We don't know for certain that what we are calling Matter is matter at all. Matter is a term used to explain our observations and our models.
[eyeroll] What we refer to as matter is matter by definition based on phenomena we have directly observed and experiments we have conducted on its properties. We understand quite a lot (though not everything) about its properties and component parts. Dark matter is something we have no direct observations of and have no idea what its properties might be aside from its apparent effect on gravitational models at large physical scales. We know matter is matter because we've seen it directly, have experimental evidence of its properties and assigned it a name. We have no idea if dark matter is actually matter because we haven't seen it directly and have no direct experimental evidence of its properties, though we have assigned it a tentative name. The most we've managed to do with dark matter is to constrain its possible properties somewhat but much more work remains to be done. It makes sense to tentatively call it matter as long as we acknowledge that such a label may turn out to be ultimately incorrect.
To put it plainly I'm not arguing that we don't know anything. I'm pointing out that our actual understanding of what we are calling "dark matter" is rather limited at this time. Not the first time that has happened in our scientific history and it won't be the last.
It also could be some sort of error in our model of how energy works.
Matter and energy are the same thing. E=MC^2 and all that. That is well understood. Saying you have an error in your model of energy is really the same as saying you have an error in your model of matter.
Dark matter isn't just matter we don't see. It's matter that doesn't collide with regular matter, which makes it not conform to galaxies' disk shape.
We don't know for certain that what we are calling "dark matter" is matter at all. Dark Matter is a place holder term used to explain a gap between our observations and our models. We have some guesses as to what it might be and we've ruled out a few possibilities. Calling it some form of weakly interacting matter is among the more reasonable hypothesis but we can't confirm or deny that idea at this time. It also could be some sort of error in our model of how gravity works. Not quite as likely but not conclusively ruled out either. It's possible that it is something else altogether. We just don't really know. Saying it is matter we cannot see pre-supposes that it is actually matter when in fact we really aren't certain. It seems likely that it is matter but there are other possibilities still on the table.
80% of the cars could be sold for $20K, and the average could be $35K.
I work in the auto industry and I know for a fact that isn't the case. The median price isn't hugely divergent from the average. I haven't seen recent statistics but I saw some a few years back (6-7ish) and the difference at the time was something like $2-3K if my memory isn't faulty. There is no reason for me to believe that has changed substantially.
Bloody lord, what on Earth makes you think the Model is a luxury car? Take the glasses off.
Because it is a car sold by a luxury brand. Perception is what makes the difference. Tesla is considered a luxury brand. The Model S and Model X are luxury cars and they compete directly against BMW and Mercedes and Audi for customers. And the Model 3 will likely be considered an entry level luxury car and compete with cars like low end BMWs and other electric-hybrids like the Volt and Prius not to mention the Leaf and upcoming Bolt. All of those are purchased for reasons other than pure utilitarianism and cost.
My primary complaint against the Model 3 is that you're paying a lot for a little.
That is a matter of opinion. Obviously a lot of people think it is good value for money. If you don't care about it being electric then yeah, it's probably not a good deal for you. For others that sort of thing matters hugely. I have zero interest in a Prius but it was a great fit and good value for my sister. I drive a pickup as my daily driver and it is a good fit for my current situation but if I lived somewhere more urban it would be terrible value for money.
The G-Class is simultaneously more and less classy than a Model X.
Strange description but I think you are correct. The G-Class a pretty unique vehicle. Looks like a pimped out Jeep Wrangler or old Land Rover. Pretty capable off road but also a good city vehicle. Kind of like the guy who came in from Safari and got showered up for a week in town. Honestly it's one of the few vehicles you legitimately can drive almost anywhere. It doesn't look out of place in a fancy part of town but it can also legitimately go off road if you feel the need.
You need to look at the larger luxury crossovers, not full SUVs.
It's hard to find a direct analog. Something like the BMW X6 might be the closest but the Tesla X is kind of in another level of bling - hence the comparison to the G-Class.
But putting that aside... the Model X is similar in size to a Ford Explorer. A loaded Explorer Platinum is about $50k, or half the cost of a Model X. Both vehicles have similar levels of features, performance, safety, etc.
