All BK has done is use the product in the manner intended.
Except that they deliberately went around Google's fix, establishing their intent to deliberately do things not wanted by the user.
A long time ago, houses were often locked with locks with big keyholes, that would in the course of normal operation open when one of a very small number of skeleton keys was used. (Modern locks have a lot more variation in keying.) Since the lock would open in normal operation, then, by your reasoning, the burglar was using the product in the manner intended.
Google didn't intend the product to be accessed by a television commercial. Presumably many, if not most, owners didn't intend that either. Technology isn't intent.
The primary antisocial aspect of smoking is the risk of cancer from second hand smoke.
Cancer isn't the only dangerous thing smoking causes, although it is the most scary thing. Smoking can cause all sorts of respiratory distress and heart issues.
To put this another way, if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have worn that dress.
This is deliberate access of a computer system without authorization. That it is easy is irrelevant. It may be stupid to have it set up like that, and it may be stupid for a young woman to wear that dress in that neighborhood, but that doesn't excuse the act. If I leave my door unlocked and open when nobody's in the house, it's easy for someone to walk in and steal my laptop, but it's still illegal.
Especially a lie. Words have different meanings, and one of them for "whopper" is a big lie. It can also be used to describe something big that isn't a lie, or a particular sandwich, and probably some other things but big lie is a very important meaning.
The CFAA forbids unauthorized access to computer systems meeting certain criteria (I don't know if the systems in question qualify). Unauthorized access includes access with valid account and password if the accessing entity should know that the access is unauthorized. Google has made it clear that the Burger King commercial is unauthorized by changing its activation, and Burger King has defied that. BK and whatever advertising agencies it employs might be in serious legal trouble.
You misinterpreted me in calling me a liar. I said that I was fine with you having to negotiate for private services for everything, since you're so against government services. If you think municipalities are coercive, try a private business that knows it has you by the balls.
The big municipal services around here include water and sewer, which are at a reasonable cost for everyone, rich or poor. There's no way I could get the rest of the privileged middle class together and get service that good that inexpensively.
I didn't say we could just transplant another country's health care. I said that literally every other developed country has a decent health care system that's much less expensive than ours, and many of these systems are better.
Anyone who says the US can't have a health system that covers everyone well with massive savings from what we pay now is claiming that the US is uniquely inept among developed countries. There used to be an attitude (which I miss) that, if anyone can do something, we can. It seems that lots of people, particularly on the right, think despair and learned helplessness suit the US better.
Copyright law doesn't come down from the skies written in noodles. It's something we as a country created and can modify or abolish. There's reasons behind it, and anyone who wants to start a political movement to change it needs to consider those reasons.
Let's get at least one thing straight. Lots of people value various forms of art, and are willing to pay for them. In order for this to work there has to be some way of sending money people are willing to part with to people who create the art. Some art will be produced anyway, but not necessarily in a particularly good form. Writing a novel can be fun. Editing and proofreading are less fun, and typically require payment. Some art won't be produced without a reliable way of collecting money if it's good, and movies are among those.
What we've got is copyright. It isn't a matter of ideology, but practice. We don't have a better way of taking money from those willing to give it and sending it to artists. Disrupting that, without providing an alternative means more or less as good, would mean that a lot of stuff just wouldn't be made, and a lot would be of worse quality. This would lower people's quality of life. We've got a system that works, and I'm not interested in dismantling it.
Then you argue that human rights and free speech require the ability to exchange ideas freely, and I agree with this, and US copyright law agrees with this. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the expressions of them. If something is expressed in a way the idea requires and doesn't provide alternative for, it isn't copyrightable. You can talk about any idea you want, provided you use your own words. Free speech doesn't demand that I should have the right to copy Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. It demands that I can talk about them as I like, and make my own original superhero movie if I like and can scare up the money.
