. You need to check your numbers.
it spends more per capita than many European health care systems spend for public and private health care combined.
The private side of the US health care system spends vastly more than any European or Asian country, that is beyond dispute.
So, if Sanders wanted to bring European style health care to the US, he could already do that without any new taxes or expenses, simply by covering everybody under the existing public health care system and making it work efficiently.
Have you actually listened to anything Sanders has said? He has been calling for expansion of medicaid, which would be exactly that. Initially it would require more taxes - though the individuals would quickly find they would be getting the same care for less this way by paying medicaid instead of paying to their for-profit health care plan.
That myth comes almost exclusively from the right. Sanders never claims that this stuff will be outright free. He very plainly explains how single payer health care will be paid for with taxes. He very plainly explains how college tuition will be paid for with taxes. Nobody who has paid any attention to Sanders subscribes to this absurd mythology that these things are just magically free.
More importantly, the people who actually pay attention do realize that those two items in particular though will in the long run pay huge dividends. There is no better investment a government can make than in education; the ROI is usually around 6:1 or better. Single payer healthcare is also a proven economic winner as the increased efficiencies, reduction in disgusting payouts to CEOs, and uniform accessibility improve things across the board.
Kasich is smart enough to realize that he isn't going to win the general election in 2016. He also may be the only person on stage smart enough to realize that none of the GOP hopefuls will, either - hence there is no reason for him to negotiate with Rubio for a cabinet position that will never materialize. There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary, but it was within the margin of error. If the democrats nominate Sanders, however, it will be a GOP bloodbath as he beats the GOP candidates by much more than the margin of error.
Kasich is more likely staying in the game for the same reason that Trump entered it - fame and recognition. Obviously Trump was already famous before announcing but now he is even more so; though very few people outside of Ohio knew of Kasich before he got in the ring. Much like several other past GOP hopefuls, Kasich has opened up great new opportunities for himself as a Fox News commentator, a Washington lobbyist, a think tank leader, or various other jobs of that sort which were previously beyond his grasp. The longer he stays in, the more his brand grows.
The summary here cites someone named "Sanders" but there is no sanders in the WashPo article. There is someone in there named Sands (note no "er" in the name) but nobody named Sanders.
IANAL, but my understanding of criminal trials is that the accused - not the law - is on trial. My understanding is that the jury needs to decide whether or not the state presented a solid argument for the accused having committed the offense(s) they are accused of. I am not aware of a situation where the jury is tasked with evaluating the validity of the law under which the accused is charged.
I'm not saying that the acts of the NSA were justified or constitutional, I'm just saying that the criminal case against Snowden is not the place where that is to be evaluated.
What a surprise that slashdot made no mention of the fact that Richard Burr is a Republican. Leaving it out allows the slashdot conservative base to more easily pretend that this bill isn't coming from one of their own.
I'll play devil's advocate here and ask what harm was done to the professor or anyone else who was affiliated with the video? He did not stand to make any money from it, as it was publicly viewable on youtube. I don't like the fact that the video was taken down so quickly but I don't really see how its temporary removal did any meaningful harm, either. I even agree with the label of innocent being applied to the professor as it certainly seems he did not aspire to do any harm to Sony or anyone else who had copyright ownership of the music; I just don't see how it harmed him to have the video temporarily taken down.
Considering how awful their failure rates are in general, they need to get good at reporting them before hand or they (as a company) won't exist much longer. After all, investing in quality is clearly too expensive...
For my work, failure is not an option, it comes standard! I wish I was compensated for all the failure and destruction I have left in my wake. That said, the most dramatic failure that followed me I cannot take credit for (I worked for CompUSA a few years before they went belly-up) but plenty of less spectacular failures can be tied to me and I never got bonuses for them.
The GOP has control of the house and senate currently. Now they have yet another matter to be non-productive on as they hope (beyond reason) to be able to win the 2016 presidential election so they can keep Scalia's seat occupied by a conservative. When they overplay this hand they can expect the public to react negatively.
