from FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2011:
H0 = # of homicides regardless of weapon (Table 20) = 12664
H1 = # of homicides committed with guns in 2011 (Table 20) = 8583
A0 = # of aggravated assaults, all weapons (Table 22) = 652169
A1 = # of aggravated assaults wherein a gun was used (Table 22) = 138336
You have to follow my logic here. An attack within intent to do grave harm in which the victim dies is classified as a homicide. If the victim survives, it is classified as an aggravated assault.
Guns were used in H1/H0 = 8583/12664 = 67.8% of all homicides, but only (A1/A0) = 138336/652169 = 21.2% of all aggravated assaults. The best figure, however is not that. The figure I'm interested in is the statistical probability that an attack results in death. So in that case, I want the following figure:
Chance that an attack results in death (all weapons) = H0 / (H0 + A0) = 12264 / (12264 + 642169) = 1.874%.
But if you consider only attacks with guns, the figure = H1 (H1 + A1) = 8583 / (8583 + 138336) = 5.842%
According to this method of calculation, an assailant with a gun is 3.11 times more deadly than the average assailant.
Now consider strictly non-gun assaults. There were A2 = A0-A1 = 513883 non-gun assaults and there were H2 = H0 - H1 = 4081 non-gun homicide. The probability of death in non-gun homicides is much lower:
odds of death in non-gun homicide = H2 / (H2 + A2) = 4081/(4081+513883) = 0.7879%
The odds of death in a gun assault are 5.842%. Odds of death in a non-gun assault are 0.7879%. That is 7.4x higher. Sorry, it's not 9X greater. It's only 7.4X greater. I misremembered my results.
If you're interested in the relative deadliness of knives, the figures are there in the same tables I quoted: H3 = # of homicides committed with knives = 1694. A3 = # of aggravated assaults using a knife = 124380. H3/(H3+A3) = 1.344%. They're about a third as deadly as guns.
IMO, these numbers underestimate the relative deadliness of weapons of all kinds because few assaults are considered "aggravated" unless there's a weapon involved or great bodily harm is done. If the victim isn't greatly harmed, it is almost always classified as a simple assault, and there are a lot more simple assaults (many, perhaps most not even reported to police) than aggravated assaults. Some of those assaults would likely have turned deadly had the assailant had a gun.
If there were a lot fewer guns to steal or sell into the black market, there would be a lot fewer guns stolen or available on the black market and consequently a lot fewer people who should not have guns would have them. Or, if there were a lot greater penalties for having a stolen gun or for selling a gun to a person who should not have one, that would also reduce the number of guns on the black market.
If I had my way, most people would be allowed to buy guns, in very limited numbers and every gun would have to be registered instantly. Possession of an unregistered gun would be a felony. Sale of a gun without transfer of registry would be a felony. Use of a gun in an assault or other serious crime would be punished the same as homicide.
Would you rather face a belligerent person person carrying a gun or one carrying a knife, all else being equal?
A belligerent person with a gun is MUCH more dangerous than a belligerent person with no gun, statistically speaking. I've done the math. A gun is frequently (more than once per hour in the USA) the difference between an assault and a homicide. (The death rate for people assaulted with guns is about 9x higher than that for all aggravated assaults.)
Anybody who says different is either lying or delusional.
The reasons people don't want "smart" guns has nothing to do with that. I'll list some of them here:
* the sensors add a lot of cost to the gun.
* the utility of the gun is reduced because you can't lend it to your buddy at the shooting range.
* it's harder to sell because it has to be reprogrammed.
* it's harder to demo to a customer for the same reason.
* the sensors may malfunction and fail to identify you.
* the sensors may fail to identify you if your hand is injured.
If I'm the political guy who has no skills and my head is on the line if my subordinates do anything wrong, my number one priority is going to be that my subordinates don't do anything at all.
So the data is in their possession but not yours? When the founders wrote these laws, what they meant by seizure was the government comes and TAKES YOUR STUFF AWAY FROM YOU. They didn't mean the government has copies of information that you still have in your possession. Only the SEARCH aspect is even relevant to electronic data unless they are taking your only copy or they are locking you out, which I have not heard about in relation to Snowden.
And search where there is a warrant isn't protected by ANY law. If the NSA seeks a warrant and they get a warrant, then you can complain about them seeking warrants they don't really need, or complain that the judge should have denied the warrant because probable cause wasn't there. But if the NSA sought the warrant and got the warrant, how were they violating your rights?
Yes. My point is, if you cherry pick mistakes, every organization will look incompetent. Name one big organization that hasn't made big, costly mistakes. Is Microsoft run by fools who know nothing about software or business because Windows 8 sucks? Does Ford know nothing about cars because they gave us the Pinto?
