Just not very well. Owning, carrying and handling a gun in ways that are against the law are victimless crimes -- unless of course, those guns are used to commit OTHER crimes which are not victimless (like murder or theft).
People, for the most part, will obey gun laws -- except the burglars and killers. Really, the only people who will obey the limits on ownership and carry are the ones who would never use a gun in such a way.
So, when the original poster noted that it's a bad law because it puts otherwise law-abiding people in jail he was right. And by you trying to equivocate his statement to removing "all laws" actually suggests you can't "logic" very well.
"it's unclear if he would have killed more people if they'd not shot him".
Nice quote. It's a reporter's quote and not necessarily false -- just misleading to take it for face value. Think it through. When do mass shooters stop shooting? When the (A) run out of ammo and/or (B) when confronted with an armed response. If the "armed response" happened BEFORE the police got there, then there's a pretty good logical path to "more deaths" UNTIL the police got there. Is it CERTAIN? No. You wouldn't get a "beyond reasonable doubt" on that (not implying any judicial meaning -- just quality of certainty). But if you were a betting man and this were Vegas, you'd bet any day of the week and three times on Sunday for more deaths until the police arrive -- it's almost a 'sure thing'.
You say: "The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools."
Ok. But you also agree that THIS is true: "A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law."
Does it matter what the sign was for if the results are the same? That a "criminal will probably ignore and wont care about in the least" being a bad law if it only "(puts) law-abiding people in jail"?
If you are in low gravity, you can pick up much heavier objects and throw them at your friends. Getting hit with a 1 lbs rock will do less damage than getting hit with a 100 lbs rock -- gotta love how mass works.
Is there enough wind to MOVE huge rocks and people in space suits? Not really. But explosive decomp in lower gravity could possibily toss a 180 lbs human out the door and a decent rate of speed. And if there was a sudden stop (slamming in to a cliff or another habitat module), that could be pretty damaging. Maybe instead of a sand-storm there should have been an explosive decomp.
"There needs to be multiple paths of learning, so that those that are advancing faster can continue to advance."
Unless you plan to build "Plato's Republic" and take everyone's kids away from their parents and raise them in a communal group MUCH of what you request needs parental involvement.
"The fact is, nobody is going to hire people they don't need just to give them busy work to stroke your puritan work ethic."
Follow the conversation. Don't just jump in somewhere in the middle and try to sound smart.
"Please share with us your magical job listing site that has millions of openings for people to answer phones and stuff envelopes."
If we decide to do this "basic income" thing then I believe we need to make people work for it. Since they are going to be given this "free money" anyway, eliminate machines that save companies and government agencies countless dollars through automation and have the people getting this "basic income" do the work to earn their check. The "magic job listing" will be everywhere because. One example: why should company "B" pay for burger flipping robot "A" (including the cost of maintenance) doing the work of 3-4 burger flippers when it get get 3-4 burger flippers for free.
What is cheaper? "Free laborers" getting "free money"? Or spending on a robot?
" But provision of public services as being a bad thing...yes, I am stating he was wrong."
I'll suggestion you don't know much about Franklin if you can make a statement like that. Look up Pennsylvania Hospital in relation to Franklin to see where he stood on public services as a single example. And with that I'll disregard your believe that Franklin was wrong as being ignorant of the subject at hand. Please understand I'm not insulting you but making an observation. I have no doubt you are intelligent -- you just don't know much about Franklin. You can fix that ignorance -- I cant.
I'm, not sure I get your argument. Are you saying that because he wasn't right about everything (which I'll accept as a given though you provided no examples) that he must be wrong about this? And that because he talked about sobriety in an unflattering light that he was wrong about it because there were times he was not sober?
#1: Because he wasn't right about everything doesn't mean he is therefore wrong about this. #2: Because he at times wasn't sober at some times (and in no such way as to impact his ability to make a living) doesn't mean that he cannot point out the effects of extreme insobriety.
Franklin's greatest 'skill' or 'gift' was his power of observation. Maybe you should consider *THAT* when weighing the credibility of his statements...
Example: Save $12k on an envelope stuffing machine (and more on maintaining it). Have people 'earn' their checks stuffing envelopes for the state/fed.
If someone wants a "basic income", let them work for it. Work can be found for nearly any one in nearly any physical condition. Cant walk? Answer phones, stuff envelopes, whatever. If someone is truly an invalid, of course -- but we should be talking paralyzed or dementia... Simple rules -- no mind altering substances (booze, drugs, etc while on the job).
And you will STILL have people living on the streets asking for money for their 'habit'.
I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
and
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them [Great Britain]. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful? And do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burden? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
I know the reasons you would list "why". I disagree with them because it's not the WAGE that's really the issue.
