Also, pretty sure that not being able to detect poisonous plants doesn't explain why say, Spinosaurus, would go extinct. After all, they supposedly ate fish, not plants...
If you actually read the link I posted in the comment you responded to, you'll find it debunks the over-inflated claims in your link by citing the actual law and an actual ISP's data collection. The Australian data collection law was claimed to require ISPs to collect everything, but in reality only requirs the ISP to track when you connect and disconnect to the ISP, primarily so they can always associate an IP address with a customer account. That's it.
I guess you went to school in Tucson or somewhere like that, to get so screwed up about basic definitions?
1. Let's try Wikipedia: "Illegal immigration is the illegal entry of a person or a group of persons across a country's border, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country, with the intention to remain in the country." 2. If they have an issue, they can take it to the UN or the World Court or something. Individuals breaking the law isn't "reparations" for unproven accusations.
Like the OP, I'm fine with massive immigration into the United States via increased and streamlined processes which put the risks where they belong, but it should be done legally. The whole amnesty paradigm has been proven to just encourage more law-breaking in the future and it cheats people who are immigrating the right way.
Right, it's just harassment, it has absolutely nothing to do with the law regarding getting a no-cost license which Congress passed years ago and the NOAA is required to enforce. SpaceX has now applied for said license and thus should be able to broadcast in the future.
Do you have any evidence that the NOAA is enforcing this for SpaceX and doesn't enforce it for other groups? Or are you just making stuff up?
In other words, this is much ado about nothing, except a very minor story about the amount of regulations Congress has passed regarding space activities.
No, they probably just want SpaceX to apply for the free license which Congress made a requirement in the law years ago so that they're compliant. Fortunately, SpaceX has now already applied for one and thus should be able to broadcast in the future.
In other words, this is much ado about nothing, except a very minor story about the amount of regulations Congress has passed regarding space.
they can collect far more information about us, and leave us with far less power to opt out of that process.
This is silly, "can" isn't the same as "do" and we have plenty of power to "opt out". Facebook does collect tons of info about it's users. ISP's don't typically store everything all of their users do. Sure, maybe the NSA is hoovering up a ton of data and sticking it in storage somewhere, but the amount of storage to just store http URLs being requested over the long term, let alone the contents of all packets, is crazy.
If you're actually concerned, then just use encryption for your Internet communications. There's your super-easy "opt-out". You can use secure DNS, use a VPN to tunnel outside your ISP, use TLS for HTTPS traffic, whatever you like.
It's currently a non-issue. About the only way it's going to become an issue in the near future is if your government decides to require your ISP to collect and turn info over to them. Even then, the encryption solution still works out unless they mandate back doors.
In the first quasi-experimental study to examine effects of gun policy on adult suicide, Ludwig and Cook (2000) evaluated the impact of the 1994 Brady act in 32 “treatment” states that were directly affected by the act, compared with 19 “control” jurisdictions that had equivalent legislation already in place. The authors found a reduction in firearm suicides among persons age 55 and older of 0.92 per 100,000 (with a 95 percent confidence interval = –1.43 to –.042), representing about a 6 percent decline in firearm suicide in this age group. This decrease, however, was accompanied by an offsetting increase in nongun suicide, so that the net effect on overall suicide rates was not significant (–.54 per 100,000; with a 95 percent confidence interval = –1.27 to 0.19). Using a similar methodology, Reuter and Mouzos (2003) found no significant effect study of a large scale Australian gun buy-back program on total suicide rates.
summarized as "Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population."
Your Washington post link is irrelevant. No one (except leftists with a man to fill with straw) is arguing that killing criminals in self-defense is the usual way for people to defend themselves using guns. Generally speaking, criminals just leave people alone once they figure out they're armed. From the Obama Administration CDC sponsored Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Report:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million”
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies”
Let me guess, you get your "statistics" from cherry-picking left-wing "news" articles which are regurgitated press releases from anti-gun groups?
Funny that it's you who have failed at basic math, not to mention basic reading comprehension. Let me lay it out for you in nice round numbers to make it easy to understand Take a gun ownership rate of 40K per 100K people as an example. When there are 150 million people in the United States, that's (150M/100K*40K=60M) 60M people owning guns. If the gun ownership rate is unchanged, than if you double the amount of people to 300 million, than that's (300M/100K*40K=60M) 120M people owning guns. The rate is unchanged, but "as the absolute number of people doubled in that time frame, the number of people owning guns also doubled."