LTE coverage is partly a matter of poles (for bandwidth, anyway) and partly a matter of the EM spectrum. If the FCC didn't regulate that, it would become pretty much useless, which would be annoying because I like getting the Internet on my phone. The frequency auction you mention is held by the government, as it has to be. Only the government can impose penalties on anyone using the EM spectrum in a way that interferes with its licensed use.
Separation of power production and power delivery was happening in 2004-2005 when I was working a testing gig at the local electric company. Suddenly we had to badge our way out of the elevator lobby, and we had instructions on who we could say what to, apparently a result of Federal deregulation and consequent antitrust regulation. (Basically, I couldn't say anything power-related and not available on the public internet to anyone on the fifth floor.) I don't know that the power production is legally different between Texas and Michigan. It may be that you have more competition in Texas for some reason.
Right now, I can get internet service with dialup, DSL, cell phone wireless (which was real handy when the DSL was flaky), fiber from the phone company, cable, city-provided wifi, and I suppose satellite. There's a company going out and fibering up neighborhoods, they aren't near me yet. DSL is deprecated, and got real flaky before we got fiber, so right now I can go with the phone company, the cable company, or the municipal wifi if I want halfway reasonable service. So, one company other than the phone or cable company is stringing fiber, so I suppose there's no problem with regulation. It's a natural duopoly that someone thinks they can make money butting in on, showing that there's no government regulation against starting something new.
Oil pipeline rights of way have nothing to do with last-mile Internet. There's plenty of routes to run backbone fiber through.
Regulations have come about when at least apparently needed. I'm not a railroad buff (although I have a friend who is), but if the railroads were policing themselves adequately there would have been no regulation.
Tax law is a general thing. I'm required to send some of my wealth to various governments in various ways, much as I have to send some of mine off to get food and shelter. No tax collector is going to take anything in particular, except as an extreme collection measure when all others have failed. No tax collector will tell me what I can and can't do with particular pieces of property.
Copyright law tells me that I can't do certain specific things with certain specific items I own. There's a difference there.
For quite a few centuries, we had trade secrets, and we have them today. These have nothing to do with copyright, although this was one of the main reasons behind patents: to allow someone to profit widely from something that otherwise would be a trade secret at the cost of revealing it and losing control of it after some years. Copyright was originally to allow a given publishing house the sole right to publish a book. Copyright and patent law are quite different, and the term "Intellectual Property" is really a fusion of (IIRC) four different bodies of law.
Technology has affected this. When I was young, I had neither the ability to produce a decent quality book nor to press a record. Cassette tapes started an age of musical copyright violation. While vanity publishers did exist when I was young, there are print-on-demand services that are much more flexible today, not to mention my ability to copy an ebook easily. The law becomes more important, as well as more in conflict with what people normally think of as property rights.
Also, you're looking at storytellers in pre-literate societies in the wrong way. It wasn't like a guild, and you didn't have to be a professional to tell a story. If you knew a story, and could spin a good yarn, you could tell it. Not only was there no way to protect stories, the idea would have been foreign and weird.
Copyright infringement leaves the copyright holder with the same legal control as before, so legally it isn't really a denial of control. At worst, it's similar to harmless trespass. If you're in my back yard for no good reason, without my permission, and damage nothing, you're violating my legal control over my property.
Socialism is an economic ideology or system where the means of production are, directly or indirectly, owned and run by the workers. Capitalism is an economic ideology or system where the means of production are separate from the workers and may be used for rent (in the economic sense). If you see only one as an ideology, you're too deep in one of them.
Jacobins were not exactly socialists, and the excesses of the French Revolution were dwarfed by the death and destruction of the Napoleonic Wars that followed. There is a difference between the fight for political equality and the fight for economic inequality, although they're often related. Currently, in theory I have political equality with Bill Gates, although practically Bill can donate more money to a cause than I can. We've each got our votes, and pretty much the same legal rights. There is no hereditary aristocracy in the US, just a largely hereditary oligarchy.
