I was thinking the same thing - though probably not as hard as the authors of the study!
What if the whole uncertainty principle was due to our simulation's computers doing "good enough" averaging except when we drill down and want to see the behavior of a specific particle at a particular point in time?
And "time" is not even that important of a concept. The simulation can speed up and slow down as necessary and we'd be unaware. If a particularly complex scientific experiment demanded more resources than usual, they can just slow down the simulation while they run the calculations. We could be progressing at one of our seconds for every billion years in "real time" for all we know. Or the other way around.
Well, I was mugged at gunpoint in West Philly, I was held up (unsuccessfully) on the train at gunpoint on the Market Street El in Philly, a guy tried to mug me in Amsterdam (he wouldn't show his weapon), and I was pick-pocketed in Amsterdam (but the guy was bad at it and I got my camera back). So if we're doing stories instead of statistics, there's mine. But I think my stories are as useless as yours in trying to ascertain risk.
They did alright in the Civil War, and for that matter the Indian Wars. Turns out when you stop caring about human rights and all that messy war crime stuff it's a lot easier to subjugate a population. Not guaranteed, but much easier.
I don't know about "beaten" specifically (I thought we were being a little metaphorical), but violent crime in Europe is higher than in the US. The US is king of homicides, however.
The 2A was not formulated so citizens could protect themselves against a domestic government.
That's both true and false at the same time! Good work!
The point of the militia was twofold: 1. The founders distrusted a standing army. 2. Since a standing army was out, they needed to ensure a common defense.
In fact, the first time the militia was ever called up, it failed to mobilize and they had to conscript an army. Coincidentally, it was to put down a domestic rebellion (see the Whiskey Rebellion).
In effect, the 2nd Amendment as an alternative to a standing army was almost immediately discredited. They tried again during the War of 1812 and, despite having a militia force greater than the entire population of Canada, failed to invade Canada. They also failed to defend Washington DC from the British. After that, Congress very sensibly raised a much larger standing Navy, and then kept a standing army around to persecute the ongoing wars/battles with native Indians.
Despite this, it's still the law of the land. So we need to respect it. IMHO, that does not mean handguns, which are not really a useful weapon of modern war. Rifles would at least have some effectiveness in asymmetric warfare (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc).
Not all European countries ban guns. A couple have similar ownership levels to the US, and little violence.
You don't need to go to Europe. Canada has high gun ownership levels. But few handguns. We should do the same here - it would not significantly affect the 2nd Amendment protections against a tyrannical government, as handguns are not terribly useful against the US military. But rifles might be.
"Diversity causes violence" would be a much stronger argument, but of course we can't say that.
You'd have to support such a statement with actual evidence. Off the top of my head, gun violence is generally homogeneous in the US - blacks shooting blacks and whites shooting whites. New York City - one of the most diverse cities in the world - is also perennially atop the list of safest large cities in the US.
That's misleading - you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe, but homicides are higher in the US. If death is your fear, than the US is "more dangerous". If a beating is your fear, then Europe is "more dangerous".
It rather depends on what you consider "more dangerous". You are probably 2x as likely to be mugged in London or Paris but your chances of being shot are essentially zero. Stabbings are certainly violent, but they don't even make the news in the US with all the shootings. We're almost completely immune to news about stabbings unless it is particularly unusual, like a mom stabbing her children or someone famous being stabbed. Even gunshot victims get little airtime unless they die, and even then not much unless there is an unusual circumstance. We are far more desensitized to violent news than Europeans are.
Nah, in the US we use the strategy of having horrific levels of violence pretty much all the time, so we don't really overreact to individual mass killings.
It's kind of like making sure that your background radiation is high enough that you don't really mind an occasional meltdown.
I'm not sure what problem that would solve. For a busy site like this one, push notifications would be somewhat pointless because it changes so frequently that you'll see updates for every refresh. For sites that aren't busy, the occasional refresh isn't a big deal if they have a reasonable cache setup.
The only thing I've seen them do well is entertain at parties. Guests have fun screwing with it, playing music, ordering 5 cases of toilet paper - that sort of thing. But yeah, at this point mostly a toy. It would be kind of cool to, using scripting kung-fu, have it turn off all the lights in the house, but you can already do this with a physical switch by the door and a bit of scripting kung-fu so any improvement is fairly marginal. But if you like to dick with toys, then it provides some entertainment value in that department.
