I don't use Twitter, primarily because I refuse to submit to their censorship. Twitter is concerned with nanny like oversight of its users political views and affiliations. They censor some people from telling the truth (particularly right leaning), because it is perceived to hurt other people's feelings. Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to (particularly left leaning) hordes of the most obnoxious trolls posting hateful garbage. Twitter replies to any public figure are usually just about as edifying to read as any popular YouTube channel's comment section, particularly if you aspire to be edified by meaningless schoolyard level taunts. Whenever a journalistic publication attempts to manufacture news with a lead like "Twitter users criticize XYZ" they are just showing either their naivety, or perhaps what a slow news day it is.
VR experiences can give you a (lo-fi) experience of places you could never actually go, such as dangerous industrial or natural environments (inside a nuclear power plant or a volcano), or international travel destinations we can't afford to send our millions of inner city students (Paris, Kuala Lumpur). So sure - go crazy with cheap VR and help kids get a larger view of the world. That's fine, and it can also coexist with "real" field trips where you see/hear/smell and there's opportunity to ask questions of a live human being.
That said, I would like to extend my sincere scorn toward the climate change agenda slipped into the OP. No doubt the Manns and Gores of the world would love to propagandize our children with dramatic (and entirely fictional) apocalyptic 3D scenes to whitewash their own consistently poor ability to predict the future.
Maybe it's just that one side of the political spectrum decided that they couldn't be proper fascists if there were facts, and have been fighting against the very concept of objective truth ever since?
You know, things like
I've associated "fake news" with the D side of the aisle for the most part this past election cycle -- you know, like the whole Russia conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theory very much like birtherism with the Obama presidency.
"wars make peace"
Well, some do. At least, fighting a defensive war can achieve peace if you win.
and "cutting taxes increases revenue collected"
This was the whole reason I replied. You aren't familiar with the Laffer Curve? You think that if government raises taxes, then no other variables in the system change, and money just magically shows up at the IRS?
and "giving people health insurance makes them sicker"
That's a pretty skewed misrepresentation. How about enacting a sick and unworkable health insurance law decreases the quality of American healthcare?
and "letting everyone eligible vote corrupts democracy"
Eligible to vote? You mean people who can show ID? Not sure where you're going with this. Maybe you're one of those people who think black people are too stupid, incompetent, or destitute to carry a voter ID? I'm told there are actually "liberals" today who believe that repugnant nonsense. Certainly not liberals in the classic sense, more like cynical, hyper political hacks who are afraid that illegal aliens who vote Democrat might actually get charged with felonies(?).
and "scientists are lying, the world isn't getting warmer"?
Sorry, not that simple, and unfortunately, the nuances seem over your head, my fine AC.
Swinging a little bit, but a couple more upvotes and I might get the coveted "(Score:5, Troll)", in this case, for triggering some snowflakes by giving the plain truth: the man was a registered Democrat, and Snopes chose to spin and obfuscate that simple fact. What made him a registered Democrat wasn't the state of his mind at the exact instant he committed the murders, nor was it whether he voted for any Republicans in elections since 2006. It was the fact that he (you know) "registered" as a (you know) "Democrat".
When Omar's father showed up on national television standing directly behind Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally, a bunch more Democrats got triggered. (For the slow of wit, I'm NOT saying that the Democratic party consists of bad people or terrorists, but I am alleging that many of them don't trust people to handle plain facts without spin.)
Because the Democrats are good and truth is good. So if a claim about a Democrat is bad, even if it's not a falsehood there must be a little bit mixed in there somewhere. I think the Snopes thought process goes something like that, for this extremely low quality spin piece.
They clearly make their case here. The first thing stated was "He was a registered democrat in 2006" then says, that he haddn't voted since then,
Whoa, whoa, stop with the lying. The article says they don't know whether he voted since then. It doesn't say he "haddn't"[sic] voted since then. The article was using various weasel words to soften the blow of revealing that Omar was a registered Democrat, full stop.
You still didn't provide any proof for your allegations.
Nobody gives a fuck about what you agree with -- either provide some kind of evidence or shut the fuck up.
