St. Louis is number 1 for murder on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I suspect that has just a little something to do with that 6.9/100,000 for the state. But that's just me. And the stats.
"If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."
You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.
"Ask the folks in Japan."
You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.
So the fact that 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicide in the US seems like it's full of shit? To who?
Japan has high rate of suicide vs. low gun ownership...US has high suicide rate vs. high gun ownership. No correlation.
Chandler's low homicide rate vs. Detroit's (100 times higher). No correlation.
New Hampshire vs. Louisiana (10 times higher). No correlation.
So let's only look at averages with the assumption of "first world only". Instead let's look at why people in certain small geographical locations in the US kill each other at such high rates and look for a root cause to that violence. When we do look closer we see young black males killing each other at horrific rates. Why is that happening and why won't we do anything about it? My answer...it creates an average statistic useful for pushing gun control and recognizing it would reflect poorly on the politicians in control of those areas.
"If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"
Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.
" and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"
So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.
I said " uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates" so I obviously think it's a problem. Are guns causing suicide? Ask the folks in Japan.
Sounds like you aren't willing to look for the root causes and actually solve these problems. If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results.
" Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."
The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.
I agree we shouldn't be having this problem. Comparing averages is our first mistake. We have data right in front of our eyes, Chandler v.s Chicago, and many others we can look at and see where things are going wrong. If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates above those of the developed world then we won't solve the problem of a high average homicide rate vs. the first world. If we just say, well most homicides are committed with guns so they must be causing the problem, then we won't solve the problem. Unless private ownership of guns is the real "problem" one wants to solve. Then our high homicide rate is useful and efforts to reduce it counterproductive to that end.
Or how about we implement the solution the rest of the first world has successfully done rather than struggle with complex issues that the first world has yet to figure out solutions to?
Why are things so bad in Detroit but not in Austin TX or Chandler AZ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Detroit has stricter gun laws than Austin or Chandler.
It doesn't seem to me that the "solution" that the rest of the first (cherry picked) world has implemented is working in Detroit. Plenty of second and third world countries have extremely restrictive gun laws and have homicide rates much higher than the US. Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider. Let's help the people who need it the most first even if it means recognizing that guns are not the problem. That seems unlikely to happen though.
Jesus, I can't believe you just said that. You just told me that if we cherry pick our data then we look great. Of course that's the fucking case. If you did that with any country you could make them look light years better.
No cherry picking at all. I referenced ALL the data not just the "average" which would be cherry picking seeing how the average misrepresents the vast majority of the country and the hell holes where the homicide rate is 10 times the average. The point is that guns aren't the problem else the homicide rate in all the rest of the country would be high as well. Fix the real problem. Drug gang violence. Or leave those worst affected by the violence to suffer and continue to push gun control.
Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world. That's the fact hidden, and purposely ignored by gun grabbers, in the average homicide rate folks like to trot out. Those of us who live outside of those few dozen square miles of the US don't want, or need, any of the idiotic gun control laws that routinely get trotted out as "solutions" to gun related homicide. Drug gang violence is what you should start looking at if you want to solve the vast majority of our gun homicide problem. But then you would have to actually want to solve the violence problem, not just use an out of context statistic as justification to take peoples guns away.
Of course, there are negative effects too — namely increased tire wear and impaired ride quality — which is why production cars almost always have zero camber.
My understanding from hacknig cars for a couple of decades is that auto manufacturers tend to specify slightly negative camber, and even progressive negative camber that increases with tire deflection (when the steering wheel is turned) in order to IMPROVE handling. Without negative camber, cars tend to feel squirrley and difficult to control. With negative camber, the car tends to feel more stable, and, importantly, the steering wheel returns to center on its own.
That's BS. Negative camber is no more or less stable than positive. Positive camber was specified in cars for decades. Only recently, 10-20 years, has 0 or slight negative started to become the norm. Can you say "wide low profile tires".
This POS tire is cone shaped. Roll a cone and what happens? It turns. The outside edge of this tire has a larger circumference that the inside edge. One edge of the tire wants to go further than the other edge per revolution. Tire wear will be horrible. This is a solution to a "problem" no one is interested in solving.
All you need to do is shine a lamp on the thermostat making it think it's way hotter than it really is and the AC will run till the cows come home. I've done it at work before as they have the thermostats all "locked down".
I can tell you we received the "correction" and it went both ways. We'd break about even spring/fall (very little correction)with summer/winter( making a little more in summer vs. winter) giving us an small overall gain. For the whole year it was on the order of about $.005 US/gallon. Our market would have have adjusted retail prices to compensate had we not received the correction. When one makes 5 cents per gallon 1/2 cent can be the difference between staying in business or not. This is a non issue.