In reality, when the Bill of Rights was written, the USA had a professional military. It wasn't very big
Indeed! Thus the need to raise a new conscript army (after the failure of the militias to form up) to counter the Whiskey Rebellion.
were not limited to or even primarily due to the presence of militia units.
Not limited to, sure. But primarily, yes - since militia was the bulk of the US force at the time. The professional navy actually did exceedingly well considering their diminutive size.
the corruption in Congress
You keep saying that, but I don't follow. Why would a corrupt congress be unable to call up a militia, but they were perfectly able to build a very capable professional army? This does not make any sense.
I think you'll find that most current and former active duty US military personnel are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, the right to bear arms part. But not of the concept that a militia works as replacement for a professional army.
I'm sure even knives are "useful", but that's a very low standard. For that matter, high explosives, anti-aircraft weapons, fully automatic weapons, and mines would be very useful to the resistance - but we don't even contemplate allowing those. At risk of repeating myself, this is because we have all abandoned the notion that our citizenry can actually keep up with a modern military. We still have the 2nd Amendment, though - and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. So we party like it is 1789 and pretend the Amendment is still relevant. For rifles, you could still make a sort-of compelling case that these could actually slow down a tyrant in some meaningful way. Not so with pistols.
I'm not strictly anti-corporate. I think it is a powerful economic tool. Even limited-liability for non-activist owners (pension funds, 401(k), your average investor that is just along for the ride) is probably fine. But at no point should they be considered anything but a streamlining process. Corporate personhood is an abortion, and while I was not a fan of Sander's whacked-out economics (he doesn't even know what socialism is?) I was a big fan of his amendment keeping unions and corporations out of politics.
Depending on the general financial situation, this could take various forms from having the right to your own little room and being allowed to eat with the others to having your own house on the property with your own servants.
This, of course, depended on you being landed in the first place...
which turned the screws on the general public until the frustration and desperation led to a swelling of their ranks.
Which is it? Are we simply debating the timeline? The point is that we were a foreign power that - for whatever reason - was seen as an interloper and a hostile force.
It's legal in most States for private citizens to own the same battle rifles that our troops carry, or a similar analog.
Long guns are far more useful in war, and there is a far better argument for them than for pistols if you are defending the 2nd Amendment on its original intent.
while Americans can literally buy an AR-15 at Wal-Mart
Sure, but presumably they would not be able to do this during an insurrection.
fought by hillbillies or urban youths armed only with handguns is an illustration of a lack of knowledge on the subject in question.
Urban centers would be the first to fall. There aren't a substantial number of guns, and the guns that are there are mostly illegal pistols or already in the hands of law enforcement.
but the attitude you express is typical for many people I've met who have a deep aversion to guns which usually results from a lack of education or experience.
Let me correct you - I'm not anti-gun, though I cannot not find a compelling argument for pistols. Certainly not in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not "trashing" the 2nd Amendment - just pointing out that it was based on a failed concept... it is hardly unique in that regard - much of the Constitution has been changed. I'm also pointing out that, without altering it, we ignore the intent of it with a large standing army. However, I don't think it can simply be thrown away. If we want to change it, there is a process for that. I do find any argument for handguns based on the 2nd Amendment to be very insubstantial, as they are fairly useless in wartime.
Citations of what? Presumably you know that the primary purpose was to ensure that the federal government could not become tyrannical? The idea was that an armed citizenry would dissuade any potential tyrant, and that this same citizenry could defend the country from invaders.
If you mean citations of where this failed, that's easy.
The first sign that the militia was recognized as insufficient was in 1792, when congress passed a law compelling every able-bodied man to report for military service. It was still a militia - they were not even provided arms, but were expected to bring their own. This obviously did not work, and estimates are wild - but of the people who actually showed up, only 10-65 percent met the requirements of the law in terms of supplying their own arms. This was laid bare during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when the militias of the neighboring 4 states failed to mobilize. In the end they had to draft soldiers, and this action alone caused riots and even a mini-insurrection complete with liberty poles. 2/3 of the "militia" (now in name only, as it was largely a conscripted army) had no weapons and so they had to be provided from Federal armories.
