It is easier to attack. But it is not easier to shut down.
Of course it is easier to attack, it is the ARMOR the country's communication system wears. It is what is exposed to attack, so it is easier to attack.
They developed the paralyzing strike via evolution, then they by chance stung them to death, and dragged the body home. One lucky roach managed to hit the zombification spot, instead of the regular kill spot. When they tried to drag the body home, it came easier. Those that hit the same spot time and time again, took less time to get the body home, so had an evolutionary advantage.
Note, the insects do have a small brain, so it might have had a bit of "ah ha!" momemnt as well, intentionally trying for the zombification spot after the first random time it found it.
The thing about genius is you only need to be right once. Right 5 times, with something that no other company has, at less than 1/2 the price is FAR FAR better than being wrong, at twice the price, even if you have a few more games that sell well.
The number of good games is low because the number of over all games is low, because many game designers fell for the Sony propaganda this year claiming that that the Wii was just a fad.
They are the just now realizing that no, the Wii is NOT just a fad, and yes you can make more money building a low end graphic game with a better controller.
You watch, next year there will more games for the Nintendo that are great. The game designers can no longer say "our market is the high end graphic user" and ignore the better system.
Ever since the Wii came out, Sony, etc. have always been saying "it's all hype, it will go away in a few months."
I remember a Slasdot story about 4 months ago that basically said the Wii had peaked, that all the non-gamers that wanted one had bought it already, and it was sitting unused, while the gamers did not want one.
What crap.
Sony etc. are still caught in the "better chip/video, at any cost" model. Nintendo got it right, the video is more than good enough at the low end. It will take another revolution in video quality to make the best chips worth it again. For now, better games and better controllers are where it is at.
Can't anyone read anymore? The reporter etc. are idiots.
This was not new research, it was a 'meta-study'. It looked at other research, and then says that they all agree. They do agree. There is clear correlation between real violence and media violence. The problem is they make moronic claims of CAUSATION, which NO study has EVER proven.
Yes, people that watch/play violent video TV/games are more violent.
This is because people that are more violent like to watch/play violence.
No, watching/playing does not cause the violence. It is the other way around.
Get it through your thick heads, people. correlation is not causation, and the arguement is about causation, not correlation.
I did RTFA. The article clearly said that Comedy Central would be showing it, but failed to mention the time - so I asked if anyone knew it. The article talked about the DVD. I am clearly not a super-fan of the show, as I don't want to buy the DVD. But I am considering watching it for free., so I asked for the time.
I checked Comedy Central and they have nothing about it being on Nov 27th, 2007.
Or is it Nov 27th, 2008? If it is, then those people could have said so. I mean, today being Nov 26th, when you here it will be on Nov 27th, you think tomorrow.
First I never said that real dowsers would drive all fake ones out, that is your bad argument (called 'a strawman fallacy'). What I said is that the existence of real dowsers would make it very hard to find a fake one. Because real stuff beats good ones. And yes that means that bad building contractors ARE much less common than good building contractors. Most buildings made by building contractors stand up. The prevalence of known and proven fakes is far far greater in Dowsing than in building contractors.
I am presenting my ideas well (See the "insightful" ratings I got). The problem is you have already made up your mind and every time I present something, you refuse to read what I wrote, instead you make up something similar, but not quite true. Then you argue with it.
Part of the problem is the very fact that you attacked Randi at all.
That is called "Ad hominem" fallacy - when you attack the person instead of their argument.
Look, Albert Einstein was a great scientist. But he also cheated on his wife. People don't bring that up much, because it has nothing to do with his science. Similarly, you have no business attacking Randi. If you dislike something he did than attack THAT PARTICULAR THING. Talking in a general way about how bad he is, then telling other people to research him is pretty much proof that you have no good argument. If you did, you would describe the particular thing you that he did wrong, not try to bring in a bunch of unrelated stuff.