As it turns out, nobody really cares what an AC thinks either. (Although some Slashdotters will upvote your comment and downvote mine for political reasons, just like Snopes edits their stuff with a political bias.)
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Agreed, they have gotten way too political, resulting in turning off approximately 50% of their readership. When a "fact check" says something is "false" because even though it is true, it didn't push A, B, and C talking points of the "fact checker's" political agenda... good riddance, I'm not weeping over their (potential) demise. Debunking Bill Gates handout rumors was their strong point and they should have stuck to that.
(Disclaimer: I sometimes watch R rated movies, I don't filter them. I "filter" some movies for my kids by totally disallowing them from watching them, not by use of VidAngel.)
It is fascinating to see people commenting here who any other day of the week would be pirating movies off torrents, and today are full of righteous indignation when people watch films WHICH THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO WATCH, and apply a viewing filter to it.
Also fascinating that this is supposedly a tech blog, and here we have people "hacking" movies and TV to suit themselves, and suddenly it's like "Oh noes!!! The evil TV content hackerz are doing bad things by buying something and then modifying it to suit their own tastes!!! If they don't use it exactly like I use it, then they are bad people!!!" (Am I wrong here? Nope, I'm not wrong.)
Seriously, step outside your own shoes, take a look at yourselves -- and laugh. (I'm certainly laughing at you.) Then maybe consider chilling and adopting a more libertarian view here instead of this Puritanism that wants to force a particular worldview on other people -- in this case, forcing people to consume media with strong language/violence/nudity.
No doubt climate skeptics are facepalming everywhere to hear the climate alarmists suddenly very concerned about public accessibility for data that affects public policy. This comes of course after arguing for years that the likes of Michael Mann and Phil Jones didn't need to release the data and algorithms behind their papers, but should drive public policy anyway, because science!
Like some others here, I find the stunt hilarious, and the unhinged rant by the submitter equally so. Adults will find this kind of stunt annoying, and kids will find it entertaining. Quite frankly, I'd suggest that such kids' opinions matter more than the submitter's.
You're the article submitter, and apparently still just as unhinged now as when you wrote it. BK's ad is annoying and it's audacious, but it doesn't really attain to any of the apocalyptic extremes about which you unhingedly gushed. Let's review the extent of the damage: it might trigger some electronics to talk out loud about a hamburger. "Eeeek," shrieks @ewhac, "It's the hackerzz! I'm telling my mommy!"
You are in seriously need of some perspective. The kicker is that this won't even hurt BK, as everyone sensible will deem it to be no more than an annoying practical joke, and it turns out there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Not sure where you are getting your information. The Republicans have never stopped screaming over Hillary's emails. And more to the point, an actual criminal investigation is ongoing -- the FBI is going to question Hillary's top aides in April and potentially the former Secretary herself shortly thereafter. Are you just making stuff up here? Do you know something I don't know? Really curious.
Power corrupts, yeah. But Machiavellian hearts of darkness are one thing, having the incompetence to get caught is another. I say lock her up and throw away the key. She's one of the weak and sickly world leaders, and this is a natural part of the cycle of life. Our leaders are widely assumed to be scoundrels, so it's not news. But when the curtain slips and there's something tangible to actually indict these people for, then they absolutely do need to be removed from office. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon -- I wish he had let the Justice Department do its thing and air all the dirty laundry instead.
The alternative is that you get leaders who know they can do anything they like, and even flaunt it publicly, and nobody can touch them. Is that what you want?
Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release
Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.
If you follow the link, the Breitbart piece quotes from and summarizes a linked Yahoo News piece by Michael Isikoff. The Isikoff article in turn quotes Congressman Trey Gowdy talked about specific published emails from Hillary's illegal server. Seems adequately substantiated to me. And I disagree with your dismissal of Breitbart, I suspect that claim originates from those who simply don't like their conservative focus. The Brietbart editors certainly make mistakes, but probably no more than some of the larger news gateways and punditry outlets.
Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.
Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.
I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.
And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.
Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.
Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.
So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server
On the contrary, per the US Federal Code, if the IT worker knowingly provided access to classified info on this server, then he could be charged with a crime, even if he was "just following orders". (The proper response to an illegal order is to refuse to carry it out.) However basic fairness says that the head honchos who gave the IT person instructions to enable illegal handling of classified info bear greater responsibility. So it's logical to grant immunity to a lesser wrongdoer in order to get critical testimony to indict the greater wrongdoers.
Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.
It's easy for leftist SJWs to rant against Israel and whitewash the Palestinian cause, but sometimes they accidentally encounter reality. I'm thinking of those college girls who went over to volunteer and demonstrate with Palestinians, and ended up getting sidelined, generally held in contempt, and (yes) raped by adherents of that religion of peace and tolerance. If you're a Jew, you get an extra helping of hate from Palestinian terrorists, but it turns out that they have plenty of general malfeasance to go around. So yes, I'll take the society that's actually trying to move ahead with a liberal (small "L") culture and build chips for Intel over the stabbers and head hackers shouting "Allahu Akbar".
The moral picture is still asymmetrical -- Israel is fighting an existential war of self defense, whereas the Palestinians are fighting to murder and drive out the Jews, and institute a stone age theocracy in place of the Middle East's only democracy. If a few IDF soldiers went unhinged and committed murder (for which I'd expect them to be prosecuted by Israel), that's still both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the acts of murder by Palestinians against Jewish civilians. Palestinian suicide bombers who kill civilians achieve a sort of sainthood in Palestinian society, whereas Israeli soldiers (and orthodox zealots) who go off the reservation make (most) everybody in Israeli society angry, because in their personal acts of revenge they bring dishonor on their country's war effort.
Bracing myself for onslaught of angry leftists, and reflecting on how lucky we are in a society where free speech has been the rule for centuries to be able to blow steam out our ears and argue with each other seven ways to Sunday, without it really occurring to us to shoot and stab one another, at least for the most part (yeah yeah, Slashdot is USA centric).
A much more likely explanation: professionals and graduates are simply exposed to less risk (e.g. they spend more time studying, away from parties and bars).
That was my first thought too, and I agree with the point you're making. However, if the question being asked is "have you ever in your life..." then we're also asking about those people's undergraduate experiences. I'm not sure that you could successfully argue that the vast majority of sorority/fraternity crowd doesn't go on to graduate.
Oddly enough, graduates and professionals report WAY lower rates. So, that means the increase in rape/non-consentual penetration/sexual touching by force is a recent event.
Or else there is a lot of wrong self reporting in these studies. It could be that students of previous years took responsibility for their own boozing and sleeping around without hyperanalyzing and reevaluating it later in light of 2015 feminist attitudes. Not to say that date rape isn't real, just that drunken sleeping around is sometimes something that both people walk into intentionally, and there is a lot of immaturity and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own behavior out there, particularly when "blame the male" is a convenient cop out.
OK, I'm done ranting now. Disclosure: I didn't drink in college, and I hope my own kids stay far from that whole crowd.
So here's a different viewpoint. Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy.
I hate to interrupt your enjoyable session of patting yourself on the back, but have to point out that your attitude is not scientific. If you take a measurement and round it unnecessarily, you are throwing away part of your data. Just enjoying the look of the nice round numbers may be good for your personal psychological well being, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use Twitter, primarily because I refuse to submit to their censorship. Twitter is concerned with nanny like oversight of its users political views and affiliations. They censor some people from telling the truth (particularly right leaning), because it is perceived to hurt other people's feelings. Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to (particularly left leaning) hordes of the most obnoxious trolls posting hateful garbage. Twitter replies to any public figure are usually just about as edifying to read as any popular YouTube channel's comment section, particularly if you aspire to be edified by meaningless schoolyard level taunts. Whenever a journalistic publication attempts to manufacture news with a lead like "Twitter users criticize XYZ" they are just showing either their naivety, or perhaps what a slow news day it is.
VR experiences can give you a (lo-fi) experience of places you could never actually go, such as dangerous industrial or natural environments (inside a nuclear power plant or a volcano), or international travel destinations we can't afford to send our millions of inner city students (Paris, Kuala Lumpur). So sure - go crazy with cheap VR and help kids get a larger view of the world. That's fine, and it can also coexist with "real" field trips where you see/hear/smell and there's opportunity to ask questions of a live human being.
