Yeah. I don't know why this would surprise anyone. China has a ton of people and they've made R&D a national priority.
Even without that the typical trend among emerging powers is to steal first and invent later. This exactly the trajectory that the US took early on. See "Slater the Traiter" or look up check http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/....
Then you'll be able to just relax and enjoy a 3d show from the comfort of your own home. If you end up wanting to watch a 2d movie (some people still watch the occasional black and white or silent movie) you'll be able to put on your VR goggles and simulate any theater you like. People will be able to engage in far more escapy escapism with VR.
People thought that photographs, movies, talkies and color movies were all gimmicks when they first came out. The scientists and engineers have been doing their part to make VR possible. I can't wait to see what the artists do to make VR jaw droppingly awesome.
I came to say almost exactly the same thing. Fortunately I did a quick search first. We now have decent VR goggles. Eventually we'll have resolutions that match our retinas, 60fps and near perfect head tracking.
I could imagine movies morphing into something more like a video game. Maybe you could watch the battle of Helm's deep and decide which part you want to focus on or pick up a spare Orc sword. There will probably be modes where you can watch it with friends and see them dressed in character it won't matter if they're in the same room or across an ocean.
Once you have that I don't see why anyone would want to go to a theater to watch a movie.
The lack of supporting data makes your argument significantly weaker.
Not all bans are equally difficult to enforce. For example, the US government has all but banned fully automatic weapons and they are extremely difficult to acquire.
The US Constitution establishes an entire branch of government with the express purpose of interpreting the meaning of laws. That branch is tasked with establishing just how much wiggle room there is.
Furthermore that same constitution has detailed provisions for self modification. A 2/3 majority can alter or even repeal any amendment and supersede even the body of the constitution.
There is nothing sacred about the current form of the constitution. It simply states current law and the founders took great pains to make it alterable specifically because they had the foresight to realize that future circumstances might be better served by different laws.
You're implying that there are only 2 sides to the gun debate and that they are equally stubborn.
Neither of these is true. At many points throughout this thread I have specifically stated that I do not support an outright ban on guns or any sort of totalitarian control. I have also explained that I do not have an entrenched position and have even told you exactly how you can change my mind.
Provide evidence. That's what I've been doing throughout this thread.
I may be mistaken about the value of gun control but it's a conclusion I reached by examining the available evidence. As I said before, if you or anyone else can present credible evidence that gun control is a bad idea I would reconsider that position.
We actually do limit freedom of religion and freedom of speech. A particular religion my require underaged sex or corporal punishment but those practices would still be forbidden in the US. There is currently an active debate regarding the interactions of freedom of religion and same-sex marriage. Limits to free speech go even further. Lies are forbidden in many settings; under oath, in advertisements or where it constitutes defamation. Copyright holders can limit the speech of others where it comes to works they own. Disclosing insider information of publicly held companies is tightly regulated. The list goes on.
You further err in assuming that I advocate for the removal of all guns. I have never stated that and I do not suggest it. Many countries have gun controls without banning them outright. Germany, to use the original example from this thread, allows for the possession and use of guns but regulates them.
I agree. The numbers suggest that if we are to allocate resources to decrease deaths, heart disease should be our priority, all other things being equal.
However that does not invalidate the claim that increase gun control would likely lead to a statistically significant decrease in deaths.
It seems that our positions may be more closely aligned than I had suspected. I've attempted to avoid stating my opinions in this thread in favour of posting facts precisely because I realize that this is a particularly polarizing topic.
But I stand by my use of the word dogma because the ogdenk explicitly stated that they didn't care what other people thought in a branch of the thread where I had done nothing but present evidence. That is the very definition of dogma.
This is true if all studies are equal. But some studies are peer reviewed and required to cite verifiable sources. Some studies are put out by organizations which are have a vested interest in one outcome or an other.
The later group includes plenty of studies which go in both directions. But the former group overwhelmingly shows that laxer gun control policy leads to a proliferation of guns and this in turn leads to more deaths by firearms.
Show me the data that says that removing the top 10 cities puts the US homicide rate or the homicide by firearms rate comparable to other nations. I will take the time to read those studies and, if they're well designed, I'll update my opinion based on that data.