In what universe is a Ford Explorer in the same league as a Model X? Performance, fuel economy, features, safety, handling, etc are all wins for the Model X. Just about the only thing the Ford wins on is price and range. The Ford is a good enough product but they are very different cars that sell to very different markets. If you want to compare with a gas car you need to look at something like a Mercedes G-Glass.
Most people do not buy new cars - they buy used cars. Really think about how many people you see driving this year's model and stop being asinine.
There are roughly 14-17 million new cars sold in the US every year. The average time they own them right now is 71.4 months. That's just shy of 6 years for those of you doing the math. So that is roughly 85+ million cars on the road at any given time in the US that have only had one owner.
Yes there is a big used car market too but every used car was purchased new at some point.
$75K/year doesn't put you anywhere near the top 1% in the US. It doesn't even put you in the top 35%. It's a decent amount of money if you live in a place with vaguely reasonable cost of living but it doesn't get you even close to the jet set. To be in the top 1% you need to have an income somewhere near $400K/year.
Ahh yes, but that doesn't mean any cars were actually sold at that price.
Umm, yes actually it does mean that (roughly) half the new cars sold for more and (roughly) half the cars sold for less. (yes I'm aware of the difference between average and median) Only way those cars get on to the market is by people buying them.
50% of the cars could have been sold for $1 and 50% sold for $70K and that would remain true.
Since you (should) know that isn't actually true do you have any other strawmen you would like to slap around? The Ford F150 is the best selling vehicle in the US and the average out-the-door selling price right now is right around $43K nation wide.
Why is it overpriced? Because a Ford Fusion offers, more or less, the same function, for half the price.
What Fusion have you driven that does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and gets close to 100mpg equivalent? You are comparing a run of the mill no-frills commuter to a low end luxury car. Yes both have 4 wheels and can get you places but the markets for each couldn't be more different. If you are going to compare, a more sensible comparison would be something like a BMW 3 Series. (You think the name Model 3 was an accident?)
If you don't want a Model 3 there is nothing wrong with that. I haven't plunked down a deposit for one either. But your arguments against it are poor ones.
A lot of $15-20K cars are sold and a lot of $50K cars are sold.
And a lot of cars right around $30-40K are sold. What is your point?
TSA confiscates your drinks, while the airline sells you drinks at insane margins.
The only drinks the airlines sell you are the ones in their lounges and on their planes. The stores at the airport have nothing to do with the airlines directly. Typically they lease space from some form of airport authority and are independent businesses in no way associated with the airlines. The notion that the TSA somehow exists to pad airline profits is complete nonsense that doesn't withstand even casual scrutiny.
You hit it on the head - the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits.
The existence of the TSA has nothing to do with airline profit. TSA is a part of the federal government. As a general proposition they are indifferent to the amount of profit the airlines make. Speaking as an accountant I can tell you that you would have a very hard time showing that TSA has any sort of tangible positive effect on the bottom line of any airline company.
The reason for the TSA is so that politicians don't have the answer the question of why the federal government allowed airline security to be (literally) managed by a bunch of rent-a-cops. TSA was created after 9/11 because there was the perception (true or not) that the companies in charge of airline security previously were doing an inadequate job - which was almost certainly true. The problem is that TSA hasn't done any better as far as anyone can tell and is certainly more obnoxious than ever before. But the politicians get to claim that they did something about the problem, conveniently ignoring the fact that their "solution" didn't solve anything.
China isn't just any country. This isn't Romania. There are tons of controls on international transactions. Otherwise there would be a giant sucking sound for a month or two and China would be empty of funds.
No it wouldn't. China has huge currency reserves to combat currency speculation. While it's not impossible, it would be pretty difficult to drain China of cash.
This is why property is always super-hot in China and prices everyone out of the market - there's really nowhere else to invest money.
That's simply not true at all. Property is hot in China because they have 20% of the world's population and their economy is growing like crazy. There are other factors in play (including the banks) but the main driver is simply demand from an increasingly prosperous populace which couldn't own land until fairly recently.
I guess wire transfers are just like handing a bag of cash over to the recipient?
It's a bit more nuanced that that but it's not far from the truth. If you send a wire transfer you may as well be handing the other party that amount of cash. It's not without utility but it definitely carries significant counterparty risk.
Yes it is. Shoes, belts, jackets have to be removed. Laptops have to come out of their bags. They have rules about liquids and bottle sizes.