That said, I would like to extend my sincere scorn toward the climate change agenda slipped into the OP. No doubt the Manns and Gores of the world would love to propagandize our children with dramatic (and entirely fictional) apocalyptic 3D scenes to whitewash their own consistently poor ability to predict the future.
Maybe it's just that one side of the political spectrum decided that they couldn't be proper fascists if there were facts, and have been fighting against the very concept of objective truth ever since?
You know, things like
I've associated "fake news" with the D side of the aisle for the most part this past election cycle -- you know, like the whole Russia conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theory very much like birtherism with the Obama presidency.
"wars make peace"
Well, some do. At least, fighting a defensive war can achieve peace if you win.
and "cutting taxes increases revenue collected"
This was the whole reason I replied. You aren't familiar with the Laffer Curve? You think that if government raises taxes, then no other variables in the system change, and money just magically shows up at the IRS?
and "giving people health insurance makes them sicker"
That's a pretty skewed misrepresentation. How about enacting a sick and unworkable health insurance law decreases the quality of American healthcare?
and "letting everyone eligible vote corrupts democracy"
Eligible to vote? You mean people who can show ID? Not sure where you're going with this. Maybe you're one of those people who think black people are too stupid, incompetent, or destitute to carry a voter ID? I'm told there are actually "liberals" today who believe that repugnant nonsense. Certainly not liberals in the classic sense, more like cynical, hyper political hacks who are afraid that illegal aliens who vote Democrat might actually get charged with felonies(?).
and "scientists are lying, the world isn't getting warmer"?
Sorry, not that simple, and unfortunately, the nuances seem over your head, my fine AC.
Swinging a little bit, but a couple more upvotes and I might get the coveted "(Score:5, Troll)", in this case, for triggering some snowflakes by giving the plain truth: the man was a registered Democrat, and Snopes chose to spin and obfuscate that simple fact. What made him a registered Democrat wasn't the state of his mind at the exact instant he committed the murders, nor was it whether he voted for any Republicans in elections since 2006. It was the fact that he (you know) "registered" as a (you know) "Democrat".
When Omar's father showed up on national television standing directly behind Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally, a bunch more Democrats got triggered. (For the slow of wit, I'm NOT saying that the Democratic party consists of bad people or terrorists, but I am alleging that many of them don't trust people to handle plain facts without spin.)
Because the Democrats are good and truth is good. So if a claim about a Democrat is bad, even if it's not a falsehood there must be a little bit mixed in there somewhere. I think the Snopes thought process goes something like that, for this extremely low quality spin piece.
They clearly make their case here. The first thing stated was "He was a registered democrat in 2006" then says, that he haddn't voted since then,
Whoa, whoa, stop with the lying. The article says they don't know whether he voted since then. It doesn't say he "haddn't"[sic] voted since then. The article was using various weasel words to soften the blow of revealing that Omar was a registered Democrat, full stop.
You still didn't provide any proof for your allegations.
Nobody gives a fuck about what you agree with -- either provide some kind of evidence or shut the fuck up.
As it turns out, nobody really cares what an AC thinks either. (Although some Slashdotters will upvote your comment and downvote mine for political reasons, just like Snopes edits their stuff with a political bias.)
I posted a link above.
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Snopes doesn't have a political agenda, nosirree!
Agreed, they have gotten way too political, resulting in turning off approximately 50% of their readership. When a "fact check" says something is "false" because even though it is true, it didn't push A, B, and C talking points of the "fact checker's" political agenda... good riddance, I'm not weeping over their (potential) demise. Debunking Bill Gates handout rumors was their strong point and they should have stuck to that.
(Disclaimer: I sometimes watch R rated movies, I don't filter them. I "filter" some movies for my kids by totally disallowing them from watching them, not by use of VidAngel.)
It is fascinating to see people commenting here who any other day of the week would be pirating movies off torrents, and today are full of righteous indignation when people watch films WHICH THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO WATCH, and apply a viewing filter to it.
Also fascinating that this is supposedly a tech blog, and here we have people "hacking" movies and TV to suit themselves, and suddenly it's like "Oh noes!!! The evil TV content hackerz are doing bad things by buying something and then modifying it to suit their own tastes!!! If they don't use it exactly like I use it, then they are bad people!!!" (Am I wrong here? Nope, I'm not wrong.)