Aside from the spread of Communism in the Twentieth Century, I don't know of widespread socialist attacks on the upper classes. Nineteenth-Century anarchists did not kill many people, but did aim at prominent targets. Killing a captain of industry or a princess had a much greater impact than a bunch of quietly starving lower classes (like the Irish Potato Famine, during which Ireland remained a net exporter of food). While the Soviet Union and Communist China killed a lot of people, it wasn't at the overall rate of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, and Socialism doesn't have a long history of bloody wars.
Dark matter answers several different questions about the cosmos, including reasons unrelated to why it was first hypothesized, so it's a pretty well-established theory (although without much of an explanation other than matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically). Don't know what relation you're thinking to workable magic, though.
My racial descent is fairly obvious, but that isn't true of everyone. Particularly since race is much more a social than a biological construct, and we don't officially belong to racial groups, it's usually a matter of looking a someone, knowing their name, and putting down a category. On the other hand, my income is part of government records, and I have to provide evidence for it for mortgages. We can put down income on the basis of self-reporting, and we can check that against public statistics to see if there's distortions.
There are physical differences, yes, but mostly inconsequential to the average person. I haven't seen any demonstration that there are inherent intellectual differences between the races. (I don't know that there aren't, mind you, but so far nobody's budged me off the null hypothesis.). I have seen a lot of crap science trying to label certain races as superior or inferior, and that may well have prejudiced me, but I'd think that if there were major differences someone would have come up with convincing evidence.
I'm also more interested in how I should deal with a given individual than in how I should deal with a racial group, and in that context racial differences are largely irrelevant. Public policy should look at individual characteristics. It's possible that, on the whole, whites are smarter than blacks, but there are some very smart blacks and some very dumb whites, and the individual differences are bigger than the racial differences. If we are to treat people of different intelligence differently (which we do, in some ways), treating people of different races differently instead is unfair and grossly inefficient.
I don't think you're interpreting this the right way.
Back in the 1950s, it was normal for the husband to work and the wife to stay home with the kids. This worked for some people, not others. My mother would have been considerably less happy confined to the home, for example, and I think that would have adversely affected my brother and me. That women are more accepted in the workplace, and can work in a larger variety of jobs, is good.
Right now, you complain that only relatively well-off mothers can stay home with their kids, but that isn't due to feminism. It's due to the declining standard of living for single-income families. If it were easier to live decently on one adult income, so it was feasible to have an at-home parent, I think we'd both be happy with the changes.
They believe mankind, separated from "society" is naturally non-racist, non-sexist, non-gendered even,
That's not the belief. Mankind, forming a society from scratch, will probably be racist and sexist. The belief is that, by trying to judge people as individuals instead of by race or sex, we'll do better as a whole. There's been lots of primitive people with rigidly defined sex roles, and modern developed countries are a lot more fluid with them. If you want a software developer, you'll do better by hiring who seems to be the better developer rather than hiring men only.
the outcomes of race, gender, or class groups is imposed on the formless humans by society
Which is what happens, to a large extent. There are stereotypes that people apply, and that changes how people are treated (and how people are treated has much to do with how they perceive themselves). In addition, while there's no significant heredity in sex, race is hereditary, and therefore members of a disfavored race will start their lives disfavored. We can see different historical behavior in such groups, so we know that a lot of the differences have to be social rather than biological.
This is very similar to Marx's concept of communism and capitalism. He believed that mankind had no innate human nature,
If you're going to call everybody influenced by Locke's "tabula rasa "principle Communist, you're screwing up what the word means.
This is the same concept behind feminism and anti-racism*. Gender norms have nothing to do with the clear, obvious, and scientifically proven biological differences between the sexes.
Except that there are a lot fewer biologically proven differences than some people think. What we get to study psychologically is a bunch of people who grew up in society.
These are in fact imposed by the evil Patriarchy.
Historically, women have often been subject to much greater restrictions than they are now, which means that the patriarchy of the period has historically done this. There's no reason to think that this has completely gone away and that we live in a perfect culture where everyone can thrive according to their innate biologically-determined abilities.
