I would bet money that there would be death threats from someone
From some nutcases, yes. Not from mainstream Christian clerics or politicians. That's the difference.
Says who? There's a long road to making the point you want to.
No, not really. That's where most Muslims live, hence the inhabitants of those nations represent mainstream Islam. "Represent" is all I claimed; the causation is complex.
I see Christian nutjobs doing serious damage to the US, but I don't blame Christianity for it.
There are few self-identified Christian nations left, and the ones that exist generally have good human rights records. And secular nations with predominantly Christian populations (like the US and France) also have generally good human rights records (better than most predominantly Muslim nations).
When's the last time you heard of a major and highly-publicized protest where people were burning large numbers of Bibles just to piss off Christians?
Media don't pick up on Bible burnings because most Christians couldn't care less. There are hundreds of Bible burning videos on YouTube if you care, with no death threats that I could find. Marilyn Manson did it during a concert, and she has a lot more followers than Jones. Even real abuses against Christians in Islamic countries hardly get coverage because few people care.
But in predominantly Christian nations, you can blaspheme without legal consequences. Predominantly Christian nations do not cause diplomatic incidents over people burning their own Bibles or cartoons that poke fun at Jesus. Christian clerics in those nations do not pronounce fatwas against people who insult Christianity.
In predominantly Muslim nations, blasphemy against Islam carries serious penalties, in some cases even death; homosexuality and atheism also carry severe penalties, and other religions are restricted. Muslim nations do apply diplomatic pressure in response to disrespect of Islam by private individuals in other nations. And it is those nations and their laws that are "representative of the Muslim world". The Muslims that live in the west--many of them tolerant--are the exception.
Why does everyone seem to think that inflammatory actions will somehow improve this situation?
Well, maybe because they have looked at history. Do you think the Reformation would have happened if Luther had not been inflammatory? Do you think the Enlightenment would have happened if philosophers had cared about the feelings of Christians? Do you think the American and French revolution would have happened if people had worried about offending the nobility?
Mainstream Christian governments or politicians don't create major diplomatic incidents about someone burning their own bibles somewhere. Mainstream Christian ministers don't pronounce death sentences on people who burn Bibles or make fun of Jesus. No Christian nation that I know of has the death penalty for atheism or apostasy, or executes people for homosexuality. Yet, these are the rule for current Islamic states and they are not acceptable policies. Mainstream Islam is stuck about where Christianity was prior to the Reformation and Enlightenment. Mainstream Islam needs to change.
Second, you're much more likely to get in trouble by criticizing Christianity than Islam.
The mere threat of burning the Koran by some no-name redneck minister has caused major diplomatic incidents, mass protests, and death threats. Nothing like that happens when you burn bibles. And it's not the first time: look at the Mohammad cartoons or the Satanic Verses; again, diplomatic incidents, mass protests, death threats, and deaths.
A bunch of terrifyingly ignorant bigots are going to burn books for no reason other than to insult a large and diverse group of people.
Mainstream Islam is effectively represented by the Islamic nations around the world: Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc., not by the moderate Muslims in the US or Europe. Those nations have a horrendous human rights record, and their politicians and clerics justify their policies with Islam and the Koran. When people criticize Islam, that's what they criticize, and rightfully so. Furthermore, Islam itself rejects the notion that there can be diversity in its beliefs.
Think of it as performance art. Bibles get burned all the time, often in Islamic states. Does that cause major diplomatic incidents? Flag burning? Christian street protests? Presidents getting involved? Does the Vatican or your minister down the street start pronouncing death sentences on people? But merely threatening to burn a Koran causes all of these things to happen: death threats, diplomatic incidents, massive street protests. And we're not talking about the actions of a few crazy extremists and terrorists here, we are talking about the actions of thousands of Muslim clerics and politicians and citizens in Islamic nations. Jones doesn't need to actually go through with the Koran burning, he has already made his point.
Mainstream Islam, as practiced in the major Islamic nations around the world, has an atrocious human rights record and needs to reform, just like the medieval Christian church needed to reform. And just look at what happened with Luther: he called the Pope the "anti-Christ", the Pope excommunicated him (which amounted to a fatwa), and a friendly state sheltered and protected him. Causing offense ("trolling") and conflict are an intrinsic part of reform and social change.