Swartz was facing prosecution for his methods, not for his aims. He entered a wiring closet and impeded the ability of others in the library to do their work (while simultaneously creating a safety hazard in the hallway). Had he been intelligent about it and just used the connection in his office instead it would have taken marginally longer time but he wouldn't have been in anywhere near as much - if any - trouble.
He was either a fool, looking to bring attention to himself, or both.
For the rest of us, there is interlibrary loan - or going to the nearest public university library and using their resources responsibly.
Slashdot Mirror
The media? Bullshit. If anything the media goes out of their way to bury the rate of gun accidents. Most of the gun accidents involving death or grave injury of young children barely make it past the local media, if they even make it to the local media. By digging you can uncover around 1 death or grave injury per day of this sort, but the fact that they almost never make national news suggests they are strongly underreported.
There is an appalling rate of gun accidents in this country. Many of these involve the death of serious injury of children (with children themselves often pulling the trigger). Yet the irresponsible gun owners who left their loaded and unlocked firearms sitting around almost never face any punishment.
If you really think you need a weapon on you at all times for defense, you can keep that opinion. But if you are lazy and you leave that weapon around and someone is hurt, you should be prosecuted the same as if your finger was on the trigger and you did it on purpose. This would not harm responsible owners in any way, shape or form. This would not prevent responsible people from purchasing weapons if they want them. It would however send a strong message to buyers that they need to be responsible for their purchases.
In the US we average one accidental gun death of a child every day. These are not gang members missing their target, these are kids getting their hands on some stupid fuck's gun and pulling the trigger.
Anecdotal evidence is acceptable? Really?
no. i asked for better-than-anecdotal. so far all you have offered is anecdotal. i already stated why your example of municipal broadband does not in any way support your earlier argument of people being unfairly prevented from starting their own isps.
if you want terms, let's just start with the major news networks. no editorials from them, just news. i'll even let you call fox news a news network if it helps you out. no chat sites though, this has to be something that was actually reported as news. can you do it? hell i would have even been happy with the ars technica article if it had actually supported your argument; unfortunately for you it instead refuted it.
if you run cable for a municipal broadband, you are not running the operation once the cable is in. otherwise it would not be a municipal operation. you can make money from the install, and maybe even contract money on the support, but it is not your resource and you don't have control over it. a municipality blocking the installation of a municipal broadband install is not in any reasonable way similar to a municipality blocking a company from running their own cable.
so keep trying. maybe you can provide better-than-anecdotal evidence for your claim that municipalities are intentionally preventing companies from installing broadband, but you haven't done it yet. hell i've seen municipalities in very blue states that have allowed 3, 4, or even 5 companies to all run their broadband installations through some or all of the community, and that's obviously not including various option some have with satellite internet.
The problem you still have with that though is you are assuming she knows the status of everything sent to her, and more importantly knows that there is something of classified status being sent to her there. At that point you are entering a meta zone where you are making assumptions about what a person knows, when you cannot prove it one way or the other.
I'm honestly not a big fan of hers. I'm just saying that she is being exposed to far more scrutiny than previous secretaries of state, even though we've seen that at least one previous secretary of state did the exact same thing with email while he was there and received no such retaliation for it. To really convince me that something terrible happened here, I need to see that she actually set out to do something nefarious or at the very least was aware that what she was doing was illegal. I have not seen anyone meet that yet.
In other words, this still ain't Watergate.
And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later
At that point you would be disseminating information, not just receiving it. Do you have any proof that she was sending out classified information through her private email server? It was less-than-brilliant of her to set up an email server where she could receive work email that could potentially be classified, but if she actually sent out classified material through it that is another problem.
As the saying goes, don't assume malice when stupidity can explain it.
That is exactly the kind of conspiracy that tends to get moderated up here on slashdot, as someone has kindly demonstrated for us...
(in the foot, of course)
If the GOP were to manage to somehow knock Hillary out of the race for president, things actually get much worse - not better - for their cause. As much as they hate Hillary, they are overlooking the fact that Sanders beats every GOP candidate in national polling by even larger margins than does Hillary. Knocking her out would only guarantee their defeat.