*Do you remember how women were normally treated before the feminist movement? I'm not interested in returning to the 1950s-type racism and sexism. Like all movements, there are radical idiots, but the drive has normally been for equality.
The fact that they recognize speech better shows that they're closer to acquiring human language-like language skills. A lot of speech recognition is context-dependent, including grammar and semantics. Fun fact: in American English, "latter" and "ladder" are normally pronounced the same, the "tt" or "dd": being a single tongue flap on the upper palate near the teeth. People who claim they hear a difference can't tell the difference on an isolated replay of the word. Yet we almost never get confusion.
Obviously, the punishment for committing a crime should not depend on the background of the perp. This is something that can be fixed.
This is not something that can be easily fixed. If the members of a jury believe that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because more blacks are convicted of crimes, they'll tend to convict blacks more easily than whites, all without conscious intent. Perhaps whites tend to get better defense attorneys, because they're perceived as less likely to have committed a crime, or maybe because, having a lower chance of being convicted of a crime, they're better off financially.
A lot of the difference could be due to self-perpetuating factors like this, even with the best of intentions.
Institutionalized racism is when people think "this guy is black, he'll probably default" rather than "this guy is poor, he'll probably default". This means that the black guy doesn't get the same opportunity as the white guy regardless of relative income, and this means blacks will stay poorer on the whole than whites. It's self-fulfilling prophecies.
However, it's not necessarily a good thing that race is part of society. For most purposes, nobody's ever demonstrated real differences between the races outside the societal context, and so it's very likely that a truly non-racist society would function better and be happier.
Assuming your number is correct, which I very much doubt (I don't see how to verify it), that doesn't actually tell us what we should be doing about individuals.
Now look at other languages' words for Deutsch. In English, its "German", which as far as I can tell refers to the barbarians Roman writers wrote about. The French "Alemagne" or whatever appears to refer to a subgroup of the classic Germans (Alemanni). In Russian, "nemyetsi" is at least closely related to the word for "barbarians". I don't know if this had any effect on international relations, but it likely wasn't good.
Some biology is racist. Blacks and whites are not vulnerable to some diseases at the same rates. There is a subgroup of blacks that tends to be better than any subgroup of whites at certain athletic events. Getting into things that aren't clear physical differences is a lot trickier, since there's an immense number of factors affecting things like intelligence and predilections and they're much harder to control for.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that they deliberately went around Google's fix, establishing their intent to deliberately do things not wanted by the user.
A long time ago, houses were often locked with locks with big keyholes, that would in the course of normal operation open when one of a very small number of skeleton keys was used. (Modern locks have a lot more variation in keying.) Since the lock would open in normal operation, then, by your reasoning, the burglar was using the product in the manner intended.
Google didn't intend the product to be accessed by a television commercial. Presumably many, if not most, owners didn't intend that either. Technology isn't intent.
Cancer isn't the only dangerous thing smoking causes, although it is the most scary thing. Smoking can cause all sorts of respiratory distress and heart issues.
To put this another way, if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have worn that dress.
This is deliberate access of a computer system without authorization. That it is easy is irrelevant. It may be stupid to have it set up like that, and it may be stupid for a young woman to wear that dress in that neighborhood, but that doesn't excuse the act. If I leave my door unlocked and open when nobody's in the house, it's easy for someone to walk in and steal my laptop, but it's still illegal.
Especially a lie. Words have different meanings, and one of them for "whopper" is a big lie. It can also be used to describe something big that isn't a lie, or a particular sandwich, and probably some other things but big lie is a very important meaning.
The CFAA forbids unauthorized access to computer systems meeting certain criteria (I don't know if the systems in question qualify). Unauthorized access includes access with valid account and password if the accessing entity should know that the access is unauthorized. Google has made it clear that the Burger King commercial is unauthorized by changing its activation, and Burger King has defied that. BK and whatever advertising agencies it employs might be in serious legal trouble.