As for supposedly moderate Muslims, if they don't take the burning of the Koran by a redneck pastor in the middle of nowhere in stride, they aren't so moderate. Part of being moderate is that you realize that other people have different beliefs and simply don't respect your religion, and that that's OK.
you can point to a particular person and say, "This is what he said and these are his credentials."
No, you point to a particular paper and say "this paper established this fact, and you can read there how it did that". "Credentials" don't enter into that.
Notice that scientific papers usually do not list academic titles, degrees, or credentials for authors.
It means that what you've said can be backed up by someone else with supposed expertise.
Expertise shouldn't actually matter (that's why we have blind reviewing). What matters is that the experiments have been carried out and described properly, that the work is described in sufficient detail to be reproducible, and that proofs are correct.
It will be obvious to anyone who has driven with a German driver in Germany that the reason why they can drive fast and not die. The vast majority of German drivers are highly skilled, highly respectful of the laws AND are motivated to get from A to B as quickly as possible in a purposeful manner.
It's a bad idea to base public policy on what seems "obvious" (and this isn't even obvious to me). The right thing to do is to look at statistics, not to engage in wild guesswork.
They also fastidiously maintain their cars which are generally very well built to begin with.
Fewer than 5% of fatalities are caused by mechanical failure, so that isn't responsible for a 3-fold difference.
Speaking of pulling thing out of asses, maybe you should have pulled your head out before you make statements like 'Germany has less accidents on the Autobahn blah blah blah...'. They most certainly do.
Well, so I'm right: statistics do not show that speed automatically increases accidents. That's all I said.
The rest of your posting is guesswork about why that may be the case, much of it unsubstantiated or plain illogical (how does a public transit system help reduce fatalities per vehicle mile traveled?).
Well, not my experience. Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche drivers in particular drive as if they own the road and as if every car before them should just pull over.
There is a good chance of surviving a 50MPH collision in a modern car, but at 90mph, the chances are much much lower.
I doubt that's the case for the kind of messy collisions that occur in real-world scenarios. You're welcome to try to find some data to back up your claim.
There is, however, excellent data on speed limits and fatalities, and the answer is: the data do not support the conclusion that lower speed limits reduce fatalities.
Corwin said: "K.E. = 1/2 M * V^2 -- Speed does kill", and that's what I was replying to. Please follow the thread.
If you take braking into account, you need to take reaction times, attention, etc. into account as well. At that point, you're looking at accident statistics, and they don't support the view that "speed kills" either.
If i would be given a choice, i would prefer to drive in the U.S. Here in germany, driving is a martial art with daily katas on the street.
I fully agree: driving in Germany is exhausting and people are very aggressive. But that is probably what keeps people alert and awake and reduces accident rates...
Maladjusted speed (which may not exceed the legaly allowed one) is a major cause of accidents here.
Germany has a fraction of the highway fatalities of the US, both per vehicle mile and per capita. Driving isn't pleasant in Germany, but it is safer.
Almost all "accidents" are caused by human error, even in states with no vehicle safety inspection. We don't need vehicle safety inspections at current speed limits, and we don't need them at 90 mph.
From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents. And I have seen far less police on German highways than on US highways. I don't think German drivers are what makes the German accident rate lower.
Maintenance of the German highway system is currently better, but lanes and shoulders tend to be narrower. The US could improve its maintenance; the structure of the US highway system seems as good or better. I don't think a lot of accidents are caused by maintenance problems; almost all are caused by driver error.
Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter how much more kinetic energy you have, you're dead anyway. Accident avoidance--fatigue, alertness, total travel time--become dominant.
Slashdot Mirror
I would bet money that there would be death threats from someone
From some nutcases, yes. Not from mainstream Christian clerics or politicians. That's the difference.
Says who? There's a long road to making the point you want to.
No, not really. That's where most Muslims live, hence the inhabitants of those nations represent mainstream Islam. "Represent" is all I claimed; the causation is complex.
I see Christian nutjobs doing serious damage to the US, but I don't blame Christianity for it.
There are few self-identified Christian nations left, and the ones that exist generally have good human rights records. And secular nations with predominantly Christian populations (like the US and France) also have generally good human rights records (better than most predominantly Muslim nations).