Telling me to 'do some research on Randi' is like saying "go learn about Einstein", hoping that I will be turned off by his cheating ways. Attack the tests, not the test giver.
Randi is a human being, he is not perfect. He has flaws. If you have a REAL complaint about his tests then describe that particular one.
Anything else is not a real argument, instead it is pretty solid proof that you don't know how to tell a lie from the truth.
P.S. Some of the bolding was a mistake. I meant to bold a sentence and got a paragraph.
1. Everybody has a personal investment in not being proven wrong about this crap.
But the lying/fools that think Dowsing works have a MUCH GREATER personal investment in not being proven wrong than James Randi does. Even claiming the personal investment arguement makes you look foolish.
2. The Let me get this straight, you are complainging that his tests are too strict? I got news for you kid, every scientific experiemnt has FAR stricter tests than the relatively easy thing James Randi does. Why? Because CON MEN DO EXIST. You have to be pretty moronic to complain about someone making it dificult to be conned. As a stage performer, Randi KNOWS how to trick people and he is NOT stupid enough to let someone use those same methods on him.
3. Real things work no matter what kind of strict tests you do. You light a match, it works. It works if 'non-believers' are present. It works if cameras are watching you. It works if a CHILD does it. It just works. Dowsing simply does NOT work.
4. The thing to remember is that people claiming that Dowsing work: a. make money doing it, so they have LARGE incentive to lie and cheat. b. If they did work, they would make SO money by actually doing it for real that the million dollars from Randi would be small potatoes.
5. You admit that there ARE shysters and frauds. Fine. Believe it or not but that puts the burden of proof on you. Because the rest of us do NOT admit that anyone can do it for real. The existence of shysters and frauds means there is PLENTY of doubt that ANYONE can really do it. Why? Because for a real product, the shysters and fraud get OUTSOLD by the people doing it for real. When you go buy a new car, you do not have a real chance of getting something that has no engine. The existence of REAL cars make it very hard to sell fake ones. If Dowsing etc. was real, the real people would outcompete the fakes and it would be hard to find one of the shysters and frauds. The fact that there are so many many shysters and frauds is not 100% proof that no real ones exist, but it pretty darn close to it that no real ones existed 10 years ago (because if one real one existed 10 years ago, he and his students would have put the fake ones out of business by now.
Stop attacking the guy that proves you wrong and just prove yourself right. Otherwise, everyone will continue to laugh at your foolishnes.
1. Yeah, filling in a bubble can have bad handwriting issues. As in, people do NOT always fill in the bubble. This is a SERIOUS problem, particularly for older people with poor hand control.
2. Confirmation bar codes are basically a public-private key system. Each ballot gets a bar code generated at vote time, specific for the voting site. It uses two sets of public-private keys, one for the hour that the vote was cast and another for the location. This way it is VERY hard to generate a bunch of valid fake ballots, and if the private keys are created each hour from scratch, that means that it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create a bunch of fake ballots before the actual vote. If you print them up before hand, then people can steal/copy them.
3. Sorry that you don't see the benefit of publicity around the voting procedures. Most of the rest of the world does. Also, if the machines say one thing then the actual vote says another, guess what you fool, you have evidence of fraud. Even if the paper ballots are correct, we STILL want to know that the fraud was attempted. Or don't you care about fraud?
5. A well desigend machine is over the long term environmentally superior to doing things by hand. If you don't see that, then you are VERY ignorant about environmental matters.
6. Yes your idea is too hard. 90% of the people do not come prepared to vote. Most people are NOT familiar with all the issues, especially some tiny little school bond issue that did not get national attention. The explanations are easily done by both sides. I.E. The people trying to vote yes get to give their explanation and the people trying to vote no get to give their explanation. This ALREADY happens, at least in California and NY.
Stop trying to demand that the voter be "perfect", and make the voting proccess available to ALL who can legally vote.
Basically you sound like an ivory tower scientist living in a bubble, saying "there is nothing wrong with the machine, it is the PEOPLE that need to get better."