Seriously, step outside your own shoes, take a look at yourselves -- and laugh. (I'm certainly laughing at you.) Then maybe consider chilling and adopting a more libertarian view here instead of this Puritanism that wants to force a particular worldview on other people -- in this case, forcing people to consume media with strong language/violence/nudity.
No doubt climate skeptics are facepalming everywhere to hear the climate alarmists suddenly very concerned about public accessibility for data that affects public policy. This comes of course after arguing for years that the likes of Michael Mann and Phil Jones didn't need to release the data and algorithms behind their papers, but should drive public policy anyway, because science!
Like some others here, I find the stunt hilarious, and the unhinged rant by the submitter equally so. Adults will find this kind of stunt annoying, and kids will find it entertaining. Quite frankly, I'd suggest that such kids' opinions matter more than the submitter's.
You're the article submitter, and apparently still just as unhinged now as when you wrote it. BK's ad is annoying and it's audacious, but it doesn't really attain to any of the apocalyptic extremes about which you unhingedly gushed. Let's review the extent of the damage: it might trigger some electronics to talk out loud about a hamburger. "Eeeek," shrieks @ewhac, "It's the hackerzz! I'm telling my mommy!"
You are in seriously need of some perspective. The kicker is that this won't even hurt BK, as everyone sensible will deem it to be no more than an annoying practical joke, and it turns out there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Not sure where you are getting your information. The Republicans have never stopped screaming over Hillary's emails. And more to the point, an actual criminal investigation is ongoing -- the FBI is going to question Hillary's top aides in April and potentially the former Secretary herself shortly thereafter. Are you just making stuff up here? Do you know something I don't know? Really curious.
Power corrupts, yeah. But Machiavellian hearts of darkness are one thing, having the incompetence to get caught is another. I say lock her up and throw away the key. She's one of the weak and sickly world leaders, and this is a natural part of the cycle of life. Our leaders are widely assumed to be scoundrels, so it's not news. But when the curtain slips and there's something tangible to actually indict these people for, then they absolutely do need to be removed from office. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon -- I wish he had let the Justice Department do its thing and air all the dirty laundry instead.
The alternative is that you get leaders who know they can do anything they like, and even flaunt it publicly, and nobody can touch them. Is that what you want?
Hold on, Tex, she said in an interview that's simply short-hand for cleaning it up for non-classified release
Maybe. Or maybe she's lying about that, the same way she lied in her claim that there was no classified material on her server. She deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of a fair law enforcement investigation, but news flash -- she really doesn't deserve the benefit of the public's doubt.
If you follow the link, the Breitbart piece quotes from and summarizes a linked Yahoo News piece by Michael Isikoff. The Isikoff article in turn quotes Congressman Trey Gowdy talked about specific published emails from Hillary's illegal server. Seems adequately substantiated to me. And I disagree with your dismissal of Breitbart, I suspect that claim originates from those who simply don't like their conservative focus. The Brietbart editors certainly make mistakes, but probably no more than some of the larger news gateways and punditry outlets.
Information that is "Top Secret" is born classified.
Only in the land of fairies and unicorns. Information is born and everyone with a classification is supposed to submit it to a original certification authority that'll determine what, if any, classification status it'll get. Primarily it's the one who creates this information but secondarily everyone who receives it also has an independent duty to get any information they think is classified reviewed. From what I gather a lot of people sent information to Clinton's server that has been retroactively classified, meaning those who sent it didn't do their job. The accusations are so far as I can tell that Clinton should have recognized some of this information as obviously classified, so she didn't do her job either.
I'd be much more interested to hear if there's any accusations of mishandling actual, pre-classified information. It's one thing to say that you could have, should have, maybe seen this was classified it's quite another to be reckless about content that's clearly marked secret/top secret. If they can prove that, they might have an actual case against her. If it's only a case of omission as a recipient of information that ought to be classified, that doesn't seem like that big a deal.