If you don't want to be poor, don't have kids before you are 18. Don't have kids before you are married. Don't have kids before you finish college. Raise kids together (2 parent household).
Each one of those will give a significant statistical jump to make sure you should never be poor. I think you are smart enough that *I* don't have to list why.
Richer and far more successful than my parents -- and -- my apologies, I consider myself quite successful. I pay my bills, I own a home. I raise my family and a participate in my community. My household brings in bit less than 2x the median income for my state/city -- and I bring in a bit more than the average wage). I have a decent retirement account. We ENJOY our leisure time. Yet, I do not consider myself "rich" (nor would anyone else) -- which is the point I made and you missed entirely. And I illustrated that I came from not only modest means but a broken home.
I was the first in my family to finish high-school -- never mind go to college. And I did so without accumulating any debt and selecting a topic of study that had a decent shot of paying well. I expect, if I've done a decent job, my children will surpass my accomplishments. How that cannot be a 'success' I do not know.
As as far as being "rich", what do you consider 'rich'? The top 1%? If that's the case, seriously -- how is that any real measure? Or is your measure of "success" measured not in providing for your family and teaching THEM how to provide for themselves but in how must "stuff" you can accumulate?
And if you solely use deductive logic you end up with a paradox. "Where is every one?" Clearly either are facts are wrong or incomplete to the point of drawing inaccurate conclusions.
So... lets loosen up the purse string on definable facts down to "possible" and "probable" and see what shakes loose.
Sorry. Disagree. I was from a poor working family (with a ton of other issues, too). I was homeless for a good year. I had enough cash for food, to get a hotel room once or twice a week AND pay for school books/tuition working part time. What I didn't do is spend my money on drugs, booze or waste my time "hanging out" or "partying".
By "rich", do you mean home owner? Then yes. I own an average valued home. I make a bit above an average wage in my area. I drive the same truck I purchased over 25 years ago. I work more than 8 hours a day (as does my wife) and we BOTH care for and are involved with our children's lives. That's how rich we are.
Yet, now -- I'm married, two kids, own a home, etc etc etc. There were no books in my my home when I was growing up. I 'discovered' that escape when I was 10 or 11. Probably saved me from repeating the same poor judgements of many of my family members.
"how the hell can anyone use the ONE sample we have to infer the odds of the other 8 steps?"
Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you--with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out". Inductive logic is much more difficult --but can produce new truths.
I think you'll also find the problem with lack of parental involvement has increased as the number of single parent house holds have increased.
I further think you'll find that having kids after 22 will increase ones chances of not being poor.
And lastly, I think you'll find that not having kids until you are married will increase ones chances of not being poor.
Is the solution to further break the traditional family unit which has worked for recorded history by offering further incentives to lack any type of self-control or self discipline or do we offer incentives to have kids AFTER marriage rather than BEFORE marriage?
"Just as the best way to ensure your kid sees reading as anything other than a chore is for you to read for pleasure regularly (for which read: pretty much whenever opportunity allows)."
I don't know if it's the BEST way, but it is *A* way.
I read to my kids every night when they were young (now both teenagers). The way I got them interested in reading is to "A" read with emotion and character voices and "B" stop at cliff-hangers, not at chapter breaks. My son would go bonkers when I would say: "...then there was a BANG! -- Ok, that's it for tonight. If you'd like to pick up the book and read ahead, you've got 15 mins before 'lights out'".
My daughter took a bit more work but eventually got there. She's not the "word sponge" my son is, but she reads a good 2 or 3 books a month on her own.
The scene where the "girl in the game store" invokes male customer shock may go back to the 70's, 80's and maybe even the 90's some but I've hit some game and comic book shops where I was the only male in the store -- and I was taking my daughter there at her request.
"isn't democracy a type of government... and more government is never the solution so... we need less democracy and this is clearly the step in the right direction."
I know you are being sarcastic, but you are in fact right -- we need *LESS* democracy. You cannot have liberty with greater democracy -- nor with a powerful central government (no matter the type). There's a reason why the US isn't a democracy, but a republic -- and the bits of democracy added were *NOT* to give the people a larger voice, but to counter the voice of the state governments in their appointment of Senators (who where appointed, not elected). Our founders were about as afraid of democracy as they were of monarchy.
We can argue about the reasons for the 17th amendment -- but I believe the solution created un-intended consequences that have damaged and continue to damage our nation and liberty and have caused wide and systemic divides between our peoples. "If you agree with "X", you are EVIL!" (where 'X' is abortion-bans, or gun control, or gay marriage or whatever). You cant long run a nation like that before you have too many folks will feel their liberty is trampled. 20 years ago, talk of secession was the realm of nut-jobs and the tin-foil hat crowd. Today, while still a bit wacky, it's coming from many who are much more main stream.