The Bern is just another delusional socialist, there is no money to do what he is promising.
Neither of those statements are true. First, there is nothing "delusional" about his goals.
Second, the money is there it just is not allocated for it currently. In the case of health care, the overwhelming majority of Americans could get better care for less money if they were able to opt to pay - via their taxes - to be in Medicaid instead of having to purchase on the free market.
In the case of higher education, there is no investment ever made by any government anywhere that had a better rate of return than higher education. Government spending on higher education pays back at 6:1 or better, and that is a low estimate. A better trained and educated populace also has massive payouts down the road in lower crime and poverty levels. Furthermore this doesn't mean everyone goes to Harvard to study whatever they feel like; a lot of people will be going to community or Vo-Tech schools, in accordance with their abilities and interests. This has just as much of an impact on the well-being of our nation as anything else that any level of government or non-profit organization could ever do.
The top 20%tile are paying 90% of the taxes,
That is not even remotely close to true. In fact it is closer to the other way around, the bottom 50% of tax payers collectively contribute more than 80% of the federal take-in in income tax The people at the top take in the most money but pay back very little of it.
Here we thought unicode support was just broken in comments and discussion, apparently it doesn't work anywhere here...
I know this came up in the discussion back on February 2 after someone accidentally bought slashdot, but apparently it still isn't that important a month later...
With all the fun description in the article I did not see any mention of how many people can fly on this. I was never able to fly on the Concorde, though I have walked through the one on display at the USS Intrepid. Walking through it one thing that I noticed immediately was how small it actually was; it took about as many passengers as a large EmbraerJet - and far fewer than a 747 or even 737.
I don't want to try to oversimplify aeronautical engineering - and I am certainly not an aeronautical engineer myself - but in the current economy it certainly seems that something this expensive will only be viable if it can take a larger number of passengers than the Concorde could.
There is no better investment a government can make than in education; the ROI is usually around 6:1 or better.
There is actual data on this, and the ROI on education spending in the US is nil. That is, increased educational spending does not lead to better educational outcomes in the US.
You might be thinking of K-12 spending, which is a very different matter than higher education spending. There have been difficulties correlating increased spending on K-12 public education with better outcomes, though that is largely due to the fact that people want a yes/no answer to a vastly multifactorial problem.
However when it comes to higher education, there is no disputing the fact that making it more accessible to people across the board (which requires investment) reaps dramatic rewards. People make more money, they are less likely to be involved in crime, they help their communities, the list goes on and on. A lot of people also errantly assume that this means everyone goes to the local state university and gets a 4 year degree in any topic of their choosing, this is not the case nor has Sanders ever called for it. Many people will go to community colleges, many will go to vocational / technical colleges. Yet others might go to truck driving schools or police academies. These are all avenues that would not have been open to these people with only a high school degree. These are all ways to improve peoples' quality of life without giving them money directly, and to see those rewards truly propagate through the community as well.
Single payer healthcare is also a proven economic winner as the increased efficiencies, reduction in disgusting payouts to CEOs, and uniform accessibility improve things across the board.
Half the US health care system is already public,
Not by dollar spent, it isn't. Most of the money is on the private side. Similarly not by subscribers who use their health care, either; there are more subscribers in private plans than in public plans. You need to check your numbers.
it spends more per capita than many European health care systems spend for public and private health care combined.
The private side of the US health care system spends vastly more than any European or Asian country, that is beyond dispute.
So, if Sanders wanted to bring European style health care to the US, he could already do that without any new taxes or expenses, simply by covering everybody under the existing public health care system and making it work efficiently.
Have you actually listened to anything Sanders has said? He has been calling for expansion of medicaid, which would be exactly that. Initially it would require more taxes - though the individuals would quickly find they would be getting the same care for less this way by paying medicaid instead of paying to their for-profit health care plan.
getting free stuff under Sanders
That myth comes almost exclusively from the right. Sanders never claims that this stuff will be outright free. He very plainly explains how single payer health care will be paid for with taxes. He very plainly explains how college tuition will be paid for with taxes. Nobody who has paid any attention to Sanders subscribes to this absurd mythology that these things are just magically free.