Strike one. Just before the Whiskey Rebellion, congress saw the writing on the wall and authorized funding for federal armories since the militia was not "well armed" at all.
If the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't compelling - because, I mean, it was a rebellion after all... maybe people simply didn't want to take the side of the federal government? If it wasn't compelling, than the War of 1812 should be. The US called up the militia and - despite having a force that outnumbered the entire population of Canada, were unable to successfully invade - nor prevent the burning of Washington.
After that war, the US saw the need for, and funded a very large naval force. As for the army from then on the US maintained a standing army to fight the Indians. I don't think the militia was used in any substantial way in any war since - unless you include the National Guard, which I hope you'll agree is very different from the structure of the original idea of a militia. It's run more like a volunteer professional reserve force, and is mainly used to support the professional army.
Actually you are the one doing the judging. I never laughed at the 80 year old worker. I found the comparison to ancient nomadic people to be patently absurd. I was dismissive of the discussion, not the old man.
OK, so you have empathy for someone who is among the working poor. Now extend that empathy to the subsistence living of people living off what they can find wherever they happened to be born, devoid of anything resembling health care, modern ideals of individual freedom or liberty, where every encounter with another group of people is a potential battle.
Now make the comparison with the 80-year-old who works at Amazon again. You don't find that comparison absurd and worthy of a chuckle? What if I compared the horrors of an ultra-rich guy having his Porsche stolen to the plight of the 80-year-old working at Amazon? Wouldn't that seem absurd and be worthy of a derisive chuckle? That's where I'm at - I'm not laughing at, minimizing, or insulting the elderly man... only the absurd turn the discussion followed.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing - though probably not as hard as the authors of the study!
What if the whole uncertainty principle was due to our simulation's computers doing "good enough" averaging except when we drill down and want to see the behavior of a specific particle at a particular point in time?
And "time" is not even that important of a concept. The simulation can speed up and slow down as necessary and we'd be unaware. If a particularly complex scientific experiment demanded more resources than usual, they can just slow down the simulation while they run the calculations. We could be progressing at one of our seconds for every billion years in "real time" for all we know. Or the other way around.
Well, I was mugged at gunpoint in West Philly, I was held up (unsuccessfully) on the train at gunpoint on the Market Street El in Philly, a guy tried to mug me in Amsterdam (he wouldn't show his weapon), and I was pick-pocketed in Amsterdam (but the guy was bad at it and I got my camera back). So if we're doing stories instead of statistics, there's mine. But I think my stories are as useless as yours in trying to ascertain risk.
They did alright in the Civil War, and for that matter the Indian Wars. Turns out when you stop caring about human rights and all that messy war crime stuff it's a lot easier to subjugate a population. Not guaranteed, but much easier.
I don't know about "beaten" specifically (I thought we were being a little metaphorical), but violent crime in Europe is higher than in the US. The US is king of homicides, however.
Well, the average person if defined as middle class safely ensconced in the suburbs.
What's pure spin? My fear of death over an injury?
The 2A was not formulated so citizens could protect themselves against a domestic government.
That's both true and false at the same time! Good work!
The point of the militia was twofold:
1. The founders distrusted a standing army.
2. Since a standing army was out, they needed to ensure a common defense.
In fact, the first time the militia was ever called up, it failed to mobilize and they had to conscript an army. Coincidentally, it was to put down a domestic rebellion (see the Whiskey Rebellion).
In effect, the 2nd Amendment as an alternative to a standing army was almost immediately discredited. They tried again during the War of 1812 and, despite having a militia force greater than the entire population of Canada, failed to invade Canada. They also failed to defend Washington DC from the British. After that, Congress very sensibly raised a much larger standing Navy, and then kept a standing army around to persecute the ongoing wars/battles with native Indians.
Despite this, it's still the law of the land. So we need to respect it. IMHO, that does not mean handguns, which are not really a useful weapon of modern war. Rifles would at least have some effectiveness in asymmetric warfare (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc).
More dangerous: more likely to sustain injury or death during innocent activities, especially after dark.
