You'll note the distinction i made between mature and "mature". I don't tend to care for the games that certain kinds of people tend to call "mature", usually FPS gore fests. I do like the games that _i_ think are mature, i.e. good RPGs and strategy games (preferably turn based) and the occasional platform or adventure game (preferably 2D.) Very few of the games i feel are mature are rated 18+.
Second, clearly our standards are very different. The collection of GameCube and PS2 games i have on my shelves dwarfs my Wii and PS3 collection. And my GameCube and PS2 generally didn't go for months without use. I haven't turned on my Wii since sometime last year (which was when i found out about the memory issues after a previous multi-month period of non-use) and the only thing i've used the PS3 for in the same period has been Netflix and playing DVDs/BluRays.
Re:Nintendo needs to rethink its place in the worl
on
Is the Wii U Already Dead?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't know about anyone else, but as an adult Nintendo seems to be struggling to make me not like the Wii. I got a Wii right when it first game out, and i enjoyed Wii Sports and Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros and a couple others. However there's been a dearth of both good mature and "mature" third party games. There's been _some_ good mature content in Japan, but Nintendo kept refusing to bring over things like Xenoblade Chronicles, Last Story and Pandora's Tower. Ironically(?) they basically said it wasn't going to happen right around the time they promised that the Wii U was going to have more of a hardcore focus, which really diluted their message.
It doesn't help that the Wii was the first Nintendo console to have serious hardware issues. A lot of the people who got early versions of the console got hit by some kind of disk reading error that affected some pretty major games. Nintendo was willing to fix the problem for free, but you either had to ship the console off somewhere or find a local authorized repair center, and it was a big hassle to deal with. Then just about the point that Nintendo started changing their mind about the above RPGs my Wii got some kind of corrupted memory issue and forced me to reformat it. So now i've got Xenoblade and Last Story, but i'm afraid to start playing them on my Wii because i don't trust the memory. I could get a Wii U, and maybe i will at some point, but right now i want to avoid the early shipments in the hopes that any bugs will get ironed out.
And honestly, the wiimote is great for some games, but in my experience it's just not that good for other games. Sometimes the developers allow you to use an alternate control mode, but sometimes they insist that you have to use motion controls. (I believe it's Xenoblade that a friend of mine has that will let you use classic controls for the main game but insists you use a wiimote for the starting menus. It doesn't help that their Wii has trouble recognizing the wiimotes a lot of the time, so it's kind of a disincentive whenever they sit down and decide which game to play in the evening.) Sometimes i want to play a simple old school 2D game with simple old school 2D controls. Nintendo _could_ excel at that with their "underpowered" console, but they choose not to. If i want those kinds of games my choice is usually the DS, or more likely, the PC through Steam.
Of course Nintendo isn't the only company whose console isn't living up to the hype in my opinion. The PS3 has been kinda overwhelmed by "mature" FPS and 3rd person shooter games with a relative dearth of good RPGs and strategy games. I have picked up Disgaea 4, which was great, and FF13, which was okay, and plan to get Ni no Kuni, but that's not a great deal to base a console purchase on. If the trend continues i'm going to be waiting for awhile before picking up a PS4 too. Of course now that i know the PS4 won't be backwards compatible i'm kinda disinclined to buy any more physical PS3 disks.
Go back and read the conversation again. I'll provide a brief, paraphrased recap. Please inform me if any of my paraphrasings are unfair.
Me: How can the free market fix this problem in China without resorting to regulation?
chrylis: They can sue the people causing the pollution.
Me: How can they sue the people polluting the air in China? There are too many of them.
chrylis: Well they can't sue in China because it's not a free market, and even if it became a free market you couldn't blame the free market for the preexisting problem.
Me: So you seem to be implying that the free market can't actually fix the situation as it is now, it could only have stopped it from happening in the first place?
So yes, there is a fallacy here, but to me it seems to be the fallacy of someone suggesting a solution to the question of how to fix the problem in China, and then saying (or at least implying) shortly thereafter that it can't actually fix the problem in China.
All _i_ am saying is that if (A) cannot do (C), and (C) is desirable, then (A) is not the right solution to get (C).
If you'd like to get into the evidence in favor of (B) i'd be happy to do that, but that wasn't the topic of discussion.
So who do the people in the big cities in China sue over the air pollution? All of the hundreds or thousands of companies and all of the millions of people who are collectively responsible for the problem? Do you really think that's a viable solution?