P.S. Also, the rest of your statistics in the last line are from a story about an unpublished survey of slightly dubious origins. "The Harvard/Northeastern study is based on a survey of nearly 4,000 Americans conducted online in 2015 by a market research company, GfK, with a nationally representative panel of opt-in participants who are compensated to complete surveys on a variety of issues.
So you're saying all these domains were setup with verification before January 2017, and then Trump Administration employees changed them to no longer be setup that way? Riiight.... have you ever been involved with a government IT project?
Yeah, somehow I think you're the one smoking something.
True enough, although remember, we're talking about rates, so as the absolute number of people doubled in that time frame, the number of people owning guns also doubled. The way you phrased it ("not that more people own guns") may mislead someone.
The bottom line is that the rate of gun ownership, the rate of households with guns, the number of guns, none of those things correlates much with the homicide nor the firearm-homicide rates in the United States, so they're unlikely to be the primary driver of homicides. There are other causes which drive the homicide rate and as most of that rate consists of gangland murders and does correlate with the overall crime rate, that's probably your best place to investigate the primary cause.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but the reverse isn't true. If there isn't any correlation at all, than it's virtually impossible for their to be a primary causation. At best, you could show a small secondary effect being overridden by a much larger primary causation.
The homicide rate decline tracks an overall crime level decline, so while that may be improved by better emergency care, it's unlikely to be the primary driver of it.
The answer is actually pretty obvious. The homicide rate in the United States is primarily related to gang violence. If you take gang-areas out of the equation, the U.S. homicide rate looks much closer to the OECD averages. Whatever is reducing gang wars and the crime rate overall pretty much has to be the primary driver behind the homicide and the firearm-related homicide rate reductions. You can call that reduction in lead levels, or increased incarceration, or better anti-gang task forces, or all three, but none of it is causally linked to the number of firearms per capita.
In terms of extreme examples (D.C. is similar), Detroit has half the gun ownership rate of the surrounding areas, but with 7% of Michigan's population, Detroit had 50% of the murders in the State. Obviously it's not the gun ownership rate causing murder rates.
Way to talk past the issue. "gun deaths" and the homicide rate are two different things. Yeah, I was talking about homicides in general, not suicides, i.e. "gun deaths" (which mostly consist of suicides using a gun, which in turn gets substituted into suicides by other methods if you reduce access to guns). Homicides in general is the best statistic because it takes into account both sides of the gun availability question: 1. How many guns are available for use in attacking someone 2. How many guns are available for use in defending someone It also helps that what any sane person is trying to reduce is homicides in general. It doesn't really matter to a dead person and their family what was used to kill them, just if they're dead or not.
There isn't a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but the reverse isn't true. If there isn't any correlation, than it's virtually impossible for their to be a primary causation.
P.S. Your own quoted study says "could not determine causation". That's because most firearm-related homicides occur where the crime rate is high (i.e. gang areas in cities) and more people buy guns to protect themselves when they feel more threatened by a higher crime and homicide rate.
The best use case for URL shorteners is when you are printing or displaying a URL on something other than a computer, so people will need to be able to type it in, but you don't control the source URL's contents, i.e. you're using a third-party service.
For example, when organizing a camping trip for a couple of hundred people, I used Google maps to show the route, then got the shortened URL for that and put it on the paper flyer which was handed out. Trying to put the entire 170+ otherwise-meaningless-character URL into a 3"x5" flyer and then expecting people to retype it accurately into their device in order to pull up the route would have been ridiculous. The shortened form worked perfectly for that use case.
So, you mean, like having entire categories of various erotica on their site? Like they do? Like these books still rank in?
All they did was remove the erotica which had been pushed by authors/publishers into non-erotica categories from those non-erotica categories, because their customers don't like buying what they think is historical fiction to find it full of explicit reverse-harem dungeon scenes. They still have erotica categories which the erotica books are listed in and rank in based on their sales and reviews.
Amazon is responding to their customers, just like they've done in the past.
One of the biggest source of customer complaints was Romance novels showing up all over the site in other categories, like Mil SF, or historical fiction, or whatever, when they didn't really fit, because Romance is such a huge and competitive category. So Amazon put in place some restrictions so that people who were looking for Romance genre books would find them and people who weren't, didn't.