None of it makes any sense or serves any useful security purpose. It's all security theater. Basically I think they are being intentionally annoying to try to get people to enroll in their pre-check programs like TSA-Pre or Global Entry.
I thought it was a hoax or a temporary measure in response to a terrorist attack.
Nope. Not a hoax and not temporary either. The TSA refuses to clarify exactly what threat this is supposedly protecting us from and there is no evidence that it has resulted in a single criminal apprehended or deterred.
Since I'm a US Citizen that might be a tad problematic.
Kiosks for passport control? Never wait? This has never been a problem for me...
That is not the standard experience. I've traveled out of the US a fair bit. About 20-30% of the time the wait has been minimal. The rest of the time the wait has been at least 30 minutes and I've had waits as long as 90 minutes. Curiously the US is generally the more hostile (for lack of a better word) to people entering the country than most of the countries I've been to and I've been to places like Vietnam and China which are not exactly bastions of democracy.
Never heard of Global Entry or PreCheck.
If you haven't heard of TSA Pre then you haven't traveled in a US airport in the last several years. It's pretty hard to miss the signs. Global Entry is a bit less well known but is available to US Citizens plus a few other countries.
I'm still not convinced. Drunk driving is illegal after all.
So is terrorism. What's your point? Something being illegal doesn't keep it from happening.
And I agree about protecting your civil rights (After all, it took wars to have them), but saving the civil rights of an actual terrorist....
That's what having rule of law means. It means EVERYBODY gets treated fairly under the law, including terrorists. The Constitution enumerates several rights which are there to protect from the government abusing its power. Frankly for most of us the government is FAR more likely to be a threat to our life and liberty than any terrorist could ever hope to be. Ask any black citizen and they'll tell you that they are far more afraid of the police then they are of a criminal - and with good reason. Even our current president has been harassed by the police for no legitimate reason.
Unless of course you're insinuating that allowing the FBI to force Apple for a terrorism will mean that tomorrow they'll hack every single cellphone in the USA.
What it means is that there is a vulnerability. If the FBI can do it, so can others and the other groups are likely to be FAR more motivated to exploit it. The same security that protects the data you don't want criminals to get is what blocks the FBI too. You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as a backdoor that only works for special groups with a warrant. Furthermore you can be quite sure that any technical flaw in the iPhone security will be repeatedly exploited by the FBI. They have a century long history of not respecting civil rights and due process and I don't see that being any different now.
But if it take a warren for the FBI to crack a phone each time, I think the justice system could handle it (I think I'll regret writing this...).
First off if you think the FBI would wait for a warrant you are being extremely naive. Second, there is no possible way to have an exploit the FBI can crack that others cannot crack as well. Even if we completely trust the FBI (which you shouldn't) there is no crack they can utilize that will not be available to other bad actors. Encryption that can be cracked is functionally identical to having NO encryption. If makes the phone extremely dangerous to rely upon for anything sensitive even if you are doing nothing illegal.
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk.
No different here. I'm well aware I could be killed by a drunk driver tomorrow (FAR more likely than a terrorist incidentally) and yet I think it would be inappropriate of us to ban alchohol. In fact we tried that and it didn't go well...
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack
I'm an adult willing to take the risk of a terrorist attack in order to protect my civil rights. I value my civil rights more than I fear any terrorist or terrorist group. If that makes the FBI have to work harder to convict a criminal then so be it.
there is an actual process described as "equities review" which the Executive Branch is responsible for
Since the FBI is a part of the Executive Branch that is pretty much textbook conflict of interest in this instance. The FBI obviously prefers to keep the ability to circumvent encryption without respect to whether this is either a good idea.
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
No, it doesn't. Black people are more heavily policed, are more likely to be arrested than a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be convicted if they face charges that a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime, etc. This holds true even if you control for factors like poverty and other demographics.
Nah I think it's expected that sometimes police kill people and in a small fraction of that it's totally unwarranted, wrong and avoidable; in such a case these random outliers will of course more likely impact blacks than non-blacks, males than females, etc.
That's a very casual and inappropriate dismissal of a real, complicated, and nuanced problem.
So maybe blacks are wrongly killed but non-blacks, even more so, relatively speaking.
It sounds to me like you are trying to justify the problem rather than solve it.
The question is: is there a greater likelihood that one of those encounters might spiral into a violent and possibly fatal encounter because of one's race.