Considering what I've seen since the initial release of information, I am no longer sure Snowden had any evidence of the government breaking any laws (or 4th Amendment protections). I do think it went way beyond what was reasonable and necessary to do its job, and the government kept secret a great deal of information about what it was doing that should have been the subject of public debate before it was permitted to do it. And it's clear that their director perjured himself before Congress, for which he should have been and still should be fired and charged.
Whether in the end what Snowden did was justified is for a jury to decide,whatever the Nobel Committee thinks.
All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.
The scanners the TSA uses are safe and effective.
Putting millions on subsidized healthcare and ensuring even more of the incidental costs are hidden from consumers will reduce healthcare spending.
There was no coup in Egypt...
One of those, the third one specifically, stands out as not fitting the theme.
You do realise it's the *same government* that has given us the TSA, the FDA, and the many other ruinous mistakes in every area it's involved in that you expect is magically going to take charge of health care and make us all better?
Surely you jest.
This is also the same government that put a lander on Mars with a sky crane and created the internet. And how come the FDA doesn't get credit for making food and drugs in the USA among the safest in the world?
Yup, I have heard of that BS excuse to not need to impose jail time for people in government. It clearly doesn't work and needs to be rethought for that purpose.
Frankly, government corruption and incompetence is the only category of crime I support the death penalty for. Even a serial killer can only have so many victims. Maybe we can learn something from them over time...but... government employees? No, their org keeps on going, examples need to be made of them, they can hurt hundreds of thousands of people with a simple missstep like this. They need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.
If a few people swung when this sort of fuckup came about so many people are put in harms way, I have no problem with publicly hanging the people involved.
It would set a perfect precedent for once people realize what damage other polices have done.
That would make it pretty hard to hire people with skills.
PLA isn't stable enough for anything but one-time-use parts. ABS is strong and stable. Sabre also has flexible materials. (http://www.mediacopy.co.uk/3d_printing_material_properties.htm). ABS parts can be treated in a acetone vapor bath to smooth their surfaces in cases where that's important.
When I'm working on my computer, my phone is usually plugged in, so that's not an issue. My guess is you can configure it to turn on and off under certain conditions (on while charging, on and off on a schedule, always off until you turn it on, etc.) My question is this: If she's sitting at a computer, why is she asking her phone what the weather will be like? Not that it doesn't demonstrate ease of use. It does that. But how about a demo where she's putting groceries in the car or doing something else that's keeping her hands buys working something other than an information device and asks what time she needs to be at that meeting?
Overall, those features sound pretty good. I might actually put off buying a new Samsung phone until I see this one out in the States and have a chance to see how it compares.
I've had a device fail that way. Maybe the best protection for that problem is take off the cover, measure the temperature of the chips when operating, attach heat sinks to those devices and modify the cover so it has air flow-through. (It helps if you can put it in a vertical orientation so that there is natural convection too.) It shouldn't normally be necessary to install a fan and if you do, you're making it vulnerable to dust build up that can make things worse over time.
The usefulness of 3D printing has already been shown. I can already buy solid plastic parts built on 3D printers that cost less than molded parts (in small quantities). Having one in your home still isn't practical for most people because most people would not be able to amortize the costs, but it's easy for a small manufacturing company to do. With with another factor of 2 price reduction, which seems likely to happen, you will be able to replace just about any broken plastic part from just about any product cheaper than you could have another one shipped from the OEM. Or you could send a scan of the broken object, or several pictures taken from several angles, to a local shop that owns 3D modeling software that can reconstruct the original unbroken object and print it for you to pick up. They could be as common as supermarkets. They could be IN supermarkets.
Musk has gone off the deep end a while ago, he's like George Lucas; who is going to challenge him now?
Anybody he asks to invest in his next project. How many billions has he sunk into Tesla Motors so far without generating positive cash flow? They just suck up more investor money each year.
The transcontinental railway and most other railways it the USA made use of free (federally granted) land. The cost of land for a new right of way after industrial development would be enormous. You could estimate that cost by asking one of the major US rail carriers how much it would cost to buy or lease their right of ways. Buying is probably off the table entirely. They won't sell and without changes in federal law, can't be forced to sell.
I'm an electrical engineer and manager of the same. It has been obvious to me for years what is going on.
When you offshore your manufacturing, you soon find that you need engineers on site to support production. They become the experts, while your need for American engineers decreases. That building expertise leads to the opening of offshore design centers and eventually new companies spring up that become your competitors and they employ no Americans at all.
Also engineering problems. DaVinci was drawing ideas for flying machines in the 15th century, but it took until the 20th to actually make machines that can fly.
Slashdot Mirror
H0 = # of homicides regardless of weapon (Table 20) = 12664
H1 = # of homicides committed with guns in 2011 (Table 20) = 8583
A0 = # of aggravated assaults, all weapons (Table 22) = 652169
A1 = # of aggravated assaults wherein a gun was used (Table 22) = 138336
You have to follow my logic here. An attack within intent to do grave harm in which the victim dies is classified as a homicide. If the victim survives, it is classified as an aggravated assault.