This is essentially the same thing. Erotica had taken over Romance in general and other non-erotica categories, because many of the authors started including multiple explicit sex scenes, but then try and have the book classified in other categories based on the rest of the content. Not everyone is looking for erotica and when they find it in the book they bought under historical romance, or whatever, they complained.
So as a result, Amazon has responded by pushing the erotica books out of the top-level romance categories, but leaving them in the erotica categories. They haven't been "vanished", Amazon has simply noticed that most people aren't looking for erotica when they're browsing non-erotica-related book categories, so they're not going to advertise it there anymore.
Short-version: Amazon customers who don't read erotica got tired of it showing up in the categories they do read, so Amazon has fixed their categorizations.
Dark matter and dark energy are used as they are the only things that help explain our observations of nature.
Not "the only things that help explain our observations of nature", but rather, "the best things physicists have currently considered that help explain our observations of nature". The OP is right, it's not proven by direct evidence, so it's basically a placeholder for "we don't know, here's a guess of a possibility". The more we do know, the less likely it looks as an explanation, it's just that no better explanation has caught on yet. But in terms of evidence, it's certainly at the gods granted fire to mortals level of explanation. At best, you can say it might be possible. Just because we don't have a better explanation currently, doesn't make dark matter a good explanation. It's not competing with a whole lot.:)
As long as money can be used to purchase things, then it's a representation of wealth. Somehow I don't think you're going to send me all your money because you actually believe it's worthless.
Natural resources are very limited and are rapidly diminishing or have already been destroyed
And yet, somehow reserves of natural resources just keep staying about the same, year after year, decade after decade. It's almost like we're nowhere even remotely near running out of anything important. Oh, that's because your statement is more wishful thinking than reality.
Global median income has doubled in the last decade. Global income inequality is getting lower every year and has made incredible strides recently.
So yeah, we've seen the "division of wealth", lately. Except of course, there is no one "dividing" a fixed pie of wealth. Instead, people participating in trade and markets are growing the world's wealth.
For those who read the summary and not TFA, the solution ultimately involves putting a toll-free phone number where you have to open each pill to read it and having the patients call that number for free to confirm they took their pill, otherwise someone follows-up with them. Cheaper than having the patients have to come somewhere to get their pills on a schedule from someone who records they took it.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, pretty sure that not being able to detect poisonous plants doesn't explain why say, Spinosaurus, would go extinct. After all, they supposedly ate fish, not plants...
If you actually read the link I posted in the comment you responded to, you'll find it debunks the over-inflated claims in your link by citing the actual law and an actual ISP's data collection. The Australian data collection law was claimed to require ISPs to collect everything, but in reality only requirs the ISP to track when you connect and disconnect to the ISP, primarily so they can always associate an IP address with a customer account. That's it.
I guess you went to school in Tucson or somewhere like that, to get so screwed up about basic definitions?
1. Let's try Wikipedia: "Illegal immigration is the illegal entry of a person or a group of persons across a country's border, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country, with the intention to remain in the country."
2. If they have an issue, they can take it to the UN or the World Court or something. Individuals breaking the law isn't "reparations" for unproven accusations.
Like the OP, I'm fine with massive immigration into the United States via increased and streamlined processes which put the risks where they belong, but it should be done legally. The whole amnesty paradigm has been proven to just encourage more law-breaking in the future and it cheats people who are immigrating the right way.
Right, it's just harassment, it has absolutely nothing to do with the law regarding getting a no-cost license which Congress passed years ago and the NOAA is required to enforce. SpaceX has now applied for said license and thus should be able to broadcast in the future.
Do you have any evidence that the NOAA is enforcing this for SpaceX and doesn't enforce it for other groups? Or are you just making stuff up?
In other words, this is much ado about nothing, except a very minor story about the amount of regulations Congress has passed regarding space activities.
No, they probably just want SpaceX to apply for the free license which Congress made a requirement in the law years ago so that they're compliant. Fortunately, SpaceX has now already applied for one and thus should be able to broadcast in the future.
In other words, this is much ado about nothing, except a very minor story about the amount of regulations Congress has passed regarding space.
This is silly, "can" isn't the same as "do" and we have plenty of power to "opt out".
Facebook does collect tons of info about it's users. ISP's don't typically store everything all of their users do. Sure, maybe the NSA is hoovering up a ton of data and sticking it in storage somewhere, but the amount of storage to just store http URLs being requested over the long term, let alone the contents of all packets, is crazy.
