Where do you get this bullshit you spout? I've bee following lib politics for 20 years and this is the first time anybody's made the ridiculous claims you've been making. Either your head is so far up your ass it's come back out and gone back into your ass a second time, or the people you talk to have had that happen to them.
You really suck at history, huh? Boston has faced bombers MANY times in the past. MANY. For giggles, google how it relates to the molasses massacre that killed score(s)....
And if I had a video recorded with GoPro, I could run it through any facial recognition database already. I've already run most of my photographs through facial recognition databases. This is about as big of a change as going from horses to automobiles: More coverage, but basically the same thing.
The pirate bay requires no ratio, and even at 3Mbps,. most of these shows can be had in less than 10 minutes. People who want streaming are impatient babies...
The pirate bay requires no ratio, and even at 3Mbps,. most of these shows can be had in less than 10 minutes. People who want streaming are impatient babies.
>"I gave up when you changed the definition of innocent, decided 9/11 wouldn't count, and then went on to ignore (the military) the highest number of people killed by terrorists (even though the subject is people killed by terrorists, these ones don't count according to you)"
You have now entered into the realm of "fucking idiocy". The conversation was about how some people would be scared to go outside because of fear of the police shooting them. Someone else said that is an irrational fear. So I brought up that it was not an irrational fear, because your odds of being killed by a policeman are higher than a terrorist.
The majority of terrorist attacks against americans occur off american soil and are at military targets. THESE CASES WOULD NOT AFFECT A BOSTON CIVILIAN, becuase it is within american soil. That is why the numbers collected by the National Security Council include numbers 9X higher for the likelihood of people (people here) killed by policeman than terrorists.
It's also pretty hard to be killed by an american policeman in afghanistan. The two situations are not the same. For some reason you want to conflate them, even though it's off-topic from the original conversation. Yes, you are crazy for continuing to respond, but you are a flat-out asshole for flouting the truth in the face of direct evidence gathered by a fucking government organization.
You gave up when I adjusted the model to be relevant to the conversation that brought up specific fears of people in that same model. You want to compare a situation different than the one brought up in this thread, and I want to compare, y'know, that thing we were talking about.
p.s. Hopefully you understood when I typed "and a terrorist", I meant "than a terrorist".
You are either a lazy reader or a sore loser, but I proved my point. The only year that it was ever not true was 2001.
I guess you didn't read to the end where the stat originally came from National Security Council numbers, a verifiable government statistic. You are nine times more likely to be killed by a policeman and a terrorist. I did prove myself right. I just gave a lot of fuzzy justification before I proved it, to show how anyone who can put two and two together should be able to know my conclusion BEFORE going to the stat where it is proved.
I should probably have mentioned that I don't consider attacks against armed forces to count in my comparison, as we were talking about Boston civilians in their home. We are comparing the odds of a civilian (which I called "innocent" above, not the best word choice, sorry for poor form) being killed in a terror attack in america vs a civilian being killed by a policeman.
"From 1969 to 2009, the average number of fatalities per terrorist attack against a nation other than the United States yielded 1.74 fatalities. (See Chart 2.) When the data are limited to incidents against the United States, the average terrorist attack yielded 2.01 fatalities per incident. These fatalities represent all individuals killed, not only Americans. Without 9/11, the average falls to 0.97 fatalities per attack." [citation: i know these guys are assholes, but they do process some meaningful statistics]
The problem is: How many incidents per year? The same page has a chart, the highest number of incidents in a year is 150. So we're talking about 301 people. But what is hard to get it: How many of these are military targets? I don't even consider terrorism possible against military: The very definition of terrorism, as far as i am concerned, is that you are killing innocents. Military are not innocents. They have opted to be put in harm's way. They also are not related to the original conversation here on slashdot about being fearful to go outside because Boston police might mistakenly shoot you.
Hard to say how many of these are military -- perhaps Rand has a Crystal Reports plugin somewhere where we can analyze the data further?
But wait! Further down the page, they talk about homegrown terrorism. The maximum per year was 2001 with 33 attacks. For 2007-2009 there were 3. On a bad year: 911, thousands of deaths. During some years, like 2007? Zero.
Please tell me I don't have to demonstrate that police have killed more than zero person in a year.:) 2007 is an easy win, if i were to cherry-pick.
" Since 1970, more than half of all international terrorist acts targeting the United States occurred in either Latin America and the Caribbean (36 percent) or Europe (23 percent). (See Chart 6.) The Middle East and Persian Gulf account for 20 percent. "
^You have to throw those out for the Boston comparison too.
Hopefully you do realize the police kill 150-400 unarmed people every year. Shootings are always found justified, because all that is needed to justify it is "I felt scared". Scared people with guns are something to be scared of. And there's a lot more of them than terrorists.
If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to tell me why the National Security Council numbers are flawed. I am open to such a notion, but as you made me do your homework, you'd have to do mine this time;)
You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?
Your hindsight analysis isn't really relevant to someone's fear about going outside (which is prior to said police work that you are analyzing in hindsight). Fact of the matter is police kill more innocent Americans every year (except one) than terrorists do. It's a valid fear, and hindsight-analysis of Boston PD and FBI after the fact doesn't make that fear unfounded, as it is founded in a far more general, verifiable truth.
Slashdot Mirror
No you don't.
Please refer to the other response to my post.
...Because it's true.
....such as?