Our government was designed to SLOW dramatic changes until a critical mass of the governed "agree" on something. Now, it can be done by judicial fiat where a slight majority (or arguably even a minority in some cases) agree.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
How long until enough people perceive they are alienated by the government before they want to govern themselves? Remember, 18th century patriots were a minority and about 60%-70% were either loyalist or indifferent. And you think a few folks with a 'cause' cant disrupt a government, look at Libya and Syria right now.
I think you miss the point. The point is that one task cannot take up his entire attention (the ability to focus).
I've never been DXd with ADD or ADHD -- but I am aspy. I similarly had the issue described above. However, I found my work-around was to have the TV playing in the background or listen to an audio book or music while I did homework. It needed to be something I was already familiar with so it wouldn't draw too much of my attention. That way, the part of me which WAS working on something that needed to get done wouldn't get bored or become easily distracted.
In class, I had a number of other "work arounds". I would "ignore" the teacher and work on another subject while they lectured (if it was material I could get from the book). Or I might find something mildly entertaining to think about (for me it was reciting Monty Python sketches in my head) if I needed to focus on the lecture. I found I could also focus better without distractions when taking notes if I used multi-colored pens and categorized sections by color.
My understanding is the ADD/ADHD crowd could NOT really adapt the way I could and as I've gotten older, I've been able to wrangle in the various "bubbles" of attention in to problem solving groups without needing to "trick" myself with outside diversions.
One of my earliest memories from elementary school (probably 2nd or 3rd grade) was when I was talking with a class mate and the teacher interrupted me and asked me to repeat what she had been saying. I went on to repeat everything she said for the last 5 mins. She was an awesome teacher -- She got me. She explained to me that while *I* could pay attention while doing other things others could not and I needed to find something else to do that wasn't distracting to THEM.
Slashdot Mirror
" I can logic too."
Just not very well. Owning, carrying and handling a gun in ways that are against the law are victimless crimes -- unless of course, those guns are used to commit OTHER crimes which are not victimless (like murder or theft).
People, for the most part, will obey gun laws -- except the burglars and killers. Really, the only people who will obey the limits on ownership and carry are the ones who would never use a gun in such a way.
So, when the original poster noted that it's a bad law because it puts otherwise law-abiding people in jail he was right. And by you trying to equivocate his statement to removing "all laws" actually suggests you can't "logic" very well.
"it's unclear if he would have killed more people if they'd not shot him".
Nice quote. It's a reporter's quote and not necessarily false -- just misleading to take it for face value. Think it through. When do mass shooters stop shooting? When the (A) run out of ammo and/or (B) when confronted with an armed response. If the "armed response" happened BEFORE the police got there, then there's a pretty good logical path to "more deaths" UNTIL the police got there. Is it CERTAIN? No. You wouldn't get a "beyond reasonable doubt" on that (not implying any judicial meaning -- just quality of certainty). But if you were a betting man and this were Vegas, you'd bet any day of the week and three times on Sunday for more deaths until the police arrive -- it's almost a 'sure thing'.
You say: "The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools."
Ok. But you also agree that THIS is true: "A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law."
Does it matter what the sign was for if the results are the same? That a "criminal will probably ignore and wont care about in the least" being a bad law if it only "(puts) law-abiding people in jail"?
If you are in low gravity, you can pick up much heavier objects and throw them at your friends. Getting hit with a 1 lbs rock will do less damage than getting hit with a 100 lbs rock -- gotta love how mass works.
Is there enough wind to MOVE huge rocks and people in space suits? Not really. But explosive decomp in lower gravity could possibily toss a 180 lbs human out the door and a decent rate of speed. And if there was a sudden stop (slamming in to a cliff or another habitat module), that could be pretty damaging. Maybe instead of a sand-storm there should have been an explosive decomp.
"There needs to be multiple paths of learning, so that those that are advancing faster can continue to advance."
Unless you plan to build "Plato's Republic" and take everyone's kids away from their parents and raise them in a communal group MUCH of what you request needs parental involvement.
"What we really need is enrichment programs designed to counteract that starting from a young age."
We *HAVE* 'enrichment programs' that are 'designed to counteract' exactly what you describe. Some have worked and some are money pits.
Edison didn't invent the light bulb -- he invented a way to make it cheaply (no platinum) and last longer.
"The fact is, nobody is going to hire people they don't need just to give them busy work to stroke your puritan work ethic."