Of course there is. It's not even a question. The evidence is clear that minorities are substantially more likely to die at the hands of a cop than a white person in the US. I don't think it's overt racism in all but a tiny handful of cases these days. I don't think cops are waking up thinking "I'm going to kill a minority today". I think it's a confluence of circumstances (race, location, biases, paranoia, opportunity, readily available firearms, etc) that together result in a long series of tragedies.
Frankly it is extremely rare that cops actually need to carry a sidearm. In many countries they do not and yet crime still remains under control. This is totally unrealistic and will never happen but I've often wondered if we could solve a lot of problems with police and guns if we took the approach that if a police officer unholsters a weapon, he will have to automatically face a jury to explain his actions and go to jail if he doesn't have an acceptable excuse. Basically if the cop shoots or even threatens someone innocent with a weapon then the cop should go to jail the same as anyone else. It's a huge problem that the police can straight up kill people with impunity in most cases.
The US Constitution is quite literally a "law" (recognizing document) that makes it black letter illegal to restrict guns in the capitol building.
The Constitution say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (I'm not getting into the militia bit) Like the rest of the Constitution it is not a right without limits and that has been held up by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. See District of Columbia v Heller. You do not and never have had the right to carry firearms in any manner you choose for any purpose. Your right to carry arms is not infringed by the reasonable prohibition of you doing so in the Capitol. There is no reasonable purpose (self defense or otherwise) you can come up with whereby it would be appropriate for you to carry a firearm in that location.
Assault is more than the mere threat of violence. "In common law, assault is harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." Note that assault is separate from battery. You can assault someone (throw a punch and miss) without battery.
Discharging a firearm at someone is attempted murder...
Not necessarily. Murder is the killing of a person without justification or a valid reason. If you fire a loaded gun at me and I kill you in response, it is by definition not murder because I had a valid excuse (self defense). It IS attempted homicide but to be murder requires certain factors to come into play. For homicide intent doesn't matter. For murder intent matters greatly.
Have you ever actually spoken to a police officer when they were out of uniform?
Not only have I spoken with quite a few of them, my grandfather was a police officer. I have several good friends who are on various police forces and sheriffs offices. I've spoken to them at some length about many of the topics in this thread. Very interesting conversations actually. You are correct that they don't tend to readily discuss this stuff but if they know you they will talk about it. No, not all of them are jaded and paranoid though that is a risk of the profession.
Well, I kind of learned to be from adventures overseas. I had one attempted mugging in Amsterdam, one successful one in Marsellies, was shot in the leg in Bogota, and was robbed in Rio.
Sounds like you haven't a clue how to be safe overseas. I've traveled quite a lot, including to some not-so-friendly locations, and not I nor anyone I know who has traveled a lot to these places has been assaulted. Why? Because they didn't do stupid things while in a foreign country. Bad things can happen to anyone and if you get assaulted once then you can chalk that up to bad luck. It happens sometimes. But if you've been assaulted 4 times then the problem isn't them, it's you.
If you've actually been assaulted that much and you aren't just making up stories then you are doing something wrong. The common denominator is YOU and your behavior, not your lack of a weapon. The only thing that would have happened if you had a weapon in all likelihood is that either you or someone else would probably be dead or in jail right now.
I also carry. If I ever fire, it was because I was under real threat of mortal injury.
No, it will be because you THINK you were under real threat. There is a huge difference. Problem is that you might be wrong and if you are the consequences are severe. Sadly that is too often the case. Police officers who are experienced in dealing with hostile and sometimes armed people make that mistake rather often. You lack the training and experience they have so what makes you think you will be any more successful in differentiating a real threat from an imagined one? Remember that most people who carry firearms have zero actual experience using firearms in a hostile situation. If you are wrong the best case scenario is that you go to jail for assault or worse and that an innocent person gets hurt or killed.
While I don't have a problem with people having the right to carry, I think most of them are delusional about how well they would react to an actual or perceived threat. Worse I think most of them are badly trained if they are trained at all (no your NRA safety course isn't going to prepare you for combat), mentally ill equipped, unpracticed and won't react properly when the shit hits the fan.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't know for certain that what we are calling Matter is matter at all. Matter is a term used to explain our observations and our models.