Actually, what my phrasing assumed was that supporters of free market systems are quick to jump in with comments on stories showing the fallacies of governments and/or regulations, but tend to remain quiet until prompted on stories showing fallacies of corporations harming the average person, so i figured i'd get the ball rolling. Perhaps your interpretation of the phrasing was different, but that's another matter.
I'm curious, what makes you qualify me as a troll? Is it because i indicated i hold an opinion that disagrees with yours? Or is it because i stated my opinion in the form of a joke, rather than using highfalutin phraseology like "I believe situations like this support my hypothesis that a central government body with regulatory power over corporations is necessary for the continued well-being of the general populace, and furthermore... [etc, etc]"?
I've gotten one computer from them, and it was a mostly decent experience. (The card reader didn't work because of some weird incompatibility issue. I've forgotten the details now so i can't say if the problem was "obvious" enough that they should have warned me about it when i put the components together.)
A friend of mine has gotten a couple computers from them. One of them ended up having a flaky hard drive or something that was causing her some aggravation, but they seemed pretty reasonable with their support for the problem.
I believe all of the above computers were desktops, but it seems unlikely the laptop side of their business would be significantly different
Your analogy is a rather poor one. The people who get elected do not make laws and take actions that affect just the people who voted for them, they affect everyone in their constituency (and often people not in their constituency as well.) You can't just say "i'm running in a different direction" and expect that to exclude you from the results of what the majority of the "lemmings" vote for.
I don't vote for someone i believe in because i am a realist, not an idealist. I will cast my vote in the way that i believe results in the best outcome. As such when faced with multiple options i have to balance the good of each option with the likelihood of my vote affecting the outcome when placed in that bucket.
An individual vote may not be worth a lot, but if enough of us teamed up to vote for a third party candidate to "matter", it would also be enough to affect the balance between the two main parties. The process of transition would inevitably result in at least one election cycle, quite possibly more, where the people i definitely _don't_ want to see in power would win the election. That's already a huge sacrifice to pay, but it's further compounded by the fact that even if we succeeded in bringing a third party to prominence it wouldn't take long for everything to settle out the same way with two parties controlling everything and having a vested interest in not rocking the boat. The nature of the electoral system pretty much guarantees that outcome. (I'm sure you're already familiar with the process, but just for reference: The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
And which third party am i supposed to vote for anyway? From what little research i've done there isn't any one party that i agree with 100%. (Ultimately the only person who anyone ever agrees with 100% is themselves.) So i can vote for the party i don't entirely agree with that has some chance of accomplishing some of the things i want, or i can vote for the party i don't entirely agree with that has no chance of accomplishing any of the things i want.
So as little as my choice matters, i'm not willing to contribute to years of chaos and rule by the greater evil in exchange for giving a slightly different lesser evil the chance to be in charge.
And honestly just saying "the problem is that everyone else is a stupid lemming" without actually examining the causes that result in the behavior you view as stupid doesn't do anything to help the situation.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem refers to a tactic used in an argument. If you dismiss what someone has to say because of who they are, that is prejudice. If you try to convince other people to dismiss what someone has to say because of who they are, that is an ad hominem attack. The ad hominem attack may attempt to appeal to the prejudices of the people you're trying to convince, but it does not mean that that is why _you_ dismissed what your opponent had to say. Now technically for it to be an ad hominem attack the "negative" trait you're accusing them of must be entirely irrelevant. If what you say would be relevant if it were true, but it's not true, then technically it would be slander/libel instead. However people don't usually bother drawing the distinction that finely.
And if all several million of the other people who feel the same way as me had voted for a third party instead of the lesser Orwellian, it's entirely possible the greater Orwellian would have won instead. It's really easy to cast stones. It's less easy to come up with a viable strategy when trapped in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma with another player whom you don't trust at all. Electoral reform is the only "easy" way out, and that's unlikely to happen because the people who are the most able to reform it are the ones who benefit most from the current system.
I honestly believe that the exact same thing would have happened with McCain or Romney as president. I also think Bush would probably have done the same thing if he'd had the drones available at the time. I can't prove it of course, but i do feel the fact that a bipartisan group of Senators were asking for the criteria used to kill Americans rather than demanding that it not happen at all kind of supports the idea. For the same reason i don't think Obama will be impeached or even seriously criticized by Congress over this. (If all the Republicans get together and try to pass a law that would effectively stop things like this i would get behind them on this one issue. But it ain't gonna happen.)