Perhaps you want to insist that cars remove break lights, because hey, if the other drivers are paying attention they should SEE you slowing and stopping.
Basically, what this guy wants to do is to have you carry a videocamera around 100% of the time, always on. Then they have software to analyze what it hears/says.
He describes this as your memory, as an attempt to make it seem important instead of silly.
It is this artifical record he is talking about, not your real memory.
There is a management strategy that basically says aim for the stars.
Yeah, your turn around time seems good and yes, the customer's request is beyond industry norm.
That might mean one of three things:
One: Customer is being foolishly optimistic.
Two: The entire industry is bad about turn around time, and can, if pushed improve it to 48 hours.
Three: Customer needs it really quick and is hoping to get it quicker by asking. They know 48 hours is well beyond the norm, but are hoping you can do it anyway, because the more time it is unpatched the more they are screwed. They know that if you don't ask, you can't get, so they are at least 'asking'.
Me, I think it is a combination of all three. Customer is being a bit optimistic, the industry is bad about turn around time, and also the customer knows it is a bit optimistic but is making the request anyway in hope you will provide amazingly good service.
1. Bad hand writing.
2. If it is done by your hand, then it is easier to forge. If it is done by computer, they can use special inks, paper, and maybe a confirmation bar code.
3. The electronic machine could do a 'pre count', so that while the official count is not till next day, you get something to report tonight.
4. The machine can also save a record of things like how many people voted in each district, providing another double check to prevent voter fraud. And it could even double check what district you are SUPPOSED to be in, and if you are in the wrong district tell you the proper place to go to.
5. Environmentally better as printed ballots can use less paper and ink.
6. A well done machine can remind you to vote for all things voted on, possibly explaining a 3 paragraph refererdum without wasting lots of paper and ink, or time for those that don't need the explanation.
Where I got my statistics: Hanson, R. K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R. A. (1995). A Comparison of Child Molesters and Non-Sexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-term Recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 325-337.
But honestly, I don't need a source to point out how someone else for totally misread their own quote. Just read the original quote I replied to:
"36 of the offenders, which averages out to be 57.1%, had previous charges. The most common charge was sexual battery, with the number of 24 and an average of 38.1%."
Please note that it did NOT discuss how many people that had one offense did another. Instead it clearly is referring to the number of people that had PREVIOUS charges, not the chance of doing it again.
The error he made is rather obvious, if you pay attention to details. That fact that most criminals have previous charges does not in ANY way tell you how likely a first time offender is to commit another crime. Instead it tells you that a few people have a SERIOUS problem, not at all how likely first timers are to have that serious problem.
The acutal statistics show that 80% of people arrested for child molestation are NEVER arrested for child molestation again. Only about 20% are repeat sexual molesters. Another 22% or or so were arrested for violent crime but not child molestation (for some reason or other, after spending years in jail, with a child molestation credit on your rap sheet, you are more likely to get into fights...)
The reason why people think most offenders can not be cured is in that 20% repeat offenders, if they do repeat twice, there is like a 77% chance that they will repeat a third or more times.
As a comparison, the repeat offender rate for crimes OTHER than child molestation is over 60%.
Learn the truth, stop spreading myths.
Where I got my statistics: Hanson, R. K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R. A. (1995). A Comparison of Child Molesters and Non-Sexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-term Recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 325-337.\
I was going to moderate this thread. But then I saw this garbage.
Total misuse of statistics. Specifically, you did it BACKWARDS
What the statistics say is this:
1. MOST (as in about 80%) of people convicted of child molestation charges NEVER do it again. This compares with an estimated 50% repeat offense for other crimes. That is, someone arrested for car theft is 50% likely to get arrested for car theft again, but someone arrested for child molestation is only 20% likely to do it again.
2. However, there is a SMALL percentage of child molesters that are 'addicted' to it. Those child molesters do it so often that 50% of all child molestations are done by repeat offenders.