Guns were used in H1/H0 = 8583/12664 = 67.8% of all homicides, but only (A1/A0) = 138336/652169 = 21.2% of all aggravated assaults. The best figure, however is not that. The figure I'm interested in is the statistical probability that an attack results in death. So in that case, I want the following figure:
Chance that an attack results in death (all weapons) = H0 / (H0 + A0) = 12264 / (12264 + 642169) = 1.874%.
But if you consider only attacks with guns, the figure = H1 (H1 + A1) = 8583 / (8583 + 138336) = 5.842%
According to this method of calculation, an assailant with a gun is 3.11 times more deadly than the average assailant.
Now consider strictly non-gun assaults. There were A2 = A0-A1 = 513883 non-gun assaults and there were H2 = H0 - H1 = 4081 non-gun homicide. The probability of death in non-gun homicides is much lower:
odds of death in non-gun homicide = H2 / (H2 + A2) = 4081/(4081+513883) = 0.7879%
The odds of death in a gun assault are 5.842%. Odds of death in a non-gun assault are 0.7879%. That is 7.4x higher. Sorry, it's not 9X greater. It's only 7.4X greater. I misremembered my results.
If you're interested in the relative deadliness of knives, the figures are there in the same tables I quoted: H3 = # of homicides committed with knives = 1694. A3 = # of aggravated assaults using a knife = 124380. H3/(H3+A3) = 1.344%. They're about a third as deadly as guns.
IMO, these numbers underestimate the relative deadliness of weapons of all kinds because few assaults are considered "aggravated" unless there's a weapon involved or great bodily harm is done. If the victim isn't greatly harmed, it is almost always classified as a simple assault, and there are a lot more simple assaults (many, perhaps most not even reported to police) than aggravated assaults. Some of those assaults would likely have turned deadly had the assailant had a gun.
His gun was not taken away from him.
If there were a lot fewer guns to steal or sell into the black market, there would be a lot fewer guns stolen or available on the black market and consequently a lot fewer people who should not have guns would have them. Or, if there were a lot greater penalties for having a stolen gun or for selling a gun to a person who should not have one, that would also reduce the number of guns on the black market.
If I had my way, most people would be allowed to buy guns, in very limited numbers and every gun would have to be registered instantly. Possession of an unregistered gun would be a felony. Sale of a gun without transfer of registry would be a felony. Use of a gun in an assault or other serious crime would be punished the same as homicide.
Would you rather face a belligerent person person carrying a gun or one carrying a knife, all else being equal?
A belligerent person with a gun is MUCH more dangerous than a belligerent person with no gun, statistically speaking. I've done the math. A gun is frequently (more than once per hour in the USA) the difference between an assault and a homicide. (The death rate for people assaulted with guns is about 9x higher than that for all aggravated assaults.)
Anybody who says different is either lying or delusional.
The reasons people don't want "smart" guns has nothing to do with that. I'll list some of them here:
* the sensors add a lot of cost to the gun.
* the utility of the gun is reduced because you can't lend it to your buddy at the shooting range.
* it's harder to sell because it has to be reprogrammed.
* it's harder to demo to a customer for the same reason.
* the sensors may malfunction and fail to identify you.
* the sensors may fail to identify you if your hand is injured.
If I'm the political guy who has no skills and my head is on the line if my subordinates do anything wrong, my number one priority is going to be that my subordinates don't do anything at all.
So the data is in their possession but not yours? When the founders wrote these laws, what they meant by seizure was the government comes and TAKES YOUR STUFF AWAY FROM YOU. They didn't mean the government has copies of information that you still have in your possession. Only the SEARCH aspect is even relevant to electronic data unless they are taking your only copy or they are locking you out, which I have not heard about in relation to Snowden.
And search where there is a warrant isn't protected by ANY law. If the NSA seeks a warrant and they get a warrant, then you can complain about them seeking warrants they don't really need, or complain that the judge should have denied the warrant because probable cause wasn't there. But if the NSA sought the warrant and got the warrant, how were they violating your rights?
Yes. My point is, if you cherry pick mistakes, every organization will look incompetent. Name one big organization that hasn't made big, costly mistakes. Is Microsoft run by fools who know nothing about software or business because Windows 8 sucks? Does Ford know nothing about cars because they gave us the Pinto?
No. Read it again.
Considering what I've seen since the initial release of information, I am no longer sure Snowden had any evidence of the government breaking any laws (or 4th Amendment protections). I do think it went way beyond what was reasonable and necessary to do its job, and the government kept secret a great deal of information about what it was doing that should have been the subject of public debate before it was permitted to do it. And it's clear that their director perjured himself before Congress, for which he should have been and still should be fired and charged.