I voted for Obama in both of the previous elections. I didn't vote for him because i honsetly thought he would Change anything. One can always hope, but i didn't believe it would really happen, so i wasn't that disappointed when it didn't. I voted for him because i believed he wouldn't do _most_ of the things the Republicans said they wanted to do, and _maybe_ he'd actually manage to do one of two good things. And that's pretty much what happened. He's managed to do a couple things i view as good, and _mostly_ hasn't done the things the Republicans said they wanted.
I would rather have had a president who didn't do _any_ of the crappy things i believe the Republicans would do, but realistically there was no way to achieve that. In game theory terms i got the best outcome (from my perspective) that was possible under the current system. Under any kind of instant run-off system Obama would not have been my first choice. He might not even have been my second or third choice.
And both the Republicans and the Democrats know they can get away with a lot of crap exactly because of the two party system. "What are you going to do, vote for the Greens or Libertarians instead? Ha ha, go ahead, see how well that works out for you."
You're curious because you are too lazy to actually go find the data yourself. Laziness to search for data is an indication of a weak intellect. There is a good chance you have rotten ideas, exactly because your ideas are built on speculation not data.
Ah yes, like all good scientists you believe in hoarding information and not sharing it with others. That's okay, i can play that game too. I do actually have some statistics that i went and found. The problem is my statistics say the opposite. My statistics say that black people don't commit more crimes, they just get arrested and convicted more often. And it's pretty obvious my data is better than yours. You can go find that data yourself though, right? Cause you of course are not a lazy person with a weak intellect and rotten ideas. You'll get back to me once you've found the data i already know that proves you're wrong, right?
I'm sure i could find more evidence if i really tried, but that's enough to show that it does happen.
As for the second part of your post. You say "I don't see as much of an issue with police using pareto analysis to allocate their resources" and then go on to say "More police officers equals more harassment and enforcement, which explains the racial difference leading up to arrest." So... i'm confused? You're trying to disprove your own assertion?
I'm not going to argue that it's impossible that black people actually commit more crimes than white people, but i'm curious what statistics you're citing and how that data was gathered.
Let's imagine some mythical town which is 50% white and 50% black and whose judicial system is entirely free from irrational racism. However they rationally note that last year statistics showed black people were more likely to commit crimes than white people. So the cops pull over more black people and send out more patrols to predominately black neighborhoods. That's the rational thing to do after all. And surprise surprise! More black people end up getting arrested. So the statistics next year show black people are more likely to commit crimes. However a closer look at the data shows that both blacks and whites were equally likely to end up getting arrested after getting pulled over, and patrols in white neighborhoods had the same average number of arrests as patrols in black neighborhoods. Without any intentional racism on anyone's part racism still exists in the system just because of people blindly following statistics.
I'm not saying we need to mandate equal incarceration rates. But everyone should be treated equally regardless of what statistics might say about the likelihood of "someone like them" having committed a crime. And if there is some statistical evidence that one group is committing more crime and/or ending up in jail more then we shouldn't be using that as a justification for treating the two groups differently, we should instead be taking a long hard and in-depth look at why the statistics are that way.
However we're still at the point where some groups are being punished disproportionately for the same crime on a nationwide basis.
"Racism is denying the fact that many blacks in the US have been disadvantaged and largely as a result are more likely to get arrested."
Fixed that for you. Even when they haven't committed any crime non-white people in general and black people in particular are more likely to get harassed by cops. They're also more likely to be arrested if they have committed a crime and once arrested more likely to go to jail. That is especially the case if the crime is something relatively minor, say getting caught with pot. If you're white and well off that would probably be a wrist slap at worst. If you're black and poor however...
They may not have believed that no one would learn Dish Network existed, but i'm pretty sure the intent of blocking the award was to prevent endorsing it and advertising it further. Now however more people know that the geeks at CNET wanted to give the product an award than would have known if the management at CNET had just kept their mouths shut and let Dish Network have the award in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll note the distinction i made between mature and "mature". I don't tend to care for the games that certain kinds of people tend to call "mature", usually FPS gore fests. I do like the games that _i_ think are mature, i.e. good RPGs and strategy games (preferably turn based) and the occasional platform or adventure game (preferably 2D.) Very few of the games i feel are mature are rated 18+.
Second, clearly our standards are very different. The collection of GameCube and PS2 games i have on my shelves dwarfs my Wii and PS3 collection. And my GameCube and PS2 generally didn't go for months without use. I haven't turned on my Wii since sometime last year (which was when i found out about the memory issues after a previous multi-month period of non-use) and the only thing i've used the PS3 for in the same period has been Netflix and playing DVDs/BluRays.