This is VERY VERY important. It eliminates the foolish view that "they are all uncurable" That is wrong, 80% never do it again. It is only a small percentage of people that are 'uncurable'. But those that are uncurable will do it a LOT.
The proper logical way to do the laws is "Three strikes you are out." Zero tollerrance crap just does not work well.
1. (judgement, explained so that his counter is invalid.) Children have less experiences and are exposed to massive amounts of artificial peer pressure that tremdously affects their life. This peer pressure is for the most part pro-ciggarettes in most parts of the country. Adults are not exposed to this same massive peer pressure, in large part due to their enhanced ability to choose where they work and live, thereby allowing them to pick their own friends (and those apply peer pressure) instead of having friends determined fairly randomly and indirectly by the choices their parents made.
2. Legal guardians/people responsible for others are held to a higher standard than those making decisions for themselves. That is, while you may legally decide to engage in risky behavior, including racing cars or smoking cigarrettes, you are not legally allowed to allow those same risky behaviors for others that you are responsible for.
Thus, while it may be legal for you yourself to smoke, it is illegal for you to allow ANYONE else that you are responsibel for to smoke. As children are by law not responisble for themselves but instead have others responsible for them, it is by definition illegal for anyone to give them permission to smoke, so selling ciggarretes to them is illegal.
3. Ciggarretes health effects are not 100% known. It is quite possible that the affect they have on the young is exponentially greater than they have on adults. So much so, that it is not possible for someone to reasonably smoke enough 'N number of ciggarretes' to match the physical badness from one child's ciggarettes.
4. Smoking is addictive. By preventing the young from becoming addicted, we fairly work against the negative effects to society as a whole. We do not outright make it illegal because in the past we have found such laws (prohibition, drug wars, etc.) to be more trouble than they are worth. So instead we publicy denigrate the practice via ads, while also making it illegal for the young
Not entirely. There will be some overlap of frequency ranges.
Also high resolution does not consist entirely of greater frequency ranges. It also consists of more samplings.
I.E. it may have a restricted frequency range, but the number of sounds per second sampled (equivelent to DPI) will be MUCH higher than from just one microphone.
You just ignored the point. And demonstrated total ignorance of it as well.
I read what you wrote. The problem is you are assuming peacefull protests should be handled as minor offences instead of minor violations.
That assumption is rather moronic on your part.
Which of these does a non-violent sit in sound more similar to you:
shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of illegal substances
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (including parking/speeding tickets, etc.) and other minor violations (i.e. littering, etc.)
To me, and to MOST people in the world, peacfully holding a sign, or sitting down and refusing to get up is more like littering.
The FBI does not report things like parking tickets, littering, etc. to Canada, but is reporting peacefull protests. Despite what you boldly lied about, Canada does NOT go through saying "we will take this guy, but not this guy." Instead they just refuse to take anyone on that list unless a Candaian judge rules he is acceptable. The problem is the basic list has to be downgraded to AVOID the minor violations, which should include peacefull protests. That is what Canada asked for and should get, not the piece of garbage the FBI is sending them now.
My nephew has this really cool toy, kind of like legos, only with more definition (i.e., less block/toy like, more realisitic). Also, t attachable things com in parts, similar to how you install them. So you get the bottom of a boat, the top of a boat, a cabin, a back deck, a gun, a mast, etc.
One of the pieces it comes with is a shark, and it has a 'connector' hole in the shark's head. It is designed to fit a 'harpoon' type attachment, so you can 'capture' him.
But the connector is the same standard hole type.
When I was done with it, he quite literally has a shark with a freakin laser on top of his head.
When I said near the bottom, I meant of developred nations.
You may or may not be right about Canada/Japan having "better" halth care. You are wrong about their teen pregnancy rate, it is close to what the US has.
You are also WRONG about it being why they have infant mortality rate.
Like I said before, if you ignore teen pregnancy, we have BETTER infant mortality ratios than most of the world, including Canada and Japan.