So I'd change that up to weigh homicide more heavily. I know I'd personally rather suffer a stab wound (or even a gunshot) and live to tell about it.
the middle of the country is very safe,
So is NYC.
Not all European countries ban guns. A couple have similar ownership levels to the US, and little violence.
You don't need to go to Europe. Canada has high gun ownership levels. But few handguns. We should do the same here - it would not significantly affect the 2nd Amendment protections against a tyrannical government, as handguns are not terribly useful against the US military. But rifles might be.
"Diversity causes violence" would be a much stronger argument, but of course we can't say that.
You'd have to support such a statement with actual evidence. Off the top of my head, gun violence is generally homogeneous in the US - blacks shooting blacks and whites shooting whites. New York City - one of the most diverse cities in the world - is also perennially atop the list of safest large cities in the US.
That's misleading - you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe, but homicides are higher in the US. If death is your fear, than the US is "more dangerous". If a beating is your fear, then Europe is "more dangerous".
It rather depends on what you consider "more dangerous". You are probably 2x as likely to be mugged in London or Paris but your chances of being shot are essentially zero. Stabbings are certainly violent, but they don't even make the news in the US with all the shootings. We're almost completely immune to news about stabbings unless it is particularly unusual, like a mom stabbing her children or someone famous being stabbed. Even gunshot victims get little airtime unless they die, and even then not much unless there is an unusual circumstance. We are far more desensitized to violent news than Europeans are.
Nah, in the US we use the strategy of having horrific levels of violence pretty much all the time, so we don't really overreact to individual mass killings.
It's kind of like making sure that your background radiation is high enough that you don't really mind an occasional meltdown.
I'm not sure what problem that would solve. For a busy site like this one, push notifications would be somewhat pointless because it changes so frequently that you'll see updates for every refresh. For sites that aren't busy, the occasional refresh isn't a big deal if they have a reasonable cache setup.
The only thing I've seen them do well is entertain at parties. Guests have fun screwing with it, playing music, ordering 5 cases of toilet paper - that sort of thing. But yeah, at this point mostly a toy. It would be kind of cool to, using scripting kung-fu, have it turn off all the lights in the house, but you can already do this with a physical switch by the door and a bit of scripting kung-fu so any improvement is fairly marginal. But if you like to dick with toys, then it provides some entertainment value in that department.
In reality, when the Bill of Rights was written, the USA had a professional military. It wasn't very big
Indeed! Thus the need to raise a new conscript army (after the failure of the militias to form up) to counter the Whiskey Rebellion.
were not limited to or even primarily due to the presence of militia units.
Not limited to, sure. But primarily, yes - since militia was the bulk of the US force at the time. The professional navy actually did exceedingly well considering their diminutive size.
the corruption in Congress
You keep saying that, but I don't follow. Why would a corrupt congress be unable to call up a militia, but they were perfectly able to build a very capable professional army? This does not make any sense.
I think you'll find that most current and former active duty US military personnel are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, the right to bear arms part. But not of the concept that a militia works as replacement for a professional army.
I'm sure even knives are "useful", but that's a very low standard. For that matter, high explosives, anti-aircraft weapons, fully automatic weapons, and mines would be very useful to the resistance - but we don't even contemplate allowing those. At risk of repeating myself, this is because we have all abandoned the notion that our citizenry can actually keep up with a modern military. We still have the 2nd Amendment, though - and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. So we party like it is 1789 and pretend the Amendment is still relevant. For rifles, you could still make a sort-of compelling case that these could actually slow down a tyrant in some meaningful way. Not so with pistols.
I'm not strictly anti-corporate. I think it is a powerful economic tool. Even limited-liability for non-activist owners (pension funds, 401(k), your average investor that is just along for the ride) is probably fine. But at no point should they be considered anything but a streamlining process. Corporate personhood is an abortion, and while I was not a fan of Sander's whacked-out economics (he doesn't even know what socialism is?) I was a big fan of his amendment keeping unions and corporations out of politics.
Naw, it's good he posted this. I would have no idea what the crazy conspiracy people have moved onto if not for posts like this.
It sounds like we share a common frustration. I get weird looks whenever I say, you know, corporations are just an extension of government power...