More importantly, the people who actually pay attention do realize that those two items in particular though will in the long run pay huge dividends. There is no better investment a government can make than in education; the ROI is usually around 6:1 or better. Single payer healthcare is also a proven economic winner as the increased efficiencies, reduction in disgusting payouts to CEOs, and uniform accessibility improve things across the board.
Kasich is smart enough to realize that he isn't going to win the general election in 2016. He also may be the only person on stage smart enough to realize that none of the GOP hopefuls will, either - hence there is no reason for him to negotiate with Rubio for a cabinet position that will never materialize. There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary, but it was within the margin of error. If the democrats nominate Sanders, however, it will be a GOP bloodbath as he beats the GOP candidates by much more than the margin of error.
Kasich is more likely staying in the game for the same reason that Trump entered it - fame and recognition. Obviously Trump was already famous before announcing but now he is even more so; though very few people outside of Ohio knew of Kasich before he got in the ring. Much like several other past GOP hopefuls, Kasich has opened up great new opportunities for himself as a Fox News commentator, a Washington lobbyist, a think tank leader, or various other jobs of that sort which were previously beyond his grasp. The longer he stays in, the more his brand grows.
The summary here cites someone named "Sanders" but there is no sanders in the WashPo article. There is someone in there named Sands (note no "er" in the name) but nobody named Sanders.
IANAL, but my understanding of criminal trials is that the accused - not the law - is on trial. My understanding is that the jury needs to decide whether or not the state presented a solid argument for the accused having committed the offense(s) they are accused of. I am not aware of a situation where the jury is tasked with evaluating the validity of the law under which the accused is charged.
I'm not saying that the acts of the NSA were justified or constitutional, I'm just saying that the criminal case against Snowden is not the place where that is to be evaluated.
I doubt that many parking tickets are contested with lawyers either way. The robot is taking jobs that the lawyers weren't getting.
What a surprise that slashdot made no mention of the fact that Richard Burr is a Republican. Leaving it out allows the slashdot conservative base to more easily pretend that this bill isn't coming from one of their own.
harming an innocent party.
I'll play devil's advocate here and ask what harm was done to the professor or anyone else who was affiliated with the video? He did not stand to make any money from it, as it was publicly viewable on youtube. I don't like the fact that the video was taken down so quickly but I don't really see how its temporary removal did any meaningful harm, either. I even agree with the label of innocent being applied to the professor as it certainly seems he did not aspire to do any harm to Sony or anyone else who had copyright ownership of the music; I just don't see how it harmed him to have the video temporarily taken down.
That is more the result of how few manufacturers remain than anything.
Considering how awful their failure rates are in general, they need to get good at reporting them before hand or they (as a company) won't exist much longer. After all, investing in quality is clearly too expensive...
For my work, failure is not an option, it comes standard! I wish I was compensated for all the failure and destruction I have left in my wake. That said, the most dramatic failure that followed me I cannot take credit for (I worked for CompUSA a few years before they went belly-up) but plenty of less spectacular failures can be tied to me and I never got bonuses for them.
against the Antique based software company SlySoft
How on earth did Antigua become Antique? Just bad use of spell check?
The GOP has control of the house and senate currently. Now they have yet another matter to be non-productive on as they hope (beyond reason) to be able to win the 2016 presidential election so they can keep Scalia's seat occupied by a conservative. When they overplay this hand they can expect the public to react negatively.
Swartz was facing prosecution for his methods, not for his aims. He entered a wiring closet and impeded the ability of others in the library to do their work (while simultaneously creating a safety hazard in the hallway). Had he been intelligent about it and just used the connection in his office instead it would have taken marginally longer time but he wouldn't have been in anywhere near as much - if any - trouble.
He was either a fool, looking to bring attention to himself, or both.
For the rest of us, there is interlibrary loan - or going to the nearest public university library and using their resources responsibly.