What would happen if something like the Black Panthers showed up again today?
Not-so-farfetched thought experiment for the day: What would happen if the Trump administration was serious about registering Muslims, and some significant proportion Muslim-American population decided to physically resist? Whose side would the NRA be on then?
(My previous go-to thought experiment was 1942-style internment camps, but we can convince ourselves that this wouldn't happen again.)
I know that, but I figured that most readers wouldn't know what the Mulford Act was. Does this help?
The data clearly shows that Jews are disproportionately the target of hate and crime.
Woah there, I did not claim otherwise. This isn't the Oppression Olympics here, and there's more than one target of bigotry in your fine country.
Using the FBI statistics from 2012, here's a rough guide to how likely you are to be the target of a hate crime if you are a member of various groups of people:
Anti-Jewish hate crimes: 140 per million (using the "core Jewish population" of 6 million; if you use the "total" figure of 10 million, it's 80 per million population)
Anti-Islamic hate crimes: 60 per million
Anti-indigenous (American Indian/Alaskan Native) hate crimes: 30 per million
Anti-Hispanic hate crimes: 9 per million
Anti-Atheist/Agnostic hate crimes: 6 per million
Anti-Catholic hate crimes: 1.2 per million
Anti-Protestant hate crimes: 0.2 per million
To say that Muslims are disproportionately the target of hate crime is not to say that Jews are not.
It doesn't help that the NRA has moved from being a safety and enthusiast organization into a political one that encourages paranoia that the government is trying to ban guns outright.
Don't forget that the NRA has historically been in favour of gun control if it meant taking guns from unpopular people. If the NRA launched a campaign encouraging Muslim-Americans to own guns for personal defence (given that this group is disproportionately the target of hate crime these days), I'd believe they were actually in favour of protecting the second amendment.
You're making the (sadly typical, in this sort of debate) incorrect assumption that the goal is to prevent everything everywhere. Everyone knows that's impossible. If the US could reduce its gun death rate to the rate of other developed countries, then we'd be getting somewhere.
This, of course, makes the 0.16 per 100,000 figure completely unbelievable. The largest contributor to the firearm death rate, in every country that isn't a warzone, is suicide. It could be possible to reduce the homicide-plus-accident rate to 0.16 per 100k; that would put it on par with a place like Australia or Sweden. Reducing the rate of suicide significantly would require being the US being serious about public health and social inequality, and three laws won't fix that.
I'll go further; pick your favorite president - ANY of them (past, living, whatever) and would you honestly believe that they would deny the state its *desire* for 'total info awareness'?
Yeah, pretty much exactly this. The paper (which I have not read in its entirety, only in part) seems like a reasonable, though not exactly profound, piece of research.
Knowing how fast the glaciers will melt is important. Knowing what it will do to people and societies who will be affected by glacial melt is also important. If the research into that so far has only really looked at men, then the research is lacking, and it's right to publish a paper saying so.
Just because you didn't understand it or it doesn't fit with your preconceived prejudices doesn't mean it's worthless. But I wouldn't expect Reason Magazine to understand that.
You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.
If the FBI succeeds on this one, there will be a point in the future where some prosecutor argues in court that nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their smartphones, in part because society at large was okay with how this case went down.
The frightening part is that the argument might work.
I've never been pulled up anywhere for using the term "disk" to describe something that looks like a stick of gum and plugs into the side of a laptop.
Nor have I, and nor would I hyper-correct someone else who did it. But in this very thread, someone had a problem with the suggestion that the iPhone had a "hard drive" in it.
Not quite. The FBI probably wouldn't be allowed to retain a copy of this signed image, which would stay with Apple. (I'm sure that the NSA and the Chinese Ministry of State Security would manage to obtain a copy, though...)
The problem is that once it exists, courts would start compelling its use. Remember, this is the 13th time that law enforcement agencies have tried to compel Apple to break into a phone.
Anti-terrorism tools have this way of being used against-non-terrorists. How long before someone tries to get it used in a corporate law case? Or a divorce case?
On that note, my laptop has something which the vendor referred to its flash storage as "solid state disk". This term more accurately describes a rotating hard drive, which is both made from matter in its solid state and disk-shaped.
Language is a social contract in which Alice agrees to try to make herself understood and Bob tries to understand. In this case, the lossy communication channel did the job.
Slashdot Mirror
+1, Don't give people ideas
That's the second person who didn't get what I was trying to say, so clearly I could have worded this better. Here's the response.
What would happen if something like the Black Panthers showed up again today?
Not-so-farfetched thought experiment for the day: What would happen if the Trump administration was serious about registering Muslims, and some significant proportion Muslim-American population decided to physically resist? Whose side would the NRA be on then?
(My previous go-to thought experiment was 1942-style internment camps, but we can convince ourselves that this wouldn't happen again.)