[eyeroll] What we refer to as matter is matter by definition based on phenomena we have directly observed and experiments we have conducted on its properties. We understand quite a lot (though not everything) about its properties and component parts. Dark matter is something we have no direct observations of and have no idea what its properties might be aside from its apparent effect on gravitational models at large physical scales. We know matter is matter because we've seen it directly, have experimental evidence of its properties and assigned it a name. We have no idea if dark matter is actually matter because we haven't seen it directly and have no direct experimental evidence of its properties, though we have assigned it a tentative name. The most we've managed to do with dark matter is to constrain its possible properties somewhat but much more work remains to be done. It makes sense to tentatively call it matter as long as we acknowledge that such a label may turn out to be ultimately incorrect.
To put it plainly I'm not arguing that we don't know anything. I'm pointing out that our actual understanding of what we are calling "dark matter" is rather limited at this time. Not the first time that has happened in our scientific history and it won't be the last.
It also could be some sort of error in our model of how energy works.
Matter and energy are the same thing. E=MC^2 and all that. That is well understood. Saying you have an error in your model of energy is really the same as saying you have an error in your model of matter.
Dark matter isn't just matter we don't see. It's matter that doesn't collide with regular matter, which makes it not conform to galaxies' disk shape.
We don't know for certain that what we are calling "dark matter" is matter at all. Dark Matter is a place holder term used to explain a gap between our observations and our models. We have some guesses as to what it might be and we've ruled out a few possibilities. Calling it some form of weakly interacting matter is among the more reasonable hypothesis but we can't confirm or deny that idea at this time. It also could be some sort of error in our model of how gravity works. Not quite as likely but not conclusively ruled out either. It's possible that it is something else altogether. We just don't really know. Saying it is matter we cannot see pre-supposes that it is actually matter when in fact we really aren't certain. It seems likely that it is matter but there are other possibilities still on the table.
80% of the cars could be sold for $20K, and the average could be $35K.
I work in the auto industry and I know for a fact that isn't the case. The median price isn't hugely divergent from the average. I haven't seen recent statistics but I saw some a few years back (6-7ish) and the difference at the time was something like $2-3K if my memory isn't faulty. There is no reason for me to believe that has changed substantially.
Bloody lord, what on Earth makes you think the Model is a luxury car? Take the glasses off.
Because it is a car sold by a luxury brand. Perception is what makes the difference. Tesla is considered a luxury brand. The Model S and Model X are luxury cars and they compete directly against BMW and Mercedes and Audi for customers. And the Model 3 will likely be considered an entry level luxury car and compete with cars like low end BMWs and other electric-hybrids like the Volt and Prius not to mention the Leaf and upcoming Bolt. All of those are purchased for reasons other than pure utilitarianism and cost.
My primary complaint against the Model 3 is that you're paying a lot for a little.
That is a matter of opinion. Obviously a lot of people think it is good value for money. If you don't care about it being electric then yeah, it's probably not a good deal for you. For others that sort of thing matters hugely. I have zero interest in a Prius but it was a great fit and good value for my sister. I drive a pickup as my daily driver and it is a good fit for my current situation but if I lived somewhere more urban it would be terrible value for money.
The G-Class is simultaneously more and less classy than a Model X.
Strange description but I think you are correct. The G-Class a pretty unique vehicle. Looks like a pimped out Jeep Wrangler or old Land Rover. Pretty capable off road but also a good city vehicle. Kind of like the guy who came in from Safari and got showered up for a week in town. Honestly it's one of the few vehicles you legitimately can drive almost anywhere. It doesn't look out of place in a fancy part of town but it can also legitimately go off road if you feel the need.
You need to look at the larger luxury crossovers, not full SUVs.
It's hard to find a direct analog. Something like the BMW X6 might be the closest but the Tesla X is kind of in another level of bling - hence the comparison to the G-Class.
But putting that aside... the Model X is similar in size to a Ford Explorer. A loaded Explorer Platinum is about $50k, or half the cost of a Model X. Both vehicles have similar levels of features, performance, safety, etc.
In what universe is a Ford Explorer in the same league as a Model X? Performance, fuel economy, features, safety, handling, etc are all wins for the Model X. Just about the only thing the Ford wins on is price and range. The Ford is a good enough product but they are very different cars that sell to very different markets. If you want to compare with a gas car you need to look at something like a Mercedes G-Glass.