The problem is that we do not provide good pre-natal care to pregnant teen agers. They are treated very poorly, and they are often poor. If we gave pregnant teen agers the same care we gave the average pregnant 30 year old woman (who is far more likely to have health insurance, be married, and have supporting family and friends), then the US would have far BETTER infant mortality rates than Canada, Japan, etc.
It is EXACTLY ignorant statements like yours that I was trying to correct. Learn the real facts, don't just spout out the same tired old statistics that you read somewhere else.
Settled science is just memorization. Debated science is pretty much already publicized.
What I would like is for someone to say "The White House will no longer rewrite scientific reports made by agencies. If we believe something should not be 'promoted', we will move it to an appendix instead of removing it entirely."
Slashdot Mirror
It is easier to attack. But it is not easier to shut down.
Of course it is easier to attack, it is the ARMOR the country's communication system wears. It is what is exposed to attack, so it is easier to attack.
Note, the insects do have a small brain, so it might have had a bit of "ah ha!" momemnt as well, intentionally trying for the zombification spot after the first random time it found it.
The number of good games is low because the number of over all games is low, because many game designers fell for the Sony propaganda this year claiming that that the Wii was just a fad.
They are the just now realizing that no, the Wii is NOT just a fad, and yes you can make more money building a low end graphic game with a better controller.
You watch, next year there will more games for the Nintendo that are great. The game designers can no longer say "our market is the high end graphic user" and ignore the better system.
I remember a Slasdot story about 4 months ago that basically said the Wii had peaked, that all the non-gamers that wanted one had bought it already, and it was sitting unused, while the gamers did not want one.
What crap.
Sony etc. are still caught in the "better chip/video, at any cost" model. Nintendo got it right, the video is more than good enough at the low end. It will take another revolution in video quality to make the best chips worth it again. For now, better games and better controllers are where it is at.
This was not new research, it was a 'meta-study'. It looked at other research, and then says that they all agree. They do agree. There is clear correlation between real violence and media violence. The problem is they make moronic claims of CAUSATION, which NO study has EVER proven.
Yes, people that watch/play violent video TV/games are more violent.
This is because people that are more violent like to watch/play violence.
No, watching/playing does not cause the violence. It is the other way around.
Get it through your thick heads, people. correlation is not causation, and the arguement is about causation, not correlation.
I did RTFA. The article clearly said that Comedy Central would be showing it, but failed to mention the time - so I asked if anyone knew it. The article talked about the DVD. I am clearly not a super-fan of the show, as I don't want to buy the DVD. But I am considering watching it for free., so I asked for the time.
Or is it Nov 27th, 2008? If it is, then those people could have said so. I mean, today being Nov 26th, when you here it will be on Nov 27th, you think tomorrow.
First I never said that real dowsers would drive all fake ones out, that is your bad argument (called 'a strawman fallacy'). What I said is that the existence of real dowsers would make it very hard to find a fake one. Because real stuff beats good ones. And yes that means that bad building contractors ARE much less common than good building contractors. Most buildings made by building contractors stand up. The prevalence of known and proven fakes is far far greater in Dowsing than in building contractors.
I am presenting my ideas well (See the "insightful" ratings I got). The problem is you have already made up your mind and every time I present something, you refuse to read what I wrote, instead you make up something similar, but not quite true. Then you argue with it.
Part of the problem is the very fact that you attacked Randi at all.
That is called "Ad hominem" fallacy - when you attack the person instead of their argument.
Look, Albert Einstein was a great scientist. But he also cheated on his wife. People don't bring that up much, because it has nothing to do with his science. Similarly, you have no business attacking Randi. If you dislike something he did than attack THAT PARTICULAR THING. Talking in a general way about how bad he is, then telling other people to research him is pretty much proof that you have no good argument. If you did, you would describe the particular thing you that he did wrong, not try to bring in a bunch of unrelated stuff.