I am an ME in the US and much prefer working in metric. I recently finished a project for a company in Germany that required metric units. My wife is a nurse and they use metric weights and measures pretty much exclusively. I think part of the reluctance to move to metric comes from less technical people. Also there is a huge investment in tooling, training, experience used to produce english size fasteners, holes, tubing, etc. Just calling them by their metric size would result in odd ball sizes like 9/16 inch being 14.28 mm. The thing I like to say to people that argue against metric is to ask them which is longer 15/64 or 8/32 inch and see how long it takes them to answer, then ask which is longer 14 or 15 mm. Some less technically minded people can't even answer the first one correctly while even a child can get the second one instantly. A lot of people get hung up on wanting to convert everything from metric to english so they can know how far, fast, or heavy something is. They don't seem to understand that once they learn metric they can stop converting. At work we have some manufacturing and on the line we're lucky to get anyone that can read a tape measure to the nearest 1/4 inch. We got some tapes in marked in tenths of inches and tried them out and all of the sudden they could read the tapes to 1/10 inch with ease. If we would just bite the bullet our productivity would take a short term dip but would eventually increase. Having to do the conversions and find metric fasteners and tooling here in the US to supply products for the rest of the world is a royal pain in the ass.
Say someone invents a new drug that could save lives. If a person doesn't buy it they aren't any worse off than before the drug was invented when the drug couldn't be purchased for any price. Without the profit motive and patent protection this new life saving drug would never even exist. You think it cost too much, then don't buy it. Or make your own damn drug.
45 degree rock face not a problem, the water is another story. But boats don't do dry land too well either and any vehicle designed to float has compromises in other areas. Finding a path is very much easier on a bike because you only need a few inches width on the ground and about 30 inches overall. Think forest. Bikes can also ride side hill no problem where other vehicles want to roll over. Like on that 45 degree rock face. Unmanned there just isn't any way to take advantage of the things a motorcycle can do.
"Some of the world's best dirtbike riders wouldn't be able to easily cross stuff your average Land Rover or Land Cruiser would laugh at."
Uh, you pretty much have that backwards. The best Motorcyclists can go places and do things no 4, 6 or 8 wheeled vehicle could ever do in a million years. A good trials rider would turn one of those rock crawler competitions into a joke. I challenged one of those 6 wheeled things to a hillclimb one day. I easily topped a hill he never even made 1/4 the way up. However, a riderless bike would be useless. It's the rider that makes the bike unlike Jeeps and such which are much less dependent upon operator skill.
It wouldn't be any different than it is now. If a show stinks nobody watches, they can't sell ads, and next season it's gone. If the product placement gets out of hand, nobody watches the ads and.... But wouldn't you like the choice? If you like Larry King and don't mind regular advertising then watch it. But if there is a product placement show on opposite Larry and you like it too? It's not an either or situation.
Yes that's true, but if the Aflack duck quacks across the screen it's the last time i watch the show. I would think that most people feel the same way. I wonder if fans of a show are interested in what their favorite character uses for alergies or what music they listen to, etc. I think it could be done, but as you said some things don't fit into placement well. I suggest that there will be plenty of things that will be able to take the place of the aflack duck. Remember the producers don't care what the product is as long as they can fit it in and the money is green.
I look forward to the day that product placement is the only advertising. Consider this: You sit watching your favorite show and some product catches your eye. You then use a pointer of some sort to "mark" the product and can pause the show TiVo style and see an ad for that product. Or you can wait 'till the end of the show to see the ads. Like that skirt, bra, shoes the star is wearing, or maybe the furnishings in the house, stereo equipment, car, cops gun or holster? No longer will you sit through commercials for stuff you couldn't care less about. The people producing the show can sell ads for virtually everything visible in the show and you can choose what you want to see ads for. When a show starts getting filled up with a bunch of junk for sale or stops being entertaining people stop watching and the show fails. Your new interactive set sends feedback to the producers instantly. Like that new show? Then watch the commercials. Think it's a stinker? Don't watch them. At least you didn't have to sit through 10 minutes of commercials to find out.
Huge revenue? since a lot of those 18 dollar cds have only one good song on them you would need to increase sales by a factor of 72 to make the same money. Factor out packaging costs and such and maybe you get that down to 40. so if 1 in 39 people buys the whole cd they are still ahead of the 25 cents a song model. The record companies are whining about lost sales but thay are still selling millions of 18 dollar cds so there's not much incentive to switch to selling millions of 25 cent songs.
Now that they have admitted to considering doing something that is clearly illegal, the first time you have an mp3 deleted the lawyers will be lined up around the block to try and represent you. The RIAA has deep pockets and between actual and punative damages, awards could be in the millions. They would be idiots to expose themselves to that kind of liability.