If you're actually concerned, then just use encryption for your Internet communications. There's your super-easy "opt-out". You can use secure DNS, use a VPN to tunnel outside your ISP, use TLS for HTTPS traffic, whatever you like.
It's currently a non-issue. About the only way it's going to become an issue in the near future is if your government decides to require your ISP to collect and turn info over to them. Even then, the encryption solution still works out unless they mandate back doors.
Conveniently, as a result of these folks moving to Canada, the average intelligence of the United States and Canada both went up!
(Come on, someone had to say it...)
Try not to cherry-pick so much. The facts are evident in the National Academies’ Firearms and Violence report:
summarized as "Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population."
Your Washington post link is irrelevant. No one (except leftists with a man to fill with straw) is arguing that killing criminals in self-defense is the usual way for people to defend themselves using guns. Generally speaking, criminals just leave people alone once they figure out they're armed. From the Obama Administration CDC sponsored Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Report:
Let me guess, you get your "statistics" from cherry-picking left-wing "news" articles which are regurgitated press releases from anti-gun groups?
Funny that it's you who have failed at basic math, not to mention basic reading comprehension. Let me lay it out for you in nice round numbers to make it easy to understand
Take a gun ownership rate of 40K per 100K people as an example.
When there are 150 million people in the United States, that's (150M/100K*40K=60M) 60M people owning guns.
If the gun ownership rate is unchanged, than if you double the amount of people to 300 million, than that's (300M/100K*40K=60M) 120M people owning guns. The rate is unchanged, but "as the absolute number of people doubled in that time frame, the number of people owning guns also doubled."
P.S. Also, the rest of your statistics in the last line are from a story about an unpublished survey of slightly dubious origins. "The Harvard/Northeastern study is based on a survey of nearly 4,000 Americans conducted online in 2015 by a market research company, GfK, with a nationally representative panel of opt-in participants who are compensated to complete surveys on a variety of issues.
So you're saying all these domains were setup with verification before January 2017, and then Trump Administration employees changed them to no longer be setup that way? Riiight.... have you ever been involved with a government IT project?
Yeah, somehow I think you're the one smoking something.
True enough, although remember, we're talking about rates, so as the absolute number of people doubled in that time frame, the number of people owning guns also doubled. The way you phrased it ("not that more people own guns") may mislead someone.
The bottom line is that the rate of gun ownership, the rate of households with guns, the number of guns, none of those things correlates much with the homicide nor the firearm-homicide rates in the United States, so they're unlikely to be the primary driver of homicides. There are other causes which drive the homicide rate and as most of that rate consists of gangland murders and does correlate with the overall crime rate, that's probably your best place to investigate the primary cause.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but the reverse isn't true. If there isn't any correlation at all, than it's virtually impossible for their to be a primary causation. At best, you could show a small secondary effect being overridden by a much larger primary causation.
The homicide rate decline tracks an overall crime level decline, so while that may be improved by better emergency care, it's unlikely to be the primary driver of it.
The answer is actually pretty obvious. The homicide rate in the United States is primarily related to gang violence. If you take gang-areas out of the equation, the U.S. homicide rate looks much closer to the OECD averages. Whatever is reducing gang wars and the crime rate overall pretty much has to be the primary driver behind the homicide and the firearm-related homicide rate reductions. You can call that reduction in lead levels, or increased incarceration, or better anti-gang task forces, or all three, but none of it is causally linked to the number of firearms per capita.
In terms of extreme examples (D.C. is similar), Detroit has half the gun ownership rate of the surrounding areas, but with 7% of Michigan's population, Detroit had 50% of the murders in the State. Obviously it's not the gun ownership rate causing murder rates.
Way to talk past the issue. "gun deaths" and the homicide rate are two different things. Yeah, I was talking about homicides in general, not suicides, i.e. "gun deaths" (which mostly consist of suicides using a gun, which in turn gets substituted into suicides by other methods if you reduce access to guns). Homicides in general is the best statistic because it takes into account both sides of the gun availability question:
1. How many guns are available for use in attacking someone
2. How many guns are available for use in defending someone
It also helps that what any sane person is trying to reduce is homicides in general. It doesn't really matter to a dead person and their family what was used to kill them, just if they're dead or not.