Telling me to 'do some research on Randi' is like saying "go learn about Einstein", hoping that I will be turned off by his cheating ways. Attack the tests, not the test giver.
Randi is a human being, he is not perfect. He has flaws. If you have a REAL complaint about his tests then describe that particular one.
Anything else is not a real argument, instead it is pretty solid proof that you don't know how to tell a lie from the truth.
P.S. Some of the bolding was a mistake. I meant to bold a sentence and got a paragraph.
1. Everybody has a personal investment in not being proven wrong about this crap. But the lying/fools that think Dowsing works have a MUCH GREATER personal investment in not being proven wrong than James Randi does. Even claiming the personal investment arguement makes you look foolish.
2. The Let me get this straight, you are complainging that his tests are too strict? I got news for you kid, every scientific experiemnt has FAR stricter tests than the relatively easy thing James Randi does. Why? Because CON MEN DO EXIST. You have to be pretty moronic to complain about someone making it dificult to be conned. As a stage performer, Randi KNOWS how to trick people and he is NOT stupid enough to let someone use those same methods on him.
3. Real things work no matter what kind of strict tests you do. You light a match, it works. It works if 'non-believers' are present. It works if cameras are watching you. It works if a CHILD does it. It just works. Dowsing simply does NOT work.
4. The thing to remember is that people claiming that Dowsing work: a. make money doing it, so they have LARGE incentive to lie and cheat. b. If they did work, they would make SO money by actually doing it for real that the million dollars from Randi would be small potatoes.
5. You admit that there ARE shysters and frauds. Fine. Believe it or not but that puts the burden of proof on you. Because the rest of us do NOT admit that anyone can do it for real. The existence of shysters and frauds means there is PLENTY of doubt that ANYONE can really do it. Why? Because for a real product, the shysters and fraud get OUTSOLD by the people doing it for real. When you go buy a new car, you do not have a real chance of getting something that has no engine. The existence of REAL cars make it very hard to sell fake ones. If Dowsing etc. was real, the real people would outcompete the fakes and it would be hard to find one of the shysters and frauds. The fact that there are so many many shysters and frauds is not 100% proof that no real ones exist, but it pretty darn close to it that no real ones existed 10 years ago (because if one real one existed 10 years ago, he and his students would have put the fake ones out of business by now.
Stop attacking the guy that proves you wrong and just prove yourself right. Otherwise, everyone will continue to laugh at your foolishnes.
How about this version:
Q. Whats the difference between an honest politician and a corrupt politician.
A. The corrupt politician sometimes tells the truth.
2. Confirmation bar codes are basically a public-private key system. Each ballot gets a bar code generated at vote time, specific for the voting site. It uses two sets of public-private keys, one for the hour that the vote was cast and another for the location. This way it is VERY hard to generate a bunch of valid fake ballots, and if the private keys are created each hour from scratch, that means that it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create a bunch of fake ballots before the actual vote. If you print them up before hand, then people can steal/copy them.
3. Sorry that you don't see the benefit of publicity around the voting procedures. Most of the rest of the world does. Also, if the machines say one thing then the actual vote says another, guess what you fool, you have evidence of fraud. Even if the paper ballots are correct, we STILL want to know that the fraud was attempted. Or don't you care about fraud?
5. A well desigend machine is over the long term environmentally superior to doing things by hand. If you don't see that, then you are VERY ignorant about environmental matters.
6. Yes your idea is too hard. 90% of the people do not come prepared to vote. Most people are NOT familiar with all the issues, especially some tiny little school bond issue that did not get national attention. The explanations are easily done by both sides. I.E. The people trying to vote yes get to give their explanation and the people trying to vote no get to give their explanation. This ALREADY happens, at least in California and NY.
Stop trying to demand that the voter be "perfect", and make the voting proccess available to ALL who can legally vote.
Basically you sound like an ivory tower scientist living in a bubble, saying "there is nothing wrong with the machine, it is the PEOPLE that need to get better."
