Scarlet Letters, Red Crosses, Peeing On a Tree... humans are no different from dogs when it comes to trying to take ownership of things that are not theirs. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for doing it (power? control?) but it's all the same. If they can publicly 'shame' you to drum up fear, they think others will fall in line.
And it's true to some extent. I think people probably are deterred from committing sex crimes (sometimes) by the fear of such sanctioned social punishments.
I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics. Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability. But that is not by any means all criminals. Some people bought guns with no evil intent and only ended up committing crimes with them later when circumstances they did not anticipate happened. (Arguments are the immediate causes of about 30% to 40% of homicides but that doesn't apply to a number of categories of gun crime). Of those who do acquire guns with bad intent, most of them buy them one way or another.
The trouble is that the information is largely not collected in the first place. Most guns involved in crimes are never traced with respect to how they were acquired. However, according to this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest are purchased. There are no really reliable statistics detailing how many of these purchased guns were purchased legally versus illegally.
Those data are pretty old, but I doubt that stat has changed markedly.
“guns sold in Maryland during the 1990s had at least a 4.7-percent chance of being recovered by police in association with a crime somewhere in the Nation within 10 years. Handguns sold in the Baltimore area had a 3.2-percent chance of being recovered in Baltimore within 5 years”
“Most guns recovered in crimes had been sold by a relatively small proportion of dealers located in or close to urban areas.”
“The simultaneous or rapid purchase of multiple guns by one individual was a risk factor for gun trafficking related to their criminal use.”
In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used
or possessed a firearm during their current
offense bought or traded for it from a retail
store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show.
Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from family or
friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon
from drug dealers, off the street, or through
the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other
type of theft.
There's an awful lot of stuff available in publicly available records. They were meant for individuals to come in and request one record at a time, way back in the stone age before computers. Do you think that anything on public record should be published for the world to see?
Yes. The laws need to be changed to protect such records as should not be public.
BTW, the reason the article was retracted was because under the new law in New York, it is illegal to publish information on gun owners. So no, not public anymore in that state anyway.
As of January 16. It was legal to publish them at the time they were published.
The team are working with mathematician and artist Rinus Roelofs to develop the house, which they estimate will take around 18 months to complete.
How long does it take a conventional architect and builder to complete a house? I figure an architect can design a conventional house in 4 months. But most conventional builds start with an existing design and customize it a little bit based on the lot and customer preferences. I know you can build one in about 3 weeks with conventional methods presuming you can schedule all the work crews to be on site on the soonest day the house is ready for them. That's bare lot to ready-to-move-in. It normally takes much longer to get a home built but that's because most of the time it sits idle waiting for the next work crew to show up.
Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.
You could perfectly well have mandatory registration AND have the records kept in a database that was is not publicly accessible.
Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers.
In almost every case, the gun was not illegal, because there are very few bans on type of guns in America. You must be talking about people who are not supposed to have guns.
I see a lot of vague statements like yours. So let's get down to specifics, if you've got 'em.
How many of these guns used in homicides were illegally obtained? Of those, were they illegally bought or were they stolen?
How many were obtained from other people living in the same home?
How many were committed with with guns that were legally obtained outside the jurisdiction in which owning or carrying them was illegal?
How many were bought in private sales from people who did not do a background check and did not know that the person who was buying their gun was prohibited from having one?
Why wasn't it "leaked".. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ?
It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.
What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).
People, shit happens, it's unavoidable. The world is full of good people and equally full of bad ones/psychotic-violent ones. Whatever you ban won't change that and mentioned ones are still gonna do their own thing.
In 20 years time you will need permission to go out of the house if the public allows these bans on everything to be carried out.
Just like you do in countries where gun ownership is practically banned? Last I heard, people in England, Canada and Australia have almost the same freedoms as people in the USA, except with respect to guns. Germans have a lot of restrictions on guns and also on hate speech, the latter for particular historical reasons that have more to do with gas chambers than guns. Other than that, they can do about what Americans can do.
more children are killed by firearms each year than by the people listed in certain databases who have already fully paid their debt to society yet will continue to be persecuted by the public, by the media and by the government, forever.
... despite recidivism rates for sex offenders being lower than for other categories of crime and recidivism rates for child molesters being lower than for sex offenders in general. It does call into question the need for maintaining these registries.
If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.
And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.
Apparently not. They're from publicly available records. If it's in the public interest to keep those records private, they're going to have to change the law to make it so.
Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?
What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.
I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex.
Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?
"Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.
Medical records are already protected by law. There is no public record kept and the private records are protected by law.
"Outing" people is free speech in action. Sometimes it's not pretty.
What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state? What if I out a business's record of consumer complaints? Is that an obnoxious action or a public service? What I I out a politician's campaign contributors along with a list of donations and dates and positions she took on legislation they lobbied for? What if I out a business owner who contributed money to an unpopular cause? Should that be banned too? Am I doing something wrong if I publish a list of who owns what property and how much tax they paid on it? It's all public, searchable information in my state. What did I do wrong?
I always figured schools were a big part of it. Pack 25-35 kids in a classroom. Reshuffle the kids 6 to 8 times per day. It's an ideal environment for spreading any contagious disease.