And the Special Access Program (SAP) information? The emails that everybody involved, including the recipient Clinton, certainly knew was always and permanently classified? Clinton committed a crime in multiple ways in the handling of that info. Here's an example -- simply leaving the received email on her server in any format that could be read by her own IT staff was a crime. Deleting it and knowing that the bytes might still be on the HDD would also be a crime. Ignoring the situation was a crime.
Of course, somebody went to great lengths to somehow hop the airgap between the SAP network and the public internet. But even as the recipient, Clinton committed a crime in allowing that email to continue to exist on her server.
Stop trying to paint her as anything other than a willing lawbreaker on this. Lesser analysts of the State Dept or the TLA intelligence agencies would go to jail right away. It's only the Democratic party's M.O. of corruption while they hold the reins of power that keeps Obama's DOJ from arresting her.
So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server
On the contrary, per the US Federal Code, if the IT worker knowingly provided access to classified info on this server, then he could be charged with a crime, even if he was "just following orders". (The proper response to an illegal order is to refuse to carry it out.) However basic fairness says that the head honchos who gave the IT person instructions to enable illegal handling of classified info bear greater responsibility. So it's logical to grant immunity to a lesser wrongdoer in order to get critical testimony to indict the greater wrongdoers.
Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.
It's easy for leftist SJWs to rant against Israel and whitewash the Palestinian cause, but sometimes they accidentally encounter reality. I'm thinking of those college girls who went over to volunteer and demonstrate with Palestinians, and ended up getting sidelined, generally held in contempt, and (yes) raped by adherents of that religion of peace and tolerance. If you're a Jew, you get an extra helping of hate from Palestinian terrorists, but it turns out that they have plenty of general malfeasance to go around. So yes, I'll take the society that's actually trying to move ahead with a liberal (small "L") culture and build chips for Intel over the stabbers and head hackers shouting "Allahu Akbar".
The moral picture is still asymmetrical -- Israel is fighting an existential war of self defense, whereas the Palestinians are fighting to murder and drive out the Jews, and institute a stone age theocracy in place of the Middle East's only democracy. If a few IDF soldiers went unhinged and committed murder (for which I'd expect them to be prosecuted by Israel), that's still both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the acts of murder by Palestinians against Jewish civilians. Palestinian suicide bombers who kill civilians achieve a sort of sainthood in Palestinian society, whereas Israeli soldiers (and orthodox zealots) who go off the reservation make (most) everybody in Israeli society angry, because in their personal acts of revenge they bring dishonor on their country's war effort.
Bracing myself for onslaught of angry leftists, and reflecting on how lucky we are in a society where free speech has been the rule for centuries to be able to blow steam out our ears and argue with each other seven ways to Sunday, without it really occurring to us to shoot and stab one another, at least for the most part (yeah yeah, Slashdot is USA centric).
Seems like a "fake bomb" detector could be a valuable thing as long as it's put to the right use.
A much more likely explanation: professionals and graduates are simply exposed to less risk (e.g. they spend more time studying, away from parties and bars).
That was my first thought too, and I agree with the point you're making. However, if the question being asked is "have you ever in your life..." then we're also asking about those people's undergraduate experiences. I'm not sure that you could successfully argue that the vast majority of sorority/fraternity crowd doesn't go on to graduate.
Oddly enough, graduates and professionals report WAY lower rates. So, that means the increase in rape/non-consentual penetration/sexual touching by force is a recent event.
Or else there is a lot of wrong self reporting in these studies. It could be that students of previous years took responsibility for their own boozing and sleeping around without hyperanalyzing and reevaluating it later in light of 2015 feminist attitudes. Not to say that date rape isn't real, just that drunken sleeping around is sometimes something that both people walk into intentionally, and there is a lot of immaturity and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own behavior out there, particularly when "blame the male" is a convenient cop out.
OK, I'm done ranting now. Disclosure: I didn't drink in college, and I hope my own kids stay far from that whole crowd.
So here's a different viewpoint. Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy.
I hate to interrupt your enjoyable session of patting yourself on the back, but have to point out that your attitude is not scientific. If you take a measurement and round it unnecessarily, you are throwing away part of your data. Just enjoying the look of the nice round numbers may be good for your personal psychological well being, I suppose.