Perhaps you want to insist that cars remove break lights, because hey, if the other drivers are paying attention they should SEE you slowing and stopping.
He describes this as your memory, as an attempt to make it seem important instead of silly.
It is this artifical record he is talking about, not your real memory.
Yeah, your turn around time seems good and yes, the customer's request is beyond industry norm.
That might mean one of three things:
One: Customer is being foolishly optimistic.
Two: The entire industry is bad about turn around time, and can, if pushed improve it to 48 hours.
Three: Customer needs it really quick and is hoping to get it quicker by asking. They know 48 hours is well beyond the norm, but are hoping you can do it anyway, because the more time it is unpatched the more they are screwed. They know that if you don't ask, you can't get, so they are at least 'asking'.
Me, I think it is a combination of all three. Customer is being a bit optimistic, the industry is bad about turn around time, and also the customer knows it is a bit optimistic but is making the request anyway in hope you will provide amazingly good service.
1. Bad hand writing. 2. If it is done by your hand, then it is easier to forge. If it is done by computer, they can use special inks, paper, and maybe a confirmation bar code. 3. The electronic machine could do a 'pre count', so that while the official count is not till next day, you get something to report tonight. 4. The machine can also save a record of things like how many people voted in each district, providing another double check to prevent voter fraud. And it could even double check what district you are SUPPOSED to be in, and if you are in the wrong district tell you the proper place to go to. 5. Environmentally better as printed ballots can use less paper and ink. 6. A well done machine can remind you to vote for all things voted on, possibly explaining a 3 paragraph refererdum without wasting lots of paper and ink, or time for those that don't need the explanation.
But here it is again:
Where I got my statistics: Hanson, R. K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R. A. (1995). A Comparison of Child Molesters and Non-Sexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-term Recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 325-337.
But honestly, I don't need a source to point out how someone else for totally misread their own quote. Just read the original quote I replied to:
"36 of the offenders, which averages out to be 57.1%, had previous charges. The most common charge was sexual battery, with the number of 24 and an average of 38.1%."
Please note that it did NOT discuss how many people that had one offense did another. Instead it clearly is referring to the number of people that had PREVIOUS charges, not the chance of doing it again.
The error he made is rather obvious, if you pay attention to details. That fact that most criminals have previous charges does not in ANY way tell you how likely a first time offender is to commit another crime. Instead it tells you that a few people have a SERIOUS problem, not at all how likely first timers are to have that serious problem.
And if you READ MY POST, you will see that I listed my source
It is however a popular misconception.
The acutal statistics show that 80% of people arrested for child molestation are NEVER arrested for child molestation again. Only about 20% are repeat sexual molesters. Another 22% or or so were arrested for violent crime but not child molestation (for some reason or other, after spending years in jail, with a child molestation credit on your rap sheet, you are more likely to get into fights...)
The reason why people think most offenders can not be cured is in that 20% repeat offenders, if they do repeat twice, there is like a 77% chance that they will repeat a third or more times.
As a comparison, the repeat offender rate for crimes OTHER than child molestation is over 60%.
Learn the truth, stop spreading myths. Where I got my statistics: Hanson, R. K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R. A. (1995). A Comparison of Child Molesters and Non-Sexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-term Recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 325-337.\
Total misuse of statistics. Specifically, you did it BACKWARDS
What the statistics say is this:
1. MOST (as in about 80%) of people convicted of child molestation charges NEVER do it again. This compares with an estimated 50% repeat offense for other crimes. That is, someone arrested for car theft is 50% likely to get arrested for car theft again, but someone arrested for child molestation is only 20% likely to do it again.
2. However, there is a SMALL percentage of child molesters that are 'addicted' to it. Those child molesters do it so often that 50% of all child molestations are done by repeat offenders.
This is VERY VERY important. It eliminates the foolish view that "they are all uncurable" That is wrong, 80% never do it again. It is only a small percentage of people that are 'uncurable'. But those that are uncurable will do it a LOT.