Slashdot Mirror
St. Louis is number 1 for murder on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I suspect that has just a little something to do with that 6.9/100,000 for the state. But that's just me. And the stats.
"If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."
You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.
"Ask the folks in Japan."
You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.
So the fact that 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicide in the US seems like it's full of shit? To who? Japan has high rate of suicide vs. low gun ownership...US has high suicide rate vs. high gun ownership. No correlation. Chandler's low homicide rate vs. Detroit's (100 times higher). No correlation. New Hampshire vs. Louisiana (10 times higher). No correlation. So let's only look at averages with the assumption of "first world only". Instead let's look at why people in certain small geographical locations in the US kill each other at such high rates and look for a root cause to that violence. When we do look closer we see young black males killing each other at horrific rates. Why is that happening and why won't we do anything about it? My answer...it creates an average statistic useful for pushing gun control and recognizing it would reflect poorly on the politicians in control of those areas.
"If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"
Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.
" and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"
So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.
I said " uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates" so I obviously think it's a problem. Are guns causing suicide? Ask the folks in Japan. Sounds like you aren't willing to look for the root causes and actually solve these problems. If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results.
" Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."
The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.
I agree we shouldn't be having this problem. Comparing averages is our first mistake. We have data right in front of our eyes, Chandler v.s Chicago, and many others we can look at and see where things are going wrong. If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates above those of the developed world then we won't solve the problem of a high average homicide rate vs. the first world. If we just say, well most homicides are committed with guns so they must be causing the problem, then we won't solve the problem. Unless private ownership of guns is the real "problem" one wants to solve. Then our high homicide rate is useful and efforts to reduce it counterproductive to that end.
Or how about we implement the solution the rest of the first world has successfully done rather than struggle with complex issues that the first world has yet to figure out solutions to?
Why are things so bad in Detroit but not in Austin TX or Chandler AZ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Detroit has stricter gun laws than Austin or Chandler. It doesn't seem to me that the "solution" that the rest of the first (cherry picked) world has implemented is working in Detroit. Plenty of second and third world countries have extremely restrictive gun laws and have homicide rates much higher than the US. Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider. Let's help the people who need it the most first even if it means recognizing that guns are not the problem. That seems unlikely to happen though.
Every country is like that. The United States is not some crazy anomaly in how our violent crime is proportioned.
Then let's concentrate our efforts on those areas and the real problem, gang violence, and leave me and my guns alone.
Jesus, I can't believe you just said that. You just told me that if we cherry pick our data then we look great. Of course that's the fucking case. If you did that with any country you could make them look light years better.
No cherry picking at all. I referenced ALL the data not just the "average" which would be cherry picking seeing how the average misrepresents the vast majority of the country and the hell holes where the homicide rate is 10 times the average. The point is that guns aren't the problem else the homicide rate in all the rest of the country would be high as well. Fix the real problem. Drug gang violence. Or leave those worst affected by the violence to suffer and continue to push gun control.
Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world. That's the fact hidden, and purposely ignored by gun grabbers, in the average homicide rate folks like to trot out. Those of us who live outside of those few dozen square miles of the US don't want, or need, any of the idiotic gun control laws that routinely get trotted out as "solutions" to gun related homicide. Drug gang violence is what you should start looking at if you want to solve the vast majority of our gun homicide problem. But then you would have to actually want to solve the violence problem, not just use an out of context statistic as justification to take peoples guns away.
Of course, there are negative effects too — namely increased tire wear and impaired ride quality — which is why production cars almost always have zero camber.
My understanding from hacknig cars for a couple of decades is that auto manufacturers tend to specify slightly negative camber, and even progressive negative camber that increases with tire deflection (when the steering wheel is turned) in order to IMPROVE handling. Without negative camber, cars tend to feel squirrley and difficult to control. With negative camber, the car tends to feel more stable, and, importantly, the steering wheel returns to center on its own.
That's BS. Negative camber is no more or less stable than positive. Positive camber was specified in cars for decades. Only recently, 10-20 years, has 0 or slight negative started to become the norm. Can you say "wide low profile tires".
This POS tire is cone shaped. Roll a cone and what happens? It turns. The outside edge of this tire has a larger circumference that the inside edge. One edge of the tire wants to go further than the other edge per revolution. Tire wear will be horrible. This is a solution to a "problem" no one is interested in solving.
All you need to do is shine a lamp on the thermostat making it think it's way hotter than it really is and the AC will run till the cows come home. I've done it at work before as they have the thermostats all "locked down".
Steve
And then we can sell the coupons on ebay to the highest bidder.