When's the last time you heard of a major and highly-publicized protest where people were burning large numbers of Bibles just to piss off Christians?
Media don't pick up on Bible burnings because most Christians couldn't care less. There are hundreds of Bible burning videos on YouTube if you care, with no death threats that I could find. Marilyn Manson did it during a concert, and she has a lot more followers than Jones. Even real abuses against Christians in Islamic countries hardly get coverage because few people care.
But in predominantly Christian nations, you can blaspheme without legal consequences. Predominantly Christian nations do not cause diplomatic incidents over people burning their own Bibles or cartoons that poke fun at Jesus. Christian clerics in those nations do not pronounce fatwas against people who insult Christianity.
In predominantly Muslim nations, blasphemy against Islam carries serious penalties, in some cases even death; homosexuality and atheism also carry severe penalties, and other religions are restricted. Muslim nations do apply diplomatic pressure in response to disrespect of Islam by private individuals in other nations. And it is those nations and their laws that are "representative of the Muslim world". The Muslims that live in the west--many of them tolerant--are the exception.
Why does everyone seem to think that inflammatory actions will somehow improve this situation?
Well, maybe because they have looked at history. Do you think the Reformation would have happened if Luther had not been inflammatory? Do you think the Enlightenment would have happened if philosophers had cared about the feelings of Christians? Do you think the American and French revolution would have happened if people had worried about offending the nobility?
Mainstream Christian governments or politicians don't create major diplomatic incidents about someone burning their own bibles somewhere. Mainstream Christian ministers don't pronounce death sentences on people who burn Bibles or make fun of Jesus. No Christian nation that I know of has the death penalty for atheism or apostasy, or executes people for homosexuality. Yet, these are the rule for current Islamic states and they are not acceptable policies. Mainstream Islam is stuck about where Christianity was prior to the Reformation and Enlightenment. Mainstream Islam needs to change.
Second, you're much more likely to get in trouble by criticizing Christianity than Islam.
The mere threat of burning the Koran by some no-name redneck minister has caused major diplomatic incidents, mass protests, and death threats. Nothing like that happens when you burn bibles. And it's not the first time: look at the Mohammad cartoons or the Satanic Verses; again, diplomatic incidents, mass protests, death threats, and deaths.
A bunch of terrifyingly ignorant bigots are going to burn books for no reason other than to insult a large and diverse group of people.
Mainstream Islam is effectively represented by the Islamic nations around the world: Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc., not by the moderate Muslims in the US or Europe. Those nations have a horrendous human rights record, and their politicians and clerics justify their policies with Islam and the Koran. When people criticize Islam, that's what they criticize, and rightfully so. Furthermore, Islam itself rejects the notion that there can be diversity in its beliefs.
Think of it as performance art. Bibles get burned all the time, often in Islamic states. Does that cause major diplomatic incidents? Flag burning? Christian street protests? Presidents getting involved? Does the Vatican or your minister down the street start pronouncing death sentences on people? But merely threatening to burn a Koran causes all of these things to happen: death threats, diplomatic incidents, massive street protests. And we're not talking about the actions of a few crazy extremists and terrorists here, we are talking about the actions of thousands of Muslim clerics and politicians and citizens in Islamic nations. Jones doesn't need to actually go through with the Koran burning, he has already made his point.
Mainstream Islam, as practiced in the major Islamic nations around the world, has an atrocious human rights record and needs to reform, just like the medieval Christian church needed to reform. And just look at what happened with Luther: he called the Pope the "anti-Christ", the Pope excommunicated him (which amounted to a fatwa), and a friendly state sheltered and protected him. Causing offense ("trolling") and conflict are an intrinsic part of reform and social change.
As for supposedly moderate Muslims, if they don't take the burning of the Koran by a redneck pastor in the middle of nowhere in stride, they aren't so moderate. Part of being moderate is that you realize that other people have different beliefs and simply don't respect your religion, and that that's OK.
you can point to a particular person and say, "This is what he said and these are his credentials."
No, you point to a particular paper and say "this paper established this fact, and you can read there how it did that". "Credentials" don't enter into that.
Notice that scientific papers usually do not list academic titles, degrees, or credentials for authors.