That is exactly how I changed my position from being against gun control to being in favor of it and if new evidence suggest that this was a mistake I'll change my position again.
I don't have data on what is typically included in gun death rates but the link I provided does not include self defense. You can see their definition in the link, "unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person". The source article, which the wikipedia article links to, states that this specifically excludes self-defense.
So you're willing to dismiss wikipedia and peer reviewed scientific publications, which cite their sources and give detailed descriptions of their methodologies, as bullshit but the best counter example you can give is a youtube video from a site who's stated mission is: "1. Identify the enemy and understand his nature 2. Devise ways to attack and neutralize him"
I didn't say civilized. That's far to loaded and subjective a term. I said developed. That's far less subjective since the CIA has a list of those countries taken from the OECD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While I would personally not favor an absolute ban on guns I have not found any data that suggests such a ban would result in increased death rates. Could you provide a link to a study which supports this?
There does appear to be some substitution effect but even so, overall homicide rates are significantly higher in the US than in other developed countries. They are about 4 times as high in the US as in German, for example.
Are you suggesting that black people are just more violent than non-blacks?
Once study that I linked above http://www.amjmed.com/article/... states that while non-lethal crimes are similar across developed countries, firearms related deaths are much higher in the US.
The list of per capita firearms related deaths also shows that while France which has a very large black population (albiet lower than that of the US) it doesn't have a per capita firearms death rate any where near that of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You also seem to be ignoring the large poor immigrant populations in many developed countries who do not seem to be shooting people at rates anywhere close to the US.
I posted that elsewhere in this thread. Even if you control for income the US (which has the laxest gun control laws in the developed world) has significantly more gun violence than other developed countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I don't know why this would surprise anyone.
China has a ton of people and they've made R&D a national priority.
Even without that the typical trend among emerging powers is to steal first and invent later.
This exactly the trajectory that the US took early on. See "Slater the Traiter" or look up check http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/....
Are there vendors, browsers or developers who have committed to not adopt this standard?
Then you'll be able to just relax and enjoy a 3d show from the comfort of your own home.
If you end up wanting to watch a 2d movie (some people still watch the occasional black and white or silent movie) you'll be able to put on your VR goggles and simulate any theater you like. People will be able to engage in far more escapy escapism with VR.
People thought that photographs, movies, talkies and color movies were all gimmicks when they first came out.
The scientists and engineers have been doing their part to make VR possible. I can't wait to see what the artists do to make VR jaw droppingly awesome.
I came to say almost exactly the same thing. Fortunately I did a quick search first.
We now have decent VR goggles.
Eventually we'll have resolutions that match our retinas, 60fps and near perfect head tracking.
I could imagine movies morphing into something more like a video game. Maybe you could watch the battle of Helm's deep and decide which part you want to focus on or pick up a spare Orc sword. There will probably be modes where you can watch it with friends and see them dressed in character it won't matter if they're in the same room or across an ocean.
Once you have that I don't see why anyone would want to go to a theater to watch a movie.
The lack of supporting data makes your argument significantly weaker.
Not all bans are equally difficult to enforce.
For example, the US government has all but banned fully automatic weapons and they are extremely difficult to acquire.
The US Constitution establishes an entire branch of government with the express purpose of interpreting the meaning of laws. That branch is tasked with establishing just how much wiggle room there is.
Furthermore that same constitution has detailed provisions for self modification. A 2/3 majority can alter or even repeal any amendment and supersede even the body of the constitution.
There is nothing sacred about the current form of the constitution. It simply states current law and the founders took great pains to make it alterable specifically because they had the foresight to realize that future circumstances might be better served by different laws.
correction: those rates are per 100,000 not per capita
You're implying that there are only 2 sides to the gun debate and that they are equally stubborn.
Neither of these is true.
At many points throughout this thread I have specifically stated that I do not support an outright ban on guns or any sort of totalitarian control.
I have also explained that I do not have an entrenched position and have even told you exactly how you can change my mind.
Provide evidence. That's what I've been doing throughout this thread.
I may be mistaken about the value of gun control but it's a conclusion I reached by examining the available evidence.
As I said before, if you or anyone else can present credible evidence that gun control is a bad idea I would reconsider that position.