You misinterpreted me in calling me a liar. I said that I was fine with you having to negotiate for private services for everything, since you're so against government services. If you think municipalities are coercive, try a private business that knows it has you by the balls.
The big municipal services around here include water and sewer, which are at a reasonable cost for everyone, rich or poor. There's no way I could get the rest of the privileged middle class together and get service that good that inexpensively.
I didn't say we could just transplant another country's health care. I said that literally every other developed country has a decent health care system that's much less expensive than ours, and many of these systems are better.
Anyone who says the US can't have a health system that covers everyone well with massive savings from what we pay now is claiming that the US is uniquely inept among developed countries. There used to be an attitude (which I miss) that, if anyone can do something, we can. It seems that lots of people, particularly on the right, think despair and learned helplessness suit the US better.
Copyright law doesn't come down from the skies written in noodles. It's something we as a country created and can modify or abolish. There's reasons behind it, and anyone who wants to start a political movement to change it needs to consider those reasons.
Let's get at least one thing straight. Lots of people value various forms of art, and are willing to pay for them. In order for this to work there has to be some way of sending money people are willing to part with to people who create the art. Some art will be produced anyway, but not necessarily in a particularly good form. Writing a novel can be fun. Editing and proofreading are less fun, and typically require payment. Some art won't be produced without a reliable way of collecting money if it's good, and movies are among those.
What we've got is copyright. It isn't a matter of ideology, but practice. We don't have a better way of taking money from those willing to give it and sending it to artists. Disrupting that, without providing an alternative means more or less as good, would mean that a lot of stuff just wouldn't be made, and a lot would be of worse quality. This would lower people's quality of life. We've got a system that works, and I'm not interested in dismantling it.
Then you argue that human rights and free speech require the ability to exchange ideas freely, and I agree with this, and US copyright law agrees with this. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the expressions of them. If something is expressed in a way the idea requires and doesn't provide alternative for, it isn't copyrightable. You can talk about any idea you want, provided you use your own words. Free speech doesn't demand that I should have the right to copy Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. It demands that I can talk about them as I like, and make my own original superhero movie if I like and can scare up the money.
LTE coverage is partly a matter of poles (for bandwidth, anyway) and partly a matter of the EM spectrum. If the FCC didn't regulate that, it would become pretty much useless, which would be annoying because I like getting the Internet on my phone. The frequency auction you mention is held by the government, as it has to be. Only the government can impose penalties on anyone using the EM spectrum in a way that interferes with its licensed use.
Separation of power production and power delivery was happening in 2004-2005 when I was working a testing gig at the local electric company. Suddenly we had to badge our way out of the elevator lobby, and we had instructions on who we could say what to, apparently a result of Federal deregulation and consequent antitrust regulation. (Basically, I couldn't say anything power-related and not available on the public internet to anyone on the fifth floor.) I don't know that the power production is legally different between Texas and Michigan. It may be that you have more competition in Texas for some reason.
Right now, I can get internet service with dialup, DSL, cell phone wireless (which was real handy when the DSL was flaky), fiber from the phone company, cable, city-provided wifi, and I suppose satellite. There's a company going out and fibering up neighborhoods, they aren't near me yet. DSL is deprecated, and got real flaky before we got fiber, so right now I can go with the phone company, the cable company, or the municipal wifi if I want halfway reasonable service. So, one company other than the phone or cable company is stringing fiber, so I suppose there's no problem with regulation. It's a natural duopoly that someone thinks they can make money butting in on, showing that there's no government regulation against starting something new.
Oil pipeline rights of way have nothing to do with last-mile Internet. There's plenty of routes to run backbone fiber through.
Regulations have come about when at least apparently needed. I'm not a railroad buff (although I have a friend who is), but if the railroads were policing themselves adequately there would have been no regulation.
Tax law is a general thing. I'm required to send some of my wealth to various governments in various ways, much as I have to send some of mine off to get food and shelter. No tax collector is going to take anything in particular, except as an extreme collection measure when all others have failed. No tax collector will tell me what I can and can't do with particular pieces of property.