There isn't a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but the reverse isn't true. If there isn't any correlation, than it's virtually impossible for their to be a primary causation.
P.S. Your own quoted study says "could not determine causation". That's because most firearm-related homicides occur where the crime rate is high (i.e. gang areas in cities) and more people buy guns to protect themselves when they feel more threatened by a higher crime and homicide rate.
Ok, so from 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.
Yet the U.S. Homicide rate is currently about 20% lower than it was in 1968! You've proven increasing the number of guns in the U.S. doesn't result in more people being murdered. Congratulations.
P.S. Schools are much safer than in the 90s, shooting incidents involving students have been declining for decades.
The best use case for URL shorteners is when you are printing or displaying a URL on something other than a computer, so people will need to be able to type it in, but you don't control the source URL's contents, i.e. you're using a third-party service.
For example, when organizing a camping trip for a couple of hundred people, I used Google maps to show the route, then got the shortened URL for that and put it on the paper flyer which was handed out. Trying to put the entire 170+ otherwise-meaningless-character URL into a 3"x5" flyer and then expecting people to retype it accurately into their device in order to pull up the route would have been ridiculous. The shortened form worked perfectly for that use case.
So the study "proves" you'd have to be crazy to do postgraduate academics? Or at least with some tendencies that way...
So, you mean, like having entire categories of various erotica on their site? Like they do? Like these books still rank in?
All they did was remove the erotica which had been pushed by authors/publishers into non-erotica categories from those non-erotica categories, because their customers don't like buying what they think is historical fiction to find it full of explicit reverse-harem dungeon scenes. They still have erotica categories which the erotica books are listed in and rank in based on their sales and reviews.
i.e. Nothing to see here....
Amazon is responding to their customers, just like they've done in the past.
One of the biggest source of customer complaints was Romance novels showing up all over the site in other categories, like Mil SF, or historical fiction, or whatever, when they didn't really fit, because Romance is such a huge and competitive category. So Amazon put in place some restrictions so that people who were looking for Romance genre books would find them and people who weren't, didn't.
This is essentially the same thing. Erotica had taken over Romance in general and other non-erotica categories, because many of the authors started including multiple explicit sex scenes, but then try and have the book classified in other categories based on the rest of the content. Not everyone is looking for erotica and when they find it in the book they bought under historical romance, or whatever, they complained.
So as a result, Amazon has responded by pushing the erotica books out of the top-level romance categories, but leaving them in the erotica categories. They haven't been "vanished", Amazon has simply noticed that most people aren't looking for erotica when they're browsing non-erotica-related book categories, so they're not going to advertise it there anymore.
Short-version: Amazon customers who don't read erotica got tired of it showing up in the categories they do read, so Amazon has fixed their categorizations.
Not "the only things that help explain our observations of nature", but rather, "the best things physicists have currently considered that help explain our observations of nature". The OP is right, it's not proven by direct evidence, so it's basically a placeholder for "we don't know, here's a guess of a possibility". The more we do know, the less likely it looks as an explanation, it's just that no better explanation has caught on yet. But in terms of evidence, it's certainly at the gods granted fire to mortals level of explanation. At best, you can say it might be possible. Just because we don't have a better explanation currently, doesn't make dark matter a good explanation. It's not competing with a whole lot. :)
As long as money can be used to purchase things, then it's a representation of wealth. Somehow I don't think you're going to send me all your money because you actually believe it's worthless.
And yet, somehow reserves of natural resources just keep staying about the same, year after year, decade after decade. It's almost like we're nowhere even remotely near running out of anything important. Oh, that's because your statement is more wishful thinking than reality.
Global median income has doubled in the last decade. Global income inequality is getting lower every year and has made incredible strides recently.
So yeah, we've seen the "division of wealth", lately. Except of course, there is no one "dividing" a fixed pie of wealth. Instead, people participating in trade and markets are growing the world's wealth.
Who cares if it won a Yugo? I mean, sure, a small Yugoslavian car as a prize is impressive, but who really cares?
For those who read the summary and not TFA, the solution ultimately involves putting a toll-free phone number where you have to open each pill to read it and having the patients call that number for free to confirm they took their pill, otherwise someone follows-up with them. Cheaper than having the patients have to come somewhere to get their pills on a schedule from someone who records they took it.
I'd say a 1,500 km wide circular shock wave might be visible if you're looking up from that part of the planet.