I don't know about anyone else, but as an adult Nintendo seems to be struggling to make me not like the Wii. I got a Wii right when it first game out, and i enjoyed Wii Sports and Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros and a couple others. However there's been a dearth of both good mature and "mature" third party games. There's been _some_ good mature content in Japan, but Nintendo kept refusing to bring over things like Xenoblade Chronicles, Last Story and Pandora's Tower. Ironically(?) they basically said it wasn't going to happen right around the time they promised that the Wii U was going to have more of a hardcore focus, which really diluted their message.
It doesn't help that the Wii was the first Nintendo console to have serious hardware issues. A lot of the people who got early versions of the console got hit by some kind of disk reading error that affected some pretty major games. Nintendo was willing to fix the problem for free, but you either had to ship the console off somewhere or find a local authorized repair center, and it was a big hassle to deal with. Then just about the point that Nintendo started changing their mind about the above RPGs my Wii got some kind of corrupted memory issue and forced me to reformat it. So now i've got Xenoblade and Last Story, but i'm afraid to start playing them on my Wii because i don't trust the memory. I could get a Wii U, and maybe i will at some point, but right now i want to avoid the early shipments in the hopes that any bugs will get ironed out.
And honestly, the wiimote is great for some games, but in my experience it's just not that good for other games. Sometimes the developers allow you to use an alternate control mode, but sometimes they insist that you have to use motion controls. (I believe it's Xenoblade that a friend of mine has that will let you use classic controls for the main game but insists you use a wiimote for the starting menus. It doesn't help that their Wii has trouble recognizing the wiimotes a lot of the time, so it's kind of a disincentive whenever they sit down and decide which game to play in the evening.) Sometimes i want to play a simple old school 2D game with simple old school 2D controls. Nintendo _could_ excel at that with their "underpowered" console, but they choose not to. If i want those kinds of games my choice is usually the DS, or more likely, the PC through Steam.
Of course Nintendo isn't the only company whose console isn't living up to the hype in my opinion. The PS3 has been kinda overwhelmed by "mature" FPS and 3rd person shooter games with a relative dearth of good RPGs and strategy games. I have picked up Disgaea 4, which was great, and FF13, which was okay, and plan to get Ni no Kuni, but that's not a great deal to base a console purchase on. If the trend continues i'm going to be waiting for awhile before picking up a PS4 too. Of course now that i know the PS4 won't be backwards compatible i'm kinda disinclined to buy any more physical PS3 disks.
Go back and read the conversation again. I'll provide a brief, paraphrased recap. Please inform me if any of my paraphrasings are unfair.
Me: How can the free market fix this problem in China without resorting to regulation?
chrylis: They can sue the people causing the pollution.
Me: How can they sue the people polluting the air in China? There are too many of them.
chrylis: Well they can't sue in China because it's not a free market, and even if it became a free market you couldn't blame the free market for the preexisting problem.
Me: So you seem to be implying that the free market can't actually fix the situation as it is now, it could only have stopped it from happening in the first place?
So yes, there is a fallacy here, but to me it seems to be the fallacy of someone suggesting a solution to the question of how to fix the problem in China, and then saying (or at least implying) shortly thereafter that it can't actually fix the problem in China.
All _i_ am saying is that if (A) cannot do (C), and (C) is desirable, then (A) is not the right solution to get (C).
If you'd like to get into the evidence in favor of (B) i'd be happy to do that, but that wasn't the topic of discussion.
So you're saying the free market can't fix the current situation there, it could only prevented it from happening in the first place?
So who do the people in the big cities in China sue over the air pollution? All of the hundreds or thousands of companies and all of the millions of people who are collectively responsible for the problem? Do you really think that's a viable solution?
Actually, what my phrasing assumed was that supporters of free market systems are quick to jump in with comments on stories showing the fallacies of governments and/or regulations, but tend to remain quiet until prompted on stories showing fallacies of corporations harming the average person, so i figured i'd get the ball rolling. Perhaps your interpretation of the phrasing was different, but that's another matter.
I'm curious, what makes you qualify me as a troll? Is it because i indicated i hold an opinion that disagrees with yours? Or is it because i stated my opinion in the form of a joke, rather than using highfalutin phraseology like "I believe situations like this support my hypothesis that a central government body with regulatory power over corporations is necessary for the continued well-being of the general populace, and furthermore... [etc, etc]"?
Where's the explanation on how the free market is going to fix this problem without the need for burdensome regulation? Anyone? Anyone?