Copyright law tells me that I can't do certain specific things with certain specific items I own. There's a difference there.
For quite a few centuries, we had trade secrets, and we have them today. These have nothing to do with copyright, although this was one of the main reasons behind patents: to allow someone to profit widely from something that otherwise would be a trade secret at the cost of revealing it and losing control of it after some years. Copyright was originally to allow a given publishing house the sole right to publish a book. Copyright and patent law are quite different, and the term "Intellectual Property" is really a fusion of (IIRC) four different bodies of law.
Technology has affected this. When I was young, I had neither the ability to produce a decent quality book nor to press a record. Cassette tapes started an age of musical copyright violation. While vanity publishers did exist when I was young, there are print-on-demand services that are much more flexible today, not to mention my ability to copy an ebook easily. The law becomes more important, as well as more in conflict with what people normally think of as property rights.
Also, you're looking at storytellers in pre-literate societies in the wrong way. It wasn't like a guild, and you didn't have to be a professional to tell a story. If you knew a story, and could spin a good yarn, you could tell it. Not only was there no way to protect stories, the idea would have been foreign and weird.
Copyright infringement leaves the copyright holder with the same legal control as before, so legally it isn't really a denial of control. At worst, it's similar to harmless trespass. If you're in my back yard for no good reason, without my permission, and damage nothing, you're violating my legal control over my property.
Socialism is an economic ideology or system where the means of production are, directly or indirectly, owned and run by the workers. Capitalism is an economic ideology or system where the means of production are separate from the workers and may be used for rent (in the economic sense). If you see only one as an ideology, you're too deep in one of them.
Jacobins were not exactly socialists, and the excesses of the French Revolution were dwarfed by the death and destruction of the Napoleonic Wars that followed. There is a difference between the fight for political equality and the fight for economic inequality, although they're often related. Currently, in theory I have political equality with Bill Gates, although practically Bill can donate more money to a cause than I can. We've each got our votes, and pretty much the same legal rights. There is no hereditary aristocracy in the US, just a largely hereditary oligarchy.
Aside from the spread of Communism in the Twentieth Century, I don't know of widespread socialist attacks on the upper classes. Nineteenth-Century anarchists did not kill many people, but did aim at prominent targets. Killing a captain of industry or a princess had a much greater impact than a bunch of quietly starving lower classes (like the Irish Potato Famine, during which Ireland remained a net exporter of food). While the Soviet Union and Communist China killed a lot of people, it wasn't at the overall rate of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, and Socialism doesn't have a long history of bloody wars.
Dark matter answers several different questions about the cosmos, including reasons unrelated to why it was first hypothesized, so it's a pretty well-established theory (although without much of an explanation other than matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically). Don't know what relation you're thinking to workable magic, though.
My racial descent is fairly obvious, but that isn't true of everyone. Particularly since race is much more a social than a biological construct, and we don't officially belong to racial groups, it's usually a matter of looking a someone, knowing their name, and putting down a category. On the other hand, my income is part of government records, and I have to provide evidence for it for mortgages. We can put down income on the basis of self-reporting, and we can check that against public statistics to see if there's distortions.
There are physical differences, yes, but mostly inconsequential to the average person. I haven't seen any demonstration that there are inherent intellectual differences between the races. (I don't know that there aren't, mind you, but so far nobody's budged me off the null hypothesis.). I have seen a lot of crap science trying to label certain races as superior or inferior, and that may well have prejudiced me, but I'd think that if there were major differences someone would have come up with convincing evidence.
I'm also more interested in how I should deal with a given individual than in how I should deal with a racial group, and in that context racial differences are largely irrelevant. Public policy should look at individual characteristics. It's possible that, on the whole, whites are smarter than blacks, but there are some very smart blacks and some very dumb whites, and the individual differences are bigger than the racial differences. If we are to treat people of different intelligence differently (which we do, in some ways), treating people of different races differently instead is unfair and grossly inefficient.
I don't think you're interpreting this the right way.