We actually do limit freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
A particular religion my require underaged sex or corporal punishment but those practices would still be forbidden in the US. There is currently an active debate regarding the interactions of freedom of religion and same-sex marriage.
Limits to free speech go even further. Lies are forbidden in many settings; under oath, in advertisements or where it constitutes defamation. Copyright holders can limit the speech of others where it comes to works they own. Disclosing insider information of publicly held companies is tightly regulated. The list goes on.
You further err in assuming that I advocate for the removal of all guns. I have never stated that and I do not suggest it. Many countries have gun controls without banning them outright. Germany, to use the original example from this thread, allows for the possession and use of guns but regulates them.
I have not engaged in an ad hominem attack since I have not attacked the person who made the statement.
zerofoo made a blanket statement about the reliability of certain types of arguments and I responded to that statement.
I agree.
The numbers suggest that if we are to allocate resources to decrease deaths, heart disease should be our priority, all other things being equal.
However that does not invalidate the claim that increase gun control would likely lead to a statistically significant decrease in deaths.
That article does calculate firearms deaths on a per-capita basis.
It seems that our positions may be more closely aligned than I had suspected.
I've attempted to avoid stating my opinions in this thread in favour of posting facts precisely because I realize that this is a particularly polarizing topic.
But I stand by my use of the word dogma because the ogdenk explicitly stated that they didn't care what other people thought in a branch of the thread where I had done nothing but present evidence. That is the very definition of dogma.
This is true if all studies are equal.
But some studies are peer reviewed and required to cite verifiable sources. Some studies are put out by organizations which are have a vested interest in one outcome or an other.
The later group includes plenty of studies which go in both directions. But the former group overwhelmingly shows that laxer gun control policy leads to a proliferation of guns and this in turn leads to more deaths by firearms.
Show me the data that says that removing the top 10 cities puts the US homicide rate or the homicide by firearms rate comparable to other nations. I will take the time to read those studies and, if they're well designed, I'll update my opinion based on that data.
That is exactly how I changed my position from being against gun control to being in favor of it and if new evidence suggest that this was a mistake I'll change my position again.
I don't have data on what is typically included in gun death rates but the link I provided does not include self defense. You can see their definition in the link, "unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person".
The source article, which the wikipedia article links to, states that this specifically excludes self-defense.
All throughout this thread I've posted data from verifiable sources.
That data may suggest particular policies.
How is that an extremist position?
If evidence is not a tool for affecting reasonable change what would you suggest?
So you're willing to dismiss wikipedia and peer reviewed scientific publications, which cite their sources and give detailed descriptions of their methodologies, as bullshit but the best counter example you can give is a youtube video from a site who's stated mission is:
"1. Identify the enemy and understand his nature
2. Devise ways to attack and neutralize him"
Please see my posts elsewhere in my thread where I linked a study examining firearms rates controlled for income.
I didn't say civilized. That's far to loaded and subjective a term.
I said developed. That's far less subjective since the CIA has a list of those countries taken from the OECD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While I would personally not favor an absolute ban on guns I have not found any data that suggests such a ban would result in increased death rates.
Could you provide a link to a study which supports this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There does appear to be some substitution effect but even so, overall homicide rates are significantly higher in the US than in other developed countries.
They are about 4 times as high in the US as in German, for example.
And this is the crux of the impasse.
You will hold your position despite any evidence that can be brought up.
I will stay right here and hope that reason can persuade future generations of the folly of your dogma.
Here's a list of overall homicide rates by country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You have to go pretty far down the list before you find a developed country other than the US.
Are you suggesting that black people are just more violent than non-blacks?
Once study that I linked above
http://www.amjmed.com/article/...
states that while non-lethal crimes are similar across developed countries, firearms related deaths are much higher in the US.
The list of per capita firearms related deaths also shows that while France which has a very large black population (albiet lower than that of the US) it doesn't have a per capita firearms death rate any where near that of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You also seem to be ignoring the large poor immigrant populations in many developed countries who do not seem to be shooting people at rates anywhere close to the US.
http://www.amjmed.com/article/...
I posted that elsewhere in this thread. Even if you control for income the US (which has the laxest gun control laws in the developed world) has significantly more gun violence than other developed countries.