Follow the conversation. Don't just jump in somewhere in the middle and try to sound smart.
"Please share with us your magical job listing site that has millions of openings for people to answer phones and stuff envelopes."
If we decide to do this "basic income" thing then I believe we need to make people work for it. Since they are going to be given this "free money" anyway, eliminate machines that save companies and government agencies countless dollars through automation and have the people getting this "basic income" do the work to earn their check. The "magic job listing" will be everywhere because. One example: why should company "B" pay for burger flipping robot "A" (including the cost of maintenance) doing the work of 3-4 burger flippers when it get get 3-4 burger flippers for free.
What is cheaper? "Free laborers" getting "free money"? Or spending on a robot?
" But provision of public services as being a bad thing...yes, I am stating he was wrong."
I'll suggestion you don't know much about Franklin if you can make a statement like that. Look up Pennsylvania Hospital in relation to Franklin to see where he stood on public services as a single example. And with that I'll disregard your believe that Franklin was wrong as being ignorant of the subject at hand. Please understand I'm not insulting you but making an observation. I have no doubt you are intelligent -- you just don't know much about Franklin. You can fix that ignorance -- I cant.
I'm, not sure I get your argument. Are you saying that because he wasn't right about everything (which I'll accept as a given though you provided no examples) that he must be wrong about this? And that because he talked about sobriety in an unflattering light that he was wrong about it because there were times he was not sober?
#1: Because he wasn't right about everything doesn't mean he is therefore wrong about this.
#2: Because he at times wasn't sober at some times (and in no such way as to impact his ability to make a living) doesn't mean that he cannot point out the effects of extreme insobriety.
Franklin's greatest 'skill' or 'gift' was his power of observation. Maybe you should consider *THAT* when weighing the credibility of his statements...
Example: Save $12k on an envelope stuffing machine (and more on maintaining it). Have people 'earn' their checks stuffing envelopes for the state/fed.
If someone wants a "basic income", let them work for it. Work can be found for nearly any one in nearly any physical condition. Cant walk? Answer phones, stuff envelopes, whatever. If someone is truly an invalid, of course -- but we should be talking paralyzed or dementia... Simple rules -- no mind altering substances (booze, drugs, etc while on the job).
And you will STILL have people living on the streets asking for money for their 'habit'.
and
I know the reasons you would list "why". I disagree with them because it's not the WAGE that's really the issue.
If you don't want to be poor, don't have kids before you are 18. Don't have kids before you are married. Don't have kids before you finish college. Raise kids together (2 parent household).
Each one of those will give a significant statistical jump to make sure you should never be poor. I think you are smart enough that *I* don't have to list why.
Richer and far more successful than my parents -- and -- my apologies, I consider myself quite successful. I pay my bills, I own a home. I raise my family and a participate in my community. My household brings in bit less than 2x the median income for my state/city -- and I bring in a bit more than the average wage). I have a decent retirement account. We ENJOY our leisure time. Yet, I do not consider myself "rich" (nor would anyone else) -- which is the point I made and you missed entirely. And I illustrated that I came from not only modest means but a broken home.
I was the first in my family to finish high-school -- never mind go to college. And I did so without accumulating any debt and selecting a topic of study that had a decent shot of paying well. I expect, if I've done a decent job, my children will surpass my accomplishments. How that cannot be a 'success' I do not know.
As as far as being "rich", what do you consider 'rich'? The top 1%? If that's the case, seriously -- how is that any real measure? Or is your measure of "success" measured not in providing for your family and teaching THEM how to provide for themselves but in how must "stuff" you can accumulate?
And if you solely use deductive logic you end up with a paradox. "Where is every one?" Clearly either are facts are wrong or incomplete to the point of drawing inaccurate conclusions.
So... lets loosen up the purse string on definable facts down to "possible" and "probable" and see what shakes loose.
Sorry. Disagree. I was from a poor working family (with a ton of other issues, too). I was homeless for a good year. I had enough cash for food, to get a hotel room once or twice a week AND pay for school books/tuition working part time. What I didn't do is spend my money on drugs, booze or waste my time "hanging out" or "partying".
By "rich", do you mean home owner? Then yes. I own an average valued home. I make a bit above an average wage in my area. I drive the same truck I purchased over 25 years ago. I work more than 8 hours a day (as does my wife) and we BOTH care for and are involved with our children's lives. That's how rich we are.
Yet, now -- I'm married, two kids, own a home, etc etc etc. There were no books in my my home when I was growing up. I 'discovered' that escape when I was 10 or 11. Probably saved me from repeating the same poor judgements of many of my family members.
"how the hell can anyone use the ONE sample we have to infer the odds of the other 8 steps?"