Your link doesn't support your argument.
I know that, but I figured that most readers wouldn't know what the Mulford Act was. Does this help?
The data clearly shows that Jews are disproportionately the target of hate and crime.
Woah there, I did not claim otherwise. This isn't the Oppression Olympics here, and there's more than one target of bigotry in your fine country.
Using the FBI statistics from 2012, here's a rough guide to how likely you are to be the target of a hate crime if you are a member of various groups of people:
To say that Muslims are disproportionately the target of hate crime is not to say that Jews are not.
It doesn't help that the NRA has moved from being a safety and enthusiast organization into a political one that encourages paranoia that the government is trying to ban guns outright.
Don't forget that the NRA has historically been in favour of gun control if it meant taking guns from unpopular people. If the NRA launched a campaign encouraging Muslim-Americans to own guns for personal defence (given that this group is disproportionately the target of hate crime these days), I'd believe they were actually in favour of protecting the second amendment.
You're making the (sadly typical, in this sort of debate) incorrect assumption that the goal is to prevent everything everywhere. Everyone knows that's impossible. If the US could reduce its gun death rate to the rate of other developed countries, then we'd be getting somewhere.
This, of course, makes the 0.16 per 100,000 figure completely unbelievable. The largest contributor to the firearm death rate, in every country that isn't a warzone, is suicide. It could be possible to reduce the homicide-plus-accident rate to 0.16 per 100k; that would put it on par with a place like Australia or Sweden. Reducing the rate of suicide significantly would require being the US being serious about public health and social inequality, and three laws won't fix that.
I'll go further; pick your favorite president - ANY of them (past, living, whatever) and would you honestly believe that they would deny the state its *desire* for 'total info awareness'?
Eisenhower.
Yeah, pretty much exactly this. The paper (which I have not read in its entirety, only in part) seems like a reasonable, though not exactly profound, piece of research.
Knowing how fast the glaciers will melt is important. Knowing what it will do to people and societies who will be affected by glacial melt is also important. If the research into that so far has only really looked at men, then the research is lacking, and it's right to publish a paper saying so.
Just because you didn't understand it or it doesn't fit with your preconceived prejudices doesn't mean it's worthless. But I wouldn't expect Reason Magazine to understand that.
SPARTAN program. You know it's true.
data PublicityStrumpet = Trump | McAfee Integer ... }
instance Fractional PublicityStrumpet where {
Problem solved!
You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.
If the FBI succeeds on this one, there will be a point in the future where some prosecutor argues in court that nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their smartphones, in part because society at large was okay with how this case went down.
The frightening part is that the argument might work.
Well to be accurate he is on the payroll of Weizmann Institute of Science [...]
History, it seems, is not without sense of irony. My, how things have changed in the last 30 years.
Because you trust the feds not to keep a copy?
In the long-term, no. In the short-term, I think they'll find it easier on their conscience just to abuse the hell out of parallel construction.
Incidentally, people forget that the term "solid state" is to distinguish semiconductor technology from vacuum tubes.
I've never been pulled up anywhere for using the term "disk" to describe something that looks like a stick of gum and plugs into the side of a laptop.
Nor have I, and nor would I hyper-correct someone else who did it. But in this very thread, someone had a problem with the suggestion that the iPhone had a "hard drive" in it.
Not quite. The FBI probably wouldn't be allowed to retain a copy of this signed image, which would stay with Apple. (I'm sure that the NSA and the Chinese Ministry of State Security would manage to obtain a copy, though...)
The problem is that once it exists, courts would start compelling its use. Remember, this is the 13th time that law enforcement agencies have tried to compel Apple to break into a phone.
Anti-terrorism tools have this way of being used against-non-terrorists. How long before someone tries to get it used in a corporate law case? Or a divorce case?
I could have had a 4-digit id, but I come from an era when long-term lurking before posting was considered virtuous.
Now you're just being pedantic.
On that note, my laptop has something which the vendor referred to its flash storage as "solid state disk". This term more accurately describes a rotating hard drive, which is both made from matter in its solid state and disk-shaped.
Language is a social contract in which Alice agrees to try to make herself understood and Bob tries to understand. In this case, the lossy communication channel did the job.
What, like Arkham Knight?
On the other hand, it could settle quite a few questions. Give it shots of the moon landings or the alien autopsy.
Reminds me of the headline from The Onion: "Kevin Bacon linked to Al Qaeda".
The problem is folks like you who malign, slander and propagandize against Christians void of fact and reality.
I don't see how you can make that accusation against Grishnakh from what they wrote. Unless you think Catholics aren't Christians, that is...
That's what happens when you send a Vulcan to Berkeley.
If you give up freedom in the name of security you get neither .(butchered from Ben franklin)
FTFY. I happen to agree with the rest of what you said, but that particular misuse of the Ben Franklin misquote needs to be retired.