The proper logical way to do the laws is "Three strikes you are out." Zero tollerrance crap just does not work well.
2. Legal guardians/people responsible for others are held to a higher standard than those making decisions for themselves. That is, while you may legally decide to engage in risky behavior, including racing cars or smoking cigarrettes, you are not legally allowed to allow those same risky behaviors for others that you are responsible for.
Thus, while it may be legal for you yourself to smoke, it is illegal for you to allow ANYONE else that you are responsibel for to smoke. As children are by law not responisble for themselves but instead have others responsible for them, it is by definition illegal for anyone to give them permission to smoke, so selling ciggarretes to them is illegal.
3. Ciggarretes health effects are not 100% known. It is quite possible that the affect they have on the young is exponentially greater than they have on adults. So much so, that it is not possible for someone to reasonably smoke enough 'N number of ciggarretes' to match the physical badness from one child's ciggarettes.
4. Smoking is addictive. By preventing the young from becoming addicted, we fairly work against the negative effects to society as a whole. We do not outright make it illegal because in the past we have found such laws (prohibition, drug wars, etc.) to be more trouble than they are worth. So instead we publicy denigrate the practice via ads, while also making it illegal for the young
Not entirely. There will be some overlap of frequency ranges. Also high resolution does not consist entirely of greater frequency ranges. It also consists of more samplings. I.E. it may have a restricted frequency range, but the number of sounds per second sampled (equivelent to DPI) will be MUCH higher than from just one microphone.
I read what you wrote. The problem is you are assuming peacefull protests should be handled as minor offences instead of minor violations.
That assumption is rather moronic on your part.
Which of these does a non-violent sit in sound more similar to you:
shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of illegal substances
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (including parking/speeding tickets, etc.) and other minor violations (i.e. littering, etc.)
To me, and to MOST people in the world, peacfully holding a sign, or sitting down and refusing to get up is more like littering.
The FBI does not report things like parking tickets, littering, etc. to Canada, but is reporting peacefull protests. Despite what you boldly lied about, Canada does NOT go through saying "we will take this guy, but not this guy." Instead they just refuse to take anyone on that list unless a Candaian judge rules he is acceptable. The problem is the basic list has to be downgraded to AVOID the minor violations, which should include peacefull protests. That is what Canada asked for and should get, not the piece of garbage the FBI is sending them now.
One of the pieces it comes with is a shark, and it has a 'connector' hole in the shark's head. It is designed to fit a 'harpoon' type attachment, so you can 'capture' him.
But the connector is the same standard hole type.
When I was done with it, he quite literally has a shark with a freakin laser on top of his head.
If it existed 15 years ago, it would have been considered a super computer.
So basically, this article is saying "Moore's law is going to continue to work for the next 15 years, just as it has worked for the past 15 years."
Nothing to see here boys, move along.
You may or may not be right about Canada/Japan having "better" halth care. You are wrong about their teen pregnancy rate, it is close to what the US has.
You are also WRONG about it being why they have infant mortality rate.
Like I said before, if you ignore teen pregnancy, we have BETTER infant mortality ratios than most of the world, including Canada and Japan.
The problem is that we do not provide good pre-natal care to pregnant teen agers. They are treated very poorly, and they are often poor. If we gave pregnant teen agers the same care we gave the average pregnant 30 year old woman (who is far more likely to have health insurance, be married, and have supporting family and friends), then the US would have far BETTER infant mortality rates than Canada, Japan, etc.
It is EXACTLY ignorant statements like yours that I was trying to correct. Learn the real facts, don't just spout out the same tired old statistics that you read somewhere else.
There are some things you SHOULD delegate.
Science is either settled or debated.
Settled science is just memorization. Debated science is pretty much already publicized.
What I would like is for someone to say "The White House will no longer rewrite scientific reports made by agencies. If we believe something should not be 'promoted', we will move it to an appendix instead of removing it entirely."