-- The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
That's how.
" But things like "Number of books in the home" have a high positive correlation with success for kids."
Heh. I *do* have over 3000 books.
I think you'll also find the problem with lack of parental involvement has increased as the number of single parent house holds have increased.
I further think you'll find that having kids after 22 will increase ones chances of not being poor.
And lastly, I think you'll find that not having kids until you are married will increase ones chances of not being poor.
Is the solution to further break the traditional family unit which has worked for recorded history by offering further incentives to lack any type of self-control or self discipline or do we offer incentives to have kids AFTER marriage rather than BEFORE marriage?
Well, LAUSD learned a valuable lesson. Don't buy ipads.
"Just as the best way to ensure your kid sees reading as anything other than a chore is for you to read for pleasure regularly (for which read: pretty much whenever opportunity allows)."
I don't know if it's the BEST way, but it is *A* way.
I read to my kids every night when they were young (now both teenagers). The way I got them interested in reading is to "A" read with emotion and character voices and "B" stop at cliff-hangers, not at chapter breaks. My son would go bonkers when I would say: "...then there was a BANG! -- Ok, that's it for tonight. If you'd like to pick up the book and read ahead, you've got 15 mins before 'lights out'".
My daughter took a bit more work but eventually got there. She's not the "word sponge" my son is, but she reads a good 2 or 3 books a month on her own.
The scene where the "girl in the game store" invokes male customer shock may go back to the 70's, 80's and maybe even the 90's some but I've hit some game and comic book shops where I was the only male in the store -- and I was taking my daughter there at her request.
Times they are a-changing...
"isn't democracy a type of government... and more government is never the solution so... we need less democracy and this is clearly the step in the right direction."
I know you are being sarcastic, but you are in fact right -- we need *LESS* democracy. You cannot have liberty with greater democracy -- nor with a powerful central government (no matter the type). There's a reason why the US isn't a democracy, but a republic -- and the bits of democracy added were *NOT* to give the people a larger voice, but to counter the voice of the state governments in their appointment of Senators (who where appointed, not elected). Our founders were about as afraid of democracy as they were of monarchy.
We can argue about the reasons for the 17th amendment -- but I believe the solution created un-intended consequences that have damaged and continue to damage our nation and liberty and have caused wide and systemic divides between our peoples. "If you agree with "X", you are EVIL!" (where 'X' is abortion-bans, or gun control, or gay marriage or whatever). You cant long run a nation like that before you have too many folks will feel their liberty is trampled. 20 years ago, talk of secession was the realm of nut-jobs and the tin-foil hat crowd. Today, while still a bit wacky, it's coming from many who are much more main stream.
Our government was designed to SLOW dramatic changes until a critical mass of the governed "agree" on something. Now, it can be done by judicial fiat where a slight majority (or arguably even a minority in some cases) agree.
How long until enough people perceive they are alienated by the government before they want to govern themselves? Remember, 18th century patriots were a minority and about 60%-70% were either loyalist or indifferent. And you think a few folks with a 'cause' cant disrupt a government, look at Libya and Syria right now.
Their unlimited 2g is at 64kbps. And insane latency.
That said, I have straight talk and I'm quite happy with it. I rarely go over 3GB in a month (since I have wifi at home and work).
"That isn't ADD, it's being bored"
I think you miss the point. The point is that one task cannot take up his entire attention (the ability to focus).
I've never been DXd with ADD or ADHD -- but I am aspy. I similarly had the issue described above. However, I found my work-around was to have the TV playing in the background or listen to an audio book or music while I did homework. It needed to be something I was already familiar with so it wouldn't draw too much of my attention. That way, the part of me which WAS working on something that needed to get done wouldn't get bored or become easily distracted.
In class, I had a number of other "work arounds". I would "ignore" the teacher and work on another subject while they lectured (if it was material I could get from the book). Or I might find something mildly entertaining to think about (for me it was reciting Monty Python sketches in my head) if I needed to focus on the lecture. I found I could also focus better without distractions when taking notes if I used multi-colored pens and categorized sections by color.
My understanding is the ADD/ADHD crowd could NOT really adapt the way I could and as I've gotten older, I've been able to wrangle in the various "bubbles" of attention in to problem solving groups without needing to "trick" myself with outside diversions.
One of my earliest memories from elementary school (probably 2nd or 3rd grade) was when I was talking with a class mate and the teacher interrupted me and asked me to repeat what she had been saying. I went on to repeat everything she said for the last 5 mins. She was an awesome teacher -- She got me. She explained to me that while *I* could pay attention while doing other things others could not and I needed to find something else to do that wasn't distracting to THEM.