Where do you get this bullshit you spout? I've bee following lib politics for 20 years and this is the first time anybody's made the ridiculous claims you've been making. Either your head is so far up your ass it's come back out and gone back into your ass a second time, or the people you talk to have had that happen to them.
You really suck at history, huh? Boston has faced bombers MANY times in the past. MANY. For giggles, google how it relates to the molasses massacre that killed score(s)....
No. They aren't. It lacks the battery power to do it "everywhere you go".
And if I had a video recorded with GoPro, I could run it through any facial recognition database already. I've already run most of my photographs through facial recognition databases. This is about as big of a change as going from horses to automobiles: More coverage, but basically the same thing.
How is this any different than being a photographer? It's not.
The pirate bay requires no ratio, and even at 3Mbps,. most of these shows can be had in less than 10 minutes. People who want streaming are impatient babies...
The pirate bay requires no ratio, and even at 3Mbps,. most of these shows can be had in less than 10 minutes. People who want streaming are impatient babies.
So I'm sure you're mad your parents told you about Santa Claus, then. It's wrong.
as fractions go, I'm pretty sure 1/6th is smaller than 5/6ths of all fractions between 1/0th and 1/1th.
You have now entered into the realm of "fucking idiocy". The conversation was about how some people would be scared to go outside because of fear of the police shooting them. Someone else said that is an irrational fear. So I brought up that it was not an irrational fear, because your odds of being killed by a policeman are higher than a terrorist.
The majority of terrorist attacks against americans occur off american soil and are at military targets. THESE CASES WOULD NOT AFFECT A BOSTON CIVILIAN, becuase it is within american soil. That is why the numbers collected by the National Security Council include numbers 9X higher for the likelihood of people (people here) killed by policeman than terrorists.
It's also pretty hard to be killed by an american policeman in afghanistan. The two situations are not the same. For some reason you want to conflate them, even though it's off-topic from the original conversation. Yes, you are crazy for continuing to respond, but you are a flat-out asshole for flouting the truth in the face of direct evidence gathered by a fucking government organization.
You gave up when I adjusted the model to be relevant to the conversation that brought up specific fears of people in that same model. You want to compare a situation different than the one brought up in this thread, and I want to compare, y'know, that thing we were talking about.
p.s. Hopefully you understood when I typed "and a terrorist", I meant "than a terrorist". You are either a lazy reader or a sore loser, but I proved my point. The only year that it was ever not true was 2001.
I guess you didn't read to the end where the stat originally came from National Security Council numbers, a verifiable government statistic. You are nine times more likely to be killed by a policeman and a terrorist. I did prove myself right. I just gave a lot of fuzzy justification before I proved it, to show how anyone who can put two and two together should be able to know my conclusion BEFORE going to the stat where it is proved.
"From 1969 to 2009, the average number of fatalities per terrorist attack against a nation other than the United States yielded 1.74 fatalities. (See Chart 2.) When the data are limited to incidents against the United States, the average terrorist attack yielded 2.01 fatalities per incident. These fatalities represent all individuals killed, not only Americans. Without 9/11, the average falls to 0.97 fatalities per attack." [citation: i know these guys are assholes, but they do process some meaningful statistics]
The problem is: How many incidents per year? The same page has a chart, the highest number of incidents in a year is 150. So we're talking about 301 people. But what is hard to get it: How many of these are military targets? I don't even consider terrorism possible against military: The very definition of terrorism, as far as i am concerned, is that you are killing innocents. Military are not innocents. They have opted to be put in harm's way. They also are not related to the original conversation here on slashdot about being fearful to go outside because Boston police might mistakenly shoot you.
Hard to say how many of these are military -- perhaps Rand has a Crystal Reports plugin somewhere where we can analyze the data further?
But wait! Further down the page, they talk about homegrown terrorism. The maximum per year was 2001 with 33 attacks. For 2007-2009 there were 3. On a bad year: 911, thousands of deaths. During some years, like 2007? Zero.
Please tell me I don't have to demonstrate that police have killed more than zero person in a year. :) 2007 is an easy win, if i were to cherry-pick.
" Since 1970, more than half of all international terrorist acts targeting the United States occurred in either Latin America and the Caribbean (36 percent) or Europe (23 percent). (See Chart 6.) The Middle East and Persian Gulf account for 20 percent. "
^You have to throw those out for the Boston comparison too.
Hopefully you do realize the police kill 150-400 unarmed people every year. Shootings are always found justified, because all that is needed to justify it is "I felt scared". Scared people with guns are something to be scared of. And there's a lot more of them than terrorists.
Indeed, here is where the sentiment originated:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html
If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to tell me why the National Security Council numbers are flawed. I am open to such a notion, but as you made me do your homework, you'd have to do mine this time ;)
Why should you take my word for it? Google it yourself.
You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?
Your hindsight analysis isn't really relevant to someone's fear about going outside (which is prior to said police work that you are analyzing in hindsight). Fact of the matter is police kill more innocent Americans every year (except one) than terrorists do. It's a valid fear, and hindsight-analysis of Boston PD and FBI after the fact doesn't make that fear unfounded, as it is founded in a far more general, verifiable truth.
We don't want you dictating the amount of risk we take in our personal lives.
I guess you paid for all your own research, eh?
If you're that stubborn you should know how to download the files from a page without having flash installed. I can.
The mites would fight over our bodies.