Whether in the end what Snowden did was justified is for a jury to decide,whatever the Nobel Committee thinks.
There's a difference when you know there are no real monsters and/or bombs under the bed.
Is there another war you are thinking of that doesn't/didn't stink?
All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.
The scanners the TSA uses are safe and effective.
Putting millions on subsidized healthcare and ensuring even more of the incidental costs are hidden from consumers will reduce healthcare spending.
There was no coup in Egypt ...
One of those, the third one specifically, stands out as not fitting the theme.
You do realise it's the *same government* that has given us the TSA, the FDA, and the many other ruinous mistakes in every area it's involved in that you expect is magically going to take charge of health care and make us all better?
Surely you jest.
This is also the same government that put a lander on Mars with a sky crane and created the internet. And how come the FDA doesn't get credit for making food and drugs in the USA among the safest in the world?
There's also knowing the law. If the contractor didn't know the law, it was his duty to find out.
Yup, I have heard of that BS excuse to not need to impose jail time for people in government. It clearly doesn't work and needs to be rethought for that purpose.
Frankly, government corruption and incompetence is the only category of crime I support the death penalty for. Even a serial killer can only have so many victims. Maybe we can learn something from them over time...but... government employees? No, their org keeps on going, examples need to be made of them, they can hurt hundreds of thousands of people with a simple missstep like this. They need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.
If a few people swung when this sort of fuckup came about so many people are put in harms way, I have no problem with publicly hanging the people involved.
It would set a perfect precedent for once people realize what damage other polices have done.
That would make it pretty hard to hire people with skills.
Reduce agency budget.
PLA isn't stable enough for anything but one-time-use parts. ABS is strong and stable. Sabre also has flexible materials. (http://www.mediacopy.co.uk/3d_printing_material_properties.htm). ABS parts can be treated in a acetone vapor bath to smooth their surfaces in cases where that's important.
When I'm working on my computer, my phone is usually plugged in, so that's not an issue. My guess is you can configure it to turn on and off under certain conditions (on while charging, on and off on a schedule, always off until you turn it on, etc.) My question is this: If she's sitting at a computer, why is she asking her phone what the weather will be like? Not that it doesn't demonstrate ease of use. It does that. But how about a demo where she's putting groceries in the car or doing something else that's keeping her hands buys working something other than an information device and asks what time she needs to be at that meeting?
Overall, those features sound pretty good. I might actually put off buying a new Samsung phone until I see this one out in the States and have a chance to see how it compares.
Yeah, it means even more expensive.
I've had a device fail that way. Maybe the best protection for that problem is take off the cover, measure the temperature of the chips when operating, attach heat sinks to those devices and modify the cover so it has air flow-through. (It helps if you can put it in a vertical orientation so that there is natural convection too.) It shouldn't normally be necessary to install a fan and if you do, you're making it vulnerable to dust build up that can make things worse over time.
The usefulness of 3D printing has already been shown. I can already buy solid plastic parts built on 3D printers that cost less than molded parts (in small quantities). Having one in your home still isn't practical for most people because most people would not be able to amortize the costs, but it's easy for a small manufacturing company to do. With with another factor of 2 price reduction, which seems likely to happen, you will be able to replace just about any broken plastic part from just about any product cheaper than you could have another one shipped from the OEM. Or you could send a scan of the broken object, or several pictures taken from several angles, to a local shop that owns 3D modeling software that can reconstruct the original unbroken object and print it for you to pick up. They could be as common as supermarkets. They could be IN supermarkets.
Musk has gone off the deep end a while ago, he's like George Lucas; who is going to challenge him now?
Anybody he asks to invest in his next project. How many billions has he sunk into Tesla Motors so far without generating positive cash flow? They just suck up more investor money each year.
The transcontinental railway and most other railways it the USA made use of free (federally granted) land. The cost of land for a new right of way after industrial development would be enormous. You could estimate that cost by asking one of the major US rail carriers how much it would cost to buy or lease their right of ways. Buying is probably off the table entirely. They won't sell and without changes in federal law, can't be forced to sell.
In what way is this different than a MPORG, such as Call of Duty or World of Warcraft?
I'm an electrical engineer and manager of the same. It has been obvious to me for years what is going on.
When you offshore your manufacturing, you soon find that you need engineers on site to support production. They become the experts, while your need for American engineers decreases. That building expertise leads to the opening of offshore design centers and eventually new companies spring up that become your competitors and they employ no Americans at all.
Petroleum jelly, grape jelly, lip gloss, eye liner, spit... anything a kid is likely to have in purse, lunch bag or mouth.
Also engineering problems. DaVinci was drawing ideas for flying machines in the 15th century, but it took until the 20th to actually make machines that can fly.