Most people do not buy new cars - they buy used cars. Really think about how many people you see driving this year's model and stop being asinine.
There are roughly 14-17 million new cars sold in the US every year. The average time they own them right now is 71.4 months. That's just shy of 6 years for those of you doing the math. So that is roughly 85+ million cars on the road at any given time in the US that have only had one owner.
Yes there is a big used car market too but every used car was purchased new at some point.
Rich? No, but still in the top 1% of the country.
$75K/year doesn't put you anywhere near the top 1% in the US. It doesn't even put you in the top 35%. It's a decent amount of money if you live in a place with vaguely reasonable cost of living but it doesn't get you even close to the jet set. To be in the top 1% you need to have an income somewhere near $400K/year.
Ahh yes, but that doesn't mean any cars were actually sold at that price.
Umm, yes actually it does mean that (roughly) half the new cars sold for more and (roughly) half the cars sold for less. (yes I'm aware of the difference between average and median) Only way those cars get on to the market is by people buying them.
50% of the cars could have been sold for $1 and 50% sold for $70K and that would remain true.
Since you (should) know that isn't actually true do you have any other strawmen you would like to slap around? The Ford F150 is the best selling vehicle in the US and the average out-the-door selling price right now is right around $43K nation wide.
Why is it overpriced? Because a Ford Fusion offers, more or less, the same function, for half the price.
What Fusion have you driven that does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and gets close to 100mpg equivalent? You are comparing a run of the mill no-frills commuter to a low end luxury car. Yes both have 4 wheels and can get you places but the markets for each couldn't be more different. If you are going to compare, a more sensible comparison would be something like a BMW 3 Series. (You think the name Model 3 was an accident?)
If you don't want a Model 3 there is nothing wrong with that. I haven't plunked down a deposit for one either. But your arguments against it are poor ones.
A lot of $15-20K cars are sold and a lot of $50K cars are sold.
And a lot of cars right around $30-40K are sold. What is your point?
The numbers are very back-of-the-envelope and assume a worst case:
Translation: We did a ridiculous and naive extrapolation and then were foolish enough to think it actually means something.
TSA confiscates your drinks, while the airline sells you drinks at insane margins.
The only drinks the airlines sell you are the ones in their lounges and on their planes. The stores at the airport have nothing to do with the airlines directly. Typically they lease space from some form of airport authority and are independent businesses in no way associated with the airlines. The notion that the TSA somehow exists to pad airline profits is complete nonsense that doesn't withstand even casual scrutiny.
You hit it on the head - the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits.
The existence of the TSA has nothing to do with airline profit. TSA is a part of the federal government. As a general proposition they are indifferent to the amount of profit the airlines make. Speaking as an accountant I can tell you that you would have a very hard time showing that TSA has any sort of tangible positive effect on the bottom line of any airline company.
The reason for the TSA is so that politicians don't have the answer the question of why the federal government allowed airline security to be (literally) managed by a bunch of rent-a-cops. TSA was created after 9/11 because there was the perception (true or not) that the companies in charge of airline security previously were doing an inadequate job - which was almost certainly true. The problem is that TSA hasn't done any better as far as anyone can tell and is certainly more obnoxious than ever before. But the politicians get to claim that they did something about the problem, conveniently ignoring the fact that their "solution" didn't solve anything.
China isn't just any country. This isn't Romania. There are tons of controls on international transactions. Otherwise there would be a giant sucking sound for a month or two and China would be empty of funds.
No it wouldn't. China has huge currency reserves to combat currency speculation. While it's not impossible, it would be pretty difficult to drain China of cash.
This is why property is always super-hot in China and prices everyone out of the market - there's really nowhere else to invest money.
That's simply not true at all. Property is hot in China because they have 20% of the world's population and their economy is growing like crazy. There are other factors in play (including the banks) but the main driver is simply demand from an increasingly prosperous populace which couldn't own land until fairly recently.
I guess wire transfers are just like handing a bag of cash over to the recipient?
It's a bit more nuanced that that but it's not far from the truth. If you send a wire transfer you may as well be handing the other party that amount of cash. It's not without utility but it definitely carries significant counterparty risk.
Wtf, is this still a thing?
Yes it is. Shoes, belts, jackets have to be removed. Laptops have to come out of their bags. They have rules about liquids and bottle sizes.