That one molecule in the water won't let it happen because of the exponential power it has from being the sole piece left of the original substance.
So what you're saying is that molecules are ninja, and thus must obey the Conservation of Ninjutsu law.
Once again, a giant meteorite has exploded over Russia - the only country giant meteorites ever seem to explode over!
Actually, they pretty specifically said they need a _lesser_ waste of time than Slashdot.
Examples:
[...]
Hell: 1_L1k3_B1g_Butt5
How DARE you rip off Jonathan Coulton like that?!?!??!
"I wasn't cheating on you! I swear! I was just checking his password to verify his identity!"
http://www.pcsforeveryone.com/
I've gotten one computer from them, and it was a mostly decent experience. (The card reader didn't work because of some weird incompatibility issue. I've forgotten the details now so i can't say if the problem was "obvious" enough that they should have warned me about it when i put the components together.)
A friend of mine has gotten a couple computers from them. One of them ended up having a flaky hard drive or something that was causing her some aggravation, but they seemed pretty reasonable with their support for the problem.
I believe all of the above computers were desktops, but it seems unlikely the laptop side of their business would be significantly different
Your analogy is a rather poor one. The people who get elected do not make laws and take actions that affect just the people who voted for them, they affect everyone in their constituency (and often people not in their constituency as well.) You can't just say "i'm running in a different direction" and expect that to exclude you from the results of what the majority of the "lemmings" vote for.
I don't vote for someone i believe in because i am a realist, not an idealist. I will cast my vote in the way that i believe results in the best outcome. As such when faced with multiple options i have to balance the good of each option with the likelihood of my vote affecting the outcome when placed in that bucket.
An individual vote may not be worth a lot, but if enough of us teamed up to vote for a third party candidate to "matter", it would also be enough to affect the balance between the two main parties. The process of transition would inevitably result in at least one election cycle, quite possibly more, where the people i definitely _don't_ want to see in power would win the election. That's already a huge sacrifice to pay, but it's further compounded by the fact that even if we succeeded in bringing a third party to prominence it wouldn't take long for everything to settle out the same way with two parties controlling everything and having a vested interest in not rocking the boat. The nature of the electoral system pretty much guarantees that outcome. (I'm sure you're already familiar with the process, but just for reference: The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
And which third party am i supposed to vote for anyway? From what little research i've done there isn't any one party that i agree with 100%. (Ultimately the only person who anyone ever agrees with 100% is themselves.) So i can vote for the party i don't entirely agree with that has some chance of accomplishing some of the things i want, or i can vote for the party i don't entirely agree with that has no chance of accomplishing any of the things i want.
So as little as my choice matters, i'm not willing to contribute to years of chaos and rule by the greater evil in exchange for giving a slightly different lesser evil the chance to be in charge.
And honestly just saying "the problem is that everyone else is a stupid lemming" without actually examining the causes that result in the behavior you view as stupid doesn't do anything to help the situation.
There is no cause so just that you cannot find a fool who follows it.
...though if _all_ the fools seem to be adopting your cause you might want to stop and spend a little while rethinking your position.
Uh, if you're gonna try and correct people on the usage of the term, perhaps you should look it up first?
Or the shorter version:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ad hominem refers to a tactic used in an argument. If you dismiss what someone has to say because of who they are, that is prejudice. If you try to convince other people to dismiss what someone has to say because of who they are, that is an ad hominem attack. The ad hominem attack may attempt to appeal to the prejudices of the people you're trying to convince, but it does not mean that that is why _you_ dismissed what your opponent had to say. Now technically for it to be an ad hominem attack the "negative" trait you're accusing them of must be entirely irrelevant. If what you say would be relevant if it were true, but it's not true, then technically it would be slander/libel instead. However people don't usually bother drawing the distinction that finely.
And if all several million of the other people who feel the same way as me had voted for a third party instead of the lesser Orwellian, it's entirely possible the greater Orwellian would have won instead. It's really easy to cast stones. It's less easy to come up with a viable strategy when trapped in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma with another player whom you don't trust at all. Electoral reform is the only "easy" way out, and that's unlikely to happen because the people who are the most able to reform it are the ones who benefit most from the current system.
I honestly believe that the exact same thing would have happened with McCain or Romney as president. I also think Bush would probably have done the same thing if he'd had the drones available at the time. I can't prove it of course, but i do feel the fact that a bipartisan group of Senators were asking for the criteria used to kill Americans rather than demanding that it not happen at all kind of supports the idea. For the same reason i don't think Obama will be impeached or even seriously criticized by Congress over this. (If all the Republicans get together and try to pass a law that would effectively stop things like this i would get behind them on this one issue. But it ain't gonna happen.)