Nor in physics
That's not a "corollary" (meaning, something that easily follows from the Golde Rule), it's a different rule, called the Platinum Rule.
It means that what you've said can be backed up by someone else with supposed expertise.
Expertise shouldn't actually matter (that's why we have blind reviewing). What matters is that the experiments have been carried out and described properly, that the work is described in sufficient detail to be reproducible, and that proofs are correct.
It will be obvious to anyone who has driven with a German driver in Germany that the reason why they can drive fast and not die. The vast majority of German drivers are highly skilled, highly respectful of the laws AND are motivated to get from A to B as quickly as possible in a purposeful manner.
It's a bad idea to base public policy on what seems "obvious" (and this isn't even obvious to me). The right thing to do is to look at statistics, not to engage in wild guesswork.
They also fastidiously maintain their cars which are generally very well built to begin with.
Fewer than 5% of fatalities are caused by mechanical failure, so that isn't responsible for a 3-fold difference.
Speaking of pulling thing out of asses, maybe you should have pulled your head out before you make statements like 'Germany has less accidents on the Autobahn blah blah blah...'. They most certainly do.
Well, so I'm right: statistics do not show that speed automatically increases accidents. That's all I said.
The rest of your posting is guesswork about why that may be the case, much of it unsubstantiated or plain illogical (how does a public transit system help reduce fatalities per vehicle mile traveled?).
Seems to me if WikiLeaks can't handle these matters in a more professional and low-key manner, they are self-destructing.
Shame, because a reputable clearing house for leaked information would be useful; the newspapers certainly aren't up to the task.
I was talking about German drivers driving fast German cars on German highways.
Well, not my experience. Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche drivers in particular drive as if they own the road and as if every car before them should just pull over.
The comparison with non-highway data indeed tells you something, namely that other factors are much more important than speed.
There is a good chance of surviving a 50MPH collision in a modern car, but at 90mph, the chances are much much lower.
I doubt that's the case for the kind of messy collisions that occur in real-world scenarios. You're welcome to try to find some data to back up your claim.
There is, however, excellent data on speed limits and fatalities, and the answer is: the data do not support the conclusion that lower speed limits reduce fatalities.
Corwin said: "K.E. = 1/2 M * V^2 -- Speed does kill", and that's what I was replying to. Please follow the thread.
If you take braking into account, you need to take reaction times, attention, etc. into account as well. At that point, you're looking at accident statistics, and they don't support the view that "speed kills" either.
If i would be given a choice, i would prefer to drive in the U.S. Here in germany, driving is a martial art with daily katas on the street.
I fully agree: driving in Germany is exhausting and people are very aggressive. But that is probably what keeps people alert and awake and reduces accident rates...
Maladjusted speed (which may not exceed the legaly allowed one) is a major cause of accidents here.
Germany has a fraction of the highway fatalities of the US, both per vehicle mile and per capita. Driving isn't pleasant in Germany, but it is safer.
Next up, pre-register now for the new murder pass, for the low low introductory price of only $149.90! Bulk discounts available.
We call those "indulgences". They were popular just before the Reformation.
Seriously, if increasing the speed limit to 90 mph has negligible effects on safety, then allow it for everybody if you want to.
The original justification for speed limits was fuel economy, not safety. From that perspective, the fee makes sense.
No thanks. I don't want my vehicle information in a database.
It already is.
Also, a transponder? Yeah sure - I definitely want my vehicle being tracked.
In addition to license plate readers, you can already be tracked easily using several RFID chips in your car.
What about the vehicle safety inspection?
Almost all "accidents" are caused by human error, even in states with no vehicle safety inspection. We don't need vehicle safety inspections at current speed limits, and we don't need them at 90 mph.
From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents. And I have seen far less police on German highways than on US highways. I don't think German drivers are what makes the German accident rate lower.
Maintenance of the German highway system is currently better, but lanes and shoulders tend to be narrower. The US could improve its maintenance; the structure of the US highway system seems as good or better. I don't think a lot of accidents are caused by maintenance problems; almost all are caused by driver error.
Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter how much more kinetic energy you have, you're dead anyway. Accident avoidance--fatigue, alertness, total travel time--become dominant.
Once you get beyond around 50 mph, speed seems to matter less and less.