Depending on the general financial situation, this could take various forms from having the right to your own little room and being allowed to eat with the others to having your own house on the property with your own servants.
This, of course, depended on you being landed in the first place...
First, we were in no way hated by all sides.
which turned the screws on the general public until the frustration and desperation led to a swelling of their ranks.
Which is it? Are we simply debating the timeline? The point is that we were a foreign power that - for whatever reason - was seen as an interloper and a hostile force.
It's legal in most States for private citizens to own the same battle rifles that our troops carry, or a similar analog.
Long guns are far more useful in war, and there is a far better argument for them than for pistols if you are defending the 2nd Amendment on its original intent.
while Americans can literally buy an AR-15 at Wal-Mart
Sure, but presumably they would not be able to do this during an insurrection.
fought by hillbillies or urban youths armed only with handguns is an illustration of a lack of knowledge on the subject in question.
Urban centers would be the first to fall. There aren't a substantial number of guns, and the guns that are there are mostly illegal pistols or already in the hands of law enforcement.
but the attitude you express is typical for many people I've met who have a deep aversion to guns which usually results from a lack of education or experience.
Let me correct you - I'm not anti-gun, though I cannot not find a compelling argument for pistols. Certainly not in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not "trashing" the 2nd Amendment - just pointing out that it was based on a failed concept... it is hardly unique in that regard - much of the Constitution has been changed. I'm also pointing out that, without altering it, we ignore the intent of it with a large standing army. However, I don't think it can simply be thrown away. If we want to change it, there is a process for that. I do find any argument for handguns based on the 2nd Amendment to be very insubstantial, as they are fairly useless in wartime.
By who? Citations?
Citations of what? Presumably you know that the primary purpose was to ensure that the federal government could not become tyrannical? The idea was that an armed citizenry would dissuade any potential tyrant, and that this same citizenry could defend the country from invaders.
If you mean citations of where this failed, that's easy.
The first sign that the militia was recognized as insufficient was in 1792, when congress passed a law compelling every able-bodied man to report for military service. It was still a militia - they were not even provided arms, but were expected to bring their own. This obviously did not work, and estimates are wild - but of the people who actually showed up, only 10-65 percent met the requirements of the law in terms of supplying their own arms. This was laid bare during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when the militias of the neighboring 4 states failed to mobilize. In the end they had to draft soldiers, and this action alone caused riots and even a mini-insurrection complete with liberty poles. 2/3 of the "militia" (now in name only, as it was largely a conscripted army) had no weapons and so they had to be provided from Federal armories.
Strike one. Just before the Whiskey Rebellion, congress saw the writing on the wall and authorized funding for federal armories since the militia was not "well armed" at all.
If the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't compelling - because, I mean, it was a rebellion after all... maybe people simply didn't want to take the side of the federal government? If it wasn't compelling, than the War of 1812 should be. The US called up the militia and - despite having a force that outnumbered the entire population of Canada, were unable to successfully invade - nor prevent the burning of Washington.
After that war, the US saw the need for, and funded a very large naval force. As for the army from then on the US maintained a standing army to fight the Indians. I don't think the militia was used in any substantial way in any war since - unless you include the National Guard, which I hope you'll agree is very different from the structure of the original idea of a militia. It's run more like a volunteer professional reserve force, and is mainly used to support the professional army.
Actually you are the one doing the judging. I never laughed at the 80 year old worker. I found the comparison to ancient nomadic people to be patently absurd. I was dismissive of the discussion, not the old man.
OK, so you have empathy for someone who is among the working poor. Now extend that empathy to the subsistence living of people living off what they can find wherever they happened to be born, devoid of anything resembling health care, modern ideals of individual freedom or liberty, where every encounter with another group of people is a potential battle.
Now make the comparison with the 80-year-old who works at Amazon again. You don't find that comparison absurd and worthy of a chuckle? What if I compared the horrors of an ultra-rich guy having his Porsche stolen to the plight of the 80-year-old working at Amazon? Wouldn't that seem absurd and be worthy of a derisive chuckle? That's where I'm at - I'm not laughing at, minimizing, or insulting the elderly man... only the absurd turn the discussion followed.
"Better" in the same way that it is "better" to go down with the ship.