In Phoenix, relative humidity is below 50% on average from April thru September.
In Albuquerque, it's March through June.
Does flu hold out year round in those areas?
Here's a classical analog to a quantum teleportation experiment:
Dr. Roberts, in London, selects two cards from a deck. One is the Jack of Diamonds and the other is the Jack of Spades. He puts each of them in a sealed envelope along with a letter detailing his experiment. He instructs a graduate assistant, Miss Cunningham, to mail one to to Dr. Patel, in Mumbai and Dr. Eastwood, in Palo Alto. The accompanying letters identify all of the participants and the cards that were sent.
Dr. Patel receives his letter first, observes that he has the Jack of Diamonds and publishes the result that he has teleported the Jack of Spades to Dr. Eastwood faster than the speed of mail.
Everybody wins. Drs. Roberts and Patel receive recognition for their contributions to science. Miss Cunningham gets her Ph.D. She moves to Palo Alto and marries Dr. Eastwood. Everybody wins.
I've never seen any evidence of "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance" much less instantaneous transfer of information.
Every experiment I've seen described -- it's entirely possible that I missed a lot -- was a variation on this:
Some process generates two entangled photons, with unknown but complimentary polarization.
Some aparatus, e.g. a beam splitter, causes one photon to go take one path and the other photon to take the other path. One photon goes to location A and other entangled photon goes to location B. The apparatus does not bias which polarization of photon goes to which location.
The polarization of the photon is measured at location A. The experimenter at location A knows the polarization of both photons because he understands how the apparatus works.
An experimenter at location B might simultaneously measure the polarization of his photon. He will also know the polarization of both photons. But he did not get this information from location A. He got it by measuring his photon. He can also get the information from location A, but to do so he will have to wait for a message to arrive from location A telling him of the results of the experiment at that location.
Although the same information is known at both locations, it does not imply that information has passed from A to B. There is nothing to see here.
But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question?
Not normally. All the quantum experiments to date have only measured a single quantum property. For example, say you know the polarization of a photon. That doesn't mean you also know its phase, direction of travel, time of arrival and energy.
Although other particles have not been entangled, the same would go for any other particle.
Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense.
They don't transport anything at all. All the information is transferred at the speed of light or slower.
I like it. Many Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers already offer this, either as a HDMI stick or small set-top box running Android, but Dell just has more clout to make the hardware rock solid, make it work very well with the OS and seamless cloud offerings. I'd get this on day one and breathe some life into my TVs.
Since when did Dell make hardware rock solid or make any form of an OS?
Slashdot Mirror
That's already protected information.
Scarlet Letters, Red Crosses, Peeing On a Tree... humans are no different from dogs when it comes to trying to take ownership of things that are not theirs. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for doing it (power? control?) but it's all the same. If they can publicly 'shame' you to drum up fear, they think others will fall in line.
And it's true to some extent. I think people probably are deterred from committing sex crimes (sometimes) by the fear of such sanctioned social punishments.
I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics. Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability. But that is not by any means all criminals. Some people bought guns with no evil intent and only ended up committing crimes with them later when circumstances they did not anticipate happened. (Arguments are the immediate causes of about 30% to 40% of homicides but that doesn't apply to a number of categories of gun crime). Of those who do acquire guns with bad intent, most of them buy them one way or another.
The trouble is that the information is largely not collected in the first place. Most guns involved in crimes are never traced with respect to how they were acquired. However, according to this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest are purchased. There are no really reliable statistics detailing how many of these purchased guns were purchased legally versus illegally.
Those data are pretty old, but I doubt that stat has changed markedly.
Also see this study from Maryland https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922
“guns sold in Maryland during the 1990s had at least a 4.7-percent chance of being recovered by police in association with a crime somewhere in the Nation within 10 years. Handguns sold in the Baltimore area had a 3.2-percent chance of being recovered in Baltimore within 5 years” “Most guns recovered in crimes had been sold by a relatively small proportion of dealers located in or close to urban areas.” “The simultaneous or rapid purchase of multiple guns by one individual was a risk factor for gun trafficking related to their criminal use.”
According to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt based on survey data of prison inmates,
In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current offense bought or traded for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show. Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon from family or friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street, or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft.
There's an awful lot of stuff available in publicly available records. They were meant for individuals to come in and request one record at a time, way back in the stone age before computers. Do you think that anything on public record should be published for the world to see?
Yes. The laws need to be changed to protect such records as should not be public.
BTW, the reason the article was retracted was because under the new law in New York, it is illegal to publish information on gun owners. So no, not public anymore in that state anyway.
As of January 16. It was legal to publish them at the time they were published.
The team are working with mathematician and artist Rinus Roelofs to develop the house, which they estimate will take around 18 months to complete.
How long does it take a conventional architect and builder to complete a house? I figure an architect can design a conventional house in 4 months. But most conventional builds start with an existing design and customize it a little bit based on the lot and customer preferences. I know you can build one in about 3 weeks with conventional methods presuming you can schedule all the work crews to be on site on the soonest day the house is ready for them. That's bare lot to ready-to-move-in. It normally takes much longer to get a home built but that's because most of the time it sits idle waiting for the next work crew to show up.
Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.
You could perfectly well have mandatory registration AND have the records kept in a database that was is not publicly accessible.
Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers.
In almost every case, the gun was not illegal, because there are very few bans on type of guns in America. You must be talking about people who are not supposed to have guns.
I see a lot of vague statements like yours. So let's get down to specifics, if you've got 'em.
Why wasn't it "leaked" .. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ?
It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.
What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).
People, shit happens, it's unavoidable. The world is full of good people and equally full of bad ones/psychotic-violent ones. Whatever you ban won't change that and mentioned ones are still gonna do their own thing.
In 20 years time you will need permission to go out of the house if the public allows these bans on everything to be carried out.
Just like you do in countries where gun ownership is practically banned? Last I heard, people in England, Canada and Australia have almost the same freedoms as people in the USA, except with respect to guns. Germans have a lot of restrictions on guns and also on hate speech, the latter for particular historical reasons that have more to do with gas chambers than guns. Other than that, they can do about what Americans can do.
more children are killed by firearms each year than by the people listed in certain databases who have already fully paid their debt to society yet will continue to be persecuted by the public, by the media and by the government, forever.
... despite recidivism rates for sex offenders being lower than for other categories of crime and recidivism rates for child molesters being lower than for sex offenders in general. It does call into question the need for maintaining these registries.
Or how about the real reverse. Show all names and address of houses without guns.
There's no way to make such a list because not every gun is registered.
If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.
And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.
Apparently not. They're from publicly available records. If it's in the public interest to keep those records private, they're going to have to change the law to make it so.
Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?
What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.
I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex.
Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?
"Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.
Medical records are already protected by law. There is no public record kept and the private records are protected by law.
"Outing" people is free speech in action. Sometimes it's not pretty.
What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state? What if I out a business's record of consumer complaints? Is that an obnoxious action or a public service? What I I out a politician's campaign contributors along with a list of donations and dates and positions she took on legislation they lobbied for? What if I out a business owner who contributed money to an unpopular cause? Should that be banned too? Am I doing something wrong if I publish a list of who owns what property and how much tax they paid on it? It's all public, searchable information in my state. What did I do wrong?
Yeah, packing that many kids in a theater IS asking for trouble.
I always figured schools were a big part of it. Pack 25-35 kids in a classroom. Reshuffle the kids 6 to 8 times per day. It's an ideal environment for spreading any contagious disease.
So are airplanes.
In Phoenix, relative humidity is below 50% on average from April thru September. In Albuquerque, it's March through June. Does flu hold out year round in those areas?
Here's a classical analog to a quantum teleportation experiment:
Dr. Roberts, in London, selects two cards from a deck. One is the Jack of Diamonds and the other is the Jack of Spades. He puts each of them in a sealed envelope along with a letter detailing his experiment. He instructs a graduate assistant, Miss Cunningham, to mail one to to Dr. Patel, in Mumbai and Dr. Eastwood, in Palo Alto. The accompanying letters identify all of the participants and the cards that were sent.
Dr. Patel receives his letter first, observes that he has the Jack of Diamonds and publishes the result that he has teleported the Jack of Spades to Dr. Eastwood faster than the speed of mail.
Everybody wins. Drs. Roberts and Patel receive recognition for their contributions to science. Miss Cunningham gets her Ph.D. She moves to Palo Alto and marries Dr. Eastwood. Everybody wins.
I've never seen any evidence of "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance" much less instantaneous transfer of information.
Every experiment I've seen described -- it's entirely possible that I missed a lot -- was a variation on this:
An experimenter at location B might simultaneously measure the polarization of his photon. He will also know the polarization of both photons. But he did not get this information from location A. He got it by measuring his photon. He can also get the information from location A, but to do so he will have to wait for a message to arrive from location A telling him of the results of the experiment at that location. Although the same information is known at both locations, it does not imply that information has passed from A to B. There is nothing to see here.
But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question?
Not normally. All the quantum experiments to date have only measured a single quantum property. For example, say you know the polarization of a photon. That doesn't mean you also know its phase, direction of travel, time of arrival and energy. Although other particles have not been entangled, the same would go for any other particle.
The name "quantum teleportation" is a bit misleading: no particles, mass or energy is teleported. The only thing "teleported" is a quantum state.
Even that is not teleported. The energy is carried on the entangled particles. The quantum state is carried on the entangled particles.
Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense.
They don't transport anything at all. All the information is transferred at the speed of light or slower.
So maybe a lot of that care tsken by writers is wasted. If the crap that comes out of peoples' mouths is what our brains want to hea, well...
Really? what was the form factor precedent for an original Mac? Or a 1st gen iMac? Or a modern iMac? Or an original iPod?
Not at all. But at least we've identified what the problem really is.
and pretend that we're doing just fine.
I like it. Many Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers already offer this, either as a HDMI stick or small set-top box running Android, but Dell just has more clout to make the hardware rock solid, make it work very well with the OS and seamless cloud offerings. I'd get this on day one and breathe some life into my TVs.
Since when did Dell make hardware rock solid or make any form of an OS?