I voted for Obama in both of the previous elections. I didn't vote for him because i honsetly thought he would Change anything. One can always hope, but i didn't believe it would really happen, so i wasn't that disappointed when it didn't. I voted for him because i believed he wouldn't do _most_ of the things the Republicans said they wanted to do, and _maybe_ he'd actually manage to do one of two good things. And that's pretty much what happened. He's managed to do a couple things i view as good, and _mostly_ hasn't done the things the Republicans said they wanted.
I would rather have had a president who didn't do _any_ of the crappy things i believe the Republicans would do, but realistically there was no way to achieve that. In game theory terms i got the best outcome (from my perspective) that was possible under the current system. Under any kind of instant run-off system Obama would not have been my first choice. He might not even have been my second or third choice.
And both the Republicans and the Democrats know they can get away with a lot of crap exactly because of the two party system. "What are you going to do, vote for the Greens or Libertarians instead? Ha ha, go ahead, see how well that works out for you."
You're curious because you are too lazy to actually go find the data yourself. Laziness to search for data is an indication of a weak intellect. There is a good chance you have rotten ideas, exactly because your ideas are built on speculation not data.
Ah yes, like all good scientists you believe in hoarding information and not sharing it with others. That's okay, i can play that game too. I do actually have some statistics that i went and found. The problem is my statistics say the opposite. My statistics say that black people don't commit more crimes, they just get arrested and convicted more often. And it's pretty obvious my data is better than yours. You can go find that data yourself though, right? Cause you of course are not a lazy person with a weak intellect and rotten ideas. You'll get back to me once you've found the data i already know that proves you're wrong, right?
"Do you have statistics to backup this correction?"
Another AC already kindly posted a link just a few comments above this one, here you go: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3433863&cid=42791157
I'm sure i could find more evidence if i really tried, but that's enough to show that it does happen.
As for the second part of your post. You say "I don't see as much of an issue with police using pareto analysis to allocate their resources" and then go on to say "More police officers equals more harassment and enforcement, which explains the racial difference leading up to arrest." So... i'm confused? You're trying to disprove your own assertion?
I'm not going to argue that it's impossible that black people actually commit more crimes than white people, but i'm curious what statistics you're citing and how that data was gathered.
Let's imagine some mythical town which is 50% white and 50% black and whose judicial system is entirely free from irrational racism. However they rationally note that last year statistics showed black people were more likely to commit crimes than white people. So the cops pull over more black people and send out more patrols to predominately black neighborhoods. That's the rational thing to do after all. And surprise surprise! More black people end up getting arrested. So the statistics next year show black people are more likely to commit crimes. However a closer look at the data shows that both blacks and whites were equally likely to end up getting arrested after getting pulled over, and patrols in white neighborhoods had the same average number of arrests as patrols in black neighborhoods. Without any intentional racism on anyone's part racism still exists in the system just because of people blindly following statistics.
I'm not saying we need to mandate equal incarceration rates. But everyone should be treated equally regardless of what statistics might say about the likelihood of "someone like them" having committed a crime. And if there is some statistical evidence that one group is committing more crime and/or ending up in jail more then we shouldn't be using that as a justification for treating the two groups differently, we should instead be taking a long hard and in-depth look at why the statistics are that way.
However we're still at the point where some groups are being punished disproportionately for the same crime on a nationwide basis.
"Racism is denying the fact that many blacks in the US have been disadvantaged and largely as a result are more likely to get arrested."
Fixed that for you. Even when they haven't committed any crime non-white people in general and black people in particular are more likely to get harassed by cops. They're also more likely to be arrested if they have committed a crime and once arrested more likely to go to jail. That is especially the case if the crime is something relatively minor, say getting caught with pot. If you're white and well off that would probably be a wrist slap at worst. If you're black and poor however...
They may not have believed that no one would learn Dish Network existed, but i'm pretty sure the intent of blocking the award was to prevent endorsing it and advertising it further. Now however more people know that the geeks at CNET wanted to give the product an award than would have known if the management at CNET had just kept their mouths shut and let Dish Network have the award in the first place.
Even if it does run on Android, try not to get your Frodo mixed up with your Froyo. That never ends well.
...
Okay, unless you like short hairy people covered in yogurt. I guess i shouldn't judge.