Back in the 1950s, it was normal for the husband to work and the wife to stay home with the kids. This worked for some people, not others. My mother would have been considerably less happy confined to the home, for example, and I think that would have adversely affected my brother and me. That women are more accepted in the workplace, and can work in a larger variety of jobs, is good.
Right now, you complain that only relatively well-off mothers can stay home with their kids, but that isn't due to feminism. It's due to the declining standard of living for single-income families. If it were easier to live decently on one adult income, so it was feasible to have an at-home parent, I think we'd both be happy with the changes.
That's not the belief. Mankind, forming a society from scratch, will probably be racist and sexist. The belief is that, by trying to judge people as individuals instead of by race or sex, we'll do better as a whole. There's been lots of primitive people with rigidly defined sex roles, and modern developed countries are a lot more fluid with them. If you want a software developer, you'll do better by hiring who seems to be the better developer rather than hiring men only.
Which is what happens, to a large extent. There are stereotypes that people apply, and that changes how people are treated (and how people are treated has much to do with how they perceive themselves). In addition, while there's no significant heredity in sex, race is hereditary, and therefore members of a disfavored race will start their lives disfavored. We can see different historical behavior in such groups, so we know that a lot of the differences have to be social rather than biological.
If you're going to call everybody influenced by Locke's "tabula rasa "principle Communist, you're screwing up what the word means.
Except that there are a lot fewer biologically proven differences than some people think. What we get to study psychologically is a bunch of people who grew up in society.
Historically, women have often been subject to much greater restrictions than they are now, which means that the patriarchy of the period has historically done this. There's no reason to think that this has completely gone away and that we live in a perfect culture where everyone can thrive according to their innate biologically-determined abilities.
*Do you remember how women were normally treated before the feminist movement? I'm not interested in returning to the 1950s-type racism and sexism. Like all movements, there are radical idiots, but the drive has normally been for equality.
The fact that they recognize speech better shows that they're closer to acquiring human language-like language skills. A lot of speech recognition is context-dependent, including grammar and semantics. Fun fact: in American English, "latter" and "ladder" are normally pronounced the same, the "tt" or "dd": being a single tongue flap on the upper palate near the teeth. People who claim they hear a difference can't tell the difference on an isolated replay of the word. Yet we almost never get confusion.
This is not something that can be easily fixed. If the members of a jury believe that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because more blacks are convicted of crimes, they'll tend to convict blacks more easily than whites, all without conscious intent. Perhaps whites tend to get better defense attorneys, because they're perceived as less likely to have committed a crime, or maybe because, having a lower chance of being convicted of a crime, they're better off financially.
A lot of the difference could be due to self-perpetuating factors like this, even with the best of intentions.
Institutionalized racism is when people think "this guy is black, he'll probably default" rather than "this guy is poor, he'll probably default". This means that the black guy doesn't get the same opportunity as the white guy regardless of relative income, and this means blacks will stay poorer on the whole than whites. It's self-fulfilling prophecies.
However, it's not necessarily a good thing that race is part of society. For most purposes, nobody's ever demonstrated real differences between the races outside the societal context, and so it's very likely that a truly non-racist society would function better and be happier.
Assuming your number is correct, which I very much doubt (I don't see how to verify it), that doesn't actually tell us what we should be doing about individuals.
Now look at other languages' words for Deutsch. In English, its "German", which as far as I can tell refers to the barbarians Roman writers wrote about. The French "Alemagne" or whatever appears to refer to a subgroup of the classic Germans (Alemanni). In Russian, "nemyetsi" is at least closely related to the word for "barbarians". I don't know if this had any effect on international relations, but it likely wasn't good.
Some biology is racist. Blacks and whites are not vulnerable to some diseases at the same rates. There is a subgroup of blacks that tends to be better than any subgroup of whites at certain athletic events. Getting into things that aren't clear physical differences is a lot trickier, since there's an immense number of factors affecting things like intelligence and predilections and they're much harder to control for.