None of it makes any sense or serves any useful security purpose. It's all security theater. Basically I think they are being intentionally annoying to try to get people to enroll in their pre-check programs like TSA-Pre or Global Entry.
I thought it was a hoax or a temporary measure in response to a terrorist attack.
Nope. Not a hoax and not temporary either. The TSA refuses to clarify exactly what threat this is supposedly protecting us from and there is no evidence that it has resulted in a single criminal apprehended or deterred.
Easier answer, stay out of the USA.
Since I'm a US Citizen that might be a tad problematic.
Kiosks for passport control? Never wait? This has never been a problem for me...
That is not the standard experience. I've traveled out of the US a fair bit. About 20-30% of the time the wait has been minimal. The rest of the time the wait has been at least 30 minutes and I've had waits as long as 90 minutes. Curiously the US is generally the more hostile (for lack of a better word) to people entering the country than most of the countries I've been to and I've been to places like Vietnam and China which are not exactly bastions of democracy.
Never heard of Global Entry or PreCheck.
If you haven't heard of TSA Pre then you haven't traveled in a US airport in the last several years. It's pretty hard to miss the signs. Global Entry is a bit less well known but is available to US Citizens plus a few other countries.
I'm still not convinced. Drunk driving is illegal after all.
So is terrorism. What's your point? Something being illegal doesn't keep it from happening.
And I agree about protecting your civil rights (After all, it took wars to have them), but saving the civil rights of an actual terrorist....
That's what having rule of law means. It means EVERYBODY gets treated fairly under the law, including terrorists. The Constitution enumerates several rights which are there to protect from the government abusing its power. Frankly for most of us the government is FAR more likely to be a threat to our life and liberty than any terrorist could ever hope to be. Ask any black citizen and they'll tell you that they are far more afraid of the police then they are of a criminal - and with good reason. Even our current president has been harassed by the police for no legitimate reason.
Unless of course you're insinuating that allowing the FBI to force Apple for a terrorism will mean that tomorrow they'll hack every single cellphone in the USA.
What it means is that there is a vulnerability. If the FBI can do it, so can others and the other groups are likely to be FAR more motivated to exploit it. The same security that protects the data you don't want criminals to get is what blocks the FBI too. You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as a backdoor that only works for special groups with a warrant. Furthermore you can be quite sure that any technical flaw in the iPhone security will be repeatedly exploited by the FBI. They have a century long history of not respecting civil rights and due process and I don't see that being any different now.
But if it take a warren for the FBI to crack a phone each time, I think the justice system could handle it (I think I'll regret writing this...).
First off if you think the FBI would wait for a warrant you are being extremely naive. Second, there is no possible way to have an exploit the FBI can crack that others cannot crack as well. Even if we completely trust the FBI (which you shouldn't) there is no crack they can utilize that will not be available to other bad actors. Encryption that can be cracked is functionally identical to having NO encryption. If makes the phone extremely dangerous to rely upon for anything sensitive even if you are doing nothing illegal.
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk.
No different here. I'm well aware I could be killed by a drunk driver tomorrow (FAR more likely than a terrorist incidentally) and yet I think it would be inappropriate of us to ban alchohol. In fact we tried that and it didn't go well...
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack
I'm an adult willing to take the risk of a terrorist attack in order to protect my civil rights. I value my civil rights more than I fear any terrorist or terrorist group. If that makes the FBI have to work harder to convict a criminal then so be it.
there is an actual process described as "equities review" which the Executive Branch is responsible for
Since the FBI is a part of the Executive Branch that is pretty much textbook conflict of interest in this instance. The FBI obviously prefers to keep the ability to circumvent encryption without respect to whether this is either a good idea.
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
No, it doesn't. Black people are more heavily policed, are more likely to be arrested than a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be convicted if they face charges that a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime, etc. This holds true even if you control for factors like poverty and other demographics.
Nah I think it's expected that sometimes police kill people and in a small fraction of that it's totally unwarranted, wrong and avoidable; in such a case these random outliers will of course more likely impact blacks than non-blacks, males than females, etc.
That's a very casual and inappropriate dismissal of a real, complicated, and nuanced problem.
So maybe blacks are wrongly killed but non-blacks, even more so, relatively speaking.
It sounds to me like you are trying to justify the problem rather than solve it.
The question is: is there a greater likelihood that one of those encounters might spiral into a violent and possibly fatal encounter because of one's race.
Of course there is. It's not even a question. The evidence is clear that minorities are substantially more likely to die at the hands of a cop than a white person in the US. I don't think it's overt racism in all but a tiny handful of cases these days. I don't think cops are waking up thinking "I'm going to kill a minority today". I think it's a confluence of circumstances (race, location, biases, paranoia, opportunity, readily available firearms, etc) that together result in a long series of tragedies.
Frankly it is extremely rare that cops actually need to carry a sidearm. In many countries they do not and yet crime still remains under control. This is totally unrealistic and will never happen but I've often wondered if we could solve a lot of problems with police and guns if we took the approach that if a police officer unholsters a weapon, he will have to automatically face a jury to explain his actions and go to jail if he doesn't have an acceptable excuse. Basically if the cop shoots or even threatens someone innocent with a weapon then the cop should go to jail the same as anyone else. It's a huge problem that the police can straight up kill people with impunity in most cases.
The US Constitution is quite literally a "law" (recognizing document) that makes it black letter illegal to restrict guns in the capitol building.
The Constitution say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (I'm not getting into the militia bit) Like the rest of the Constitution it is not a right without limits and that has been held up by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. See District of Columbia v Heller. You do not and never have had the right to carry firearms in any manner you choose for any purpose. Your right to carry arms is not infringed by the reasonable prohibition of you doing so in the Capitol. There is no reasonable purpose (self defense or otherwise) you can come up with whereby it would be appropriate for you to carry a firearm in that location.
Assualt is the threat of violence.
Assault is more than the mere threat of violence. "In common law, assault is harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." Note that assault is separate from battery. You can assault someone (throw a punch and miss) without battery.
Discharging a firearm at someone is attempted murder...
Not necessarily. Murder is the killing of a person without justification or a valid reason. If you fire a loaded gun at me and I kill you in response, it is by definition not murder because I had a valid excuse (self defense). It IS attempted homicide but to be murder requires certain factors to come into play. For homicide intent doesn't matter. For murder intent matters greatly.
Have you ever actually spoken to a police officer when they were out of uniform?
Not only have I spoken with quite a few of them, my grandfather was a police officer. I have several good friends who are on various police forces and sheriffs offices. I've spoken to them at some length about many of the topics in this thread. Very interesting conversations actually. You are correct that they don't tend to readily discuss this stuff but if they know you they will talk about it. No, not all of them are jaded and paranoid though that is a risk of the profession.
Well, I kind of learned to be from adventures overseas. I had one attempted mugging in Amsterdam, one successful one in Marsellies, was shot in the leg in Bogota, and was robbed in Rio.
Sounds like you haven't a clue how to be safe overseas. I've traveled quite a lot, including to some not-so-friendly locations, and not I nor anyone I know who has traveled a lot to these places has been assaulted. Why? Because they didn't do stupid things while in a foreign country. Bad things can happen to anyone and if you get assaulted once then you can chalk that up to bad luck. It happens sometimes. But if you've been assaulted 4 times then the problem isn't them, it's you.
If you've actually been assaulted that much and you aren't just making up stories then you are doing something wrong. The common denominator is YOU and your behavior, not your lack of a weapon. The only thing that would have happened if you had a weapon in all likelihood is that either you or someone else would probably be dead or in jail right now.
I also carry. If I ever fire, it was because I was under real threat of mortal injury.
No, it will be because you THINK you were under real threat. There is a huge difference. Problem is that you might be wrong and if you are the consequences are severe. Sadly that is too often the case. Police officers who are experienced in dealing with hostile and sometimes armed people make that mistake rather often. You lack the training and experience they have so what makes you think you will be any more successful in differentiating a real threat from an imagined one? Remember that most people who carry firearms have zero actual experience using firearms in a hostile situation. If you are wrong the best case scenario is that you go to jail for assault or worse and that an innocent person gets hurt or killed.
While I don't have a problem with people having the right to carry, I think most of them are delusional about how well they would react to an actual or perceived threat. Worse I think most of them are badly trained if they are trained at all (no your NRA safety course isn't going to prepare you for combat), mentally ill equipped, unpracticed and won't react properly when the shit hits the fan.
Are you trying to get shot? Because that is how you get shot...