I can tell you we received the "correction" and it went both ways. We'd break about even spring/fall (very little correction)with summer/winter( making a little more in summer vs. winter) giving us an small overall gain. For the whole year it was on the order of about $.005 US/gallon. Our market would have have adjusted retail prices to compensate had we not received the correction. When one makes 5 cents per gallon 1/2 cent can be the difference between staying in business or not. This is a non issue.
Steve
I am an ME in the US and much prefer working in metric. I recently finished a project for a company in Germany that required metric units. My wife is a nurse and they use metric weights and measures pretty much exclusively. I think part of the reluctance to move to metric comes from less technical people. Also there is a huge investment in tooling, training, experience used to produce english size fasteners, holes, tubing, etc. Just calling them by their metric size would result in odd ball sizes like 9/16 inch being 14.28 mm. The thing I like to say to people that argue against metric is to ask them which is longer 15/64 or 8/32 inch and see how long it takes them to answer, then ask which is longer 14 or 15 mm. Some less technically minded people can't even answer the first one correctly while even a child can get the second one instantly. A lot of people get hung up on wanting to convert everything from metric to english so they can know how far, fast, or heavy something is. They don't seem to understand that once they learn metric they can stop converting. At work we have some manufacturing and on the line we're lucky to get anyone that can read a tape measure to the nearest 1/4 inch. We got some tapes in marked in tenths of inches and tried them out and all of the sudden they could read the tapes to 1/10 inch with ease. If we would just bite the bullet our productivity would take a short term dip but would eventually increase. Having to do the conversions and find metric fasteners and tooling here in the US to supply products for the rest of the world is a royal pain in the ass.
Say someone invents a new drug that could save lives. If a person doesn't buy it they aren't any worse off than before the drug was invented when the drug couldn't be purchased for any price. Without the profit motive and patent protection this new life saving drug would never even exist. You think it cost too much, then don't buy it. Or make your own damn drug.
It was demonstrated for the TV NEWS SHOW, 60 Minutes, not that amount of time.
Don't that say it all.
Doradox
45 degree rock face not a problem, the water is another story. But boats don't do dry land too well either and any vehicle designed to float has compromises in other areas. Finding a path is very much easier on a bike because you only need a few inches width on the ground and about 30 inches overall. Think forest. Bikes can also ride side hill no problem where other vehicles want to roll over. Like on that 45 degree rock face. Unmanned there just isn't any way to take advantage of the things a motorcycle can do.
"Some of the world's best dirtbike riders wouldn't be able to easily cross stuff your average Land Rover or Land Cruiser would laugh at."
Uh, you pretty much have that backwards. The best Motorcyclists can go places and do things no 4, 6 or 8 wheeled vehicle could ever do in a million years. A good trials rider would turn one of those rock crawler competitions into a joke. I challenged one of those 6 wheeled things to a hillclimb one day. I easily topped a hill he never even made 1/4 the way up. However, a riderless bike would be useless. It's the rider that makes the bike unlike Jeeps and such which are much less dependent upon operator skill.
It wouldn't be any different than it is now. If a show stinks nobody watches, they can't sell ads, and next season it's gone. If the product placement gets out of hand, nobody watches the ads and .... But wouldn't you like the choice? If you like Larry King and don't mind regular advertising then watch it. But if there is a product placement show on opposite Larry and you like it too? It's not an either or situation.
Yes that's true, but if the Aflack duck quacks across the screen it's the last time i watch the show. I would think that most people feel the same way. I wonder if fans of a show are interested in what their favorite character uses for alergies or what music they listen to, etc. I think it could be done, but as you said some things don't fit into placement well. I suggest that there will be plenty of things that will be able to take the place of the aflack duck. Remember the producers don't care what the product is as long as they can fit it in and the money is green.
I look forward to the day that product placement is the only advertising. Consider this: You sit watching your favorite show and some product catches your eye. You then use a pointer of some sort to "mark" the product and can pause the show TiVo style and see an ad for that product. Or you can wait 'till the end of the show to see the ads. Like that skirt, bra, shoes the star is wearing, or maybe the furnishings in the house, stereo equipment, car, cops gun or holster? No longer will you sit through commercials for stuff you couldn't care less about. The people producing the show can sell ads for virtually everything visible in the show and you can choose what you want to see ads for. When a show starts getting filled up with a bunch of junk for sale or stops being entertaining people stop watching and the show fails. Your new interactive set sends feedback to the producers instantly. Like that new show? Then watch the commercials. Think it's a stinker? Don't watch them. At least you didn't have to sit through 10 minutes of commercials to find out.
How do you steal "free" music?
Huge revenue? since a lot of those 18 dollar cds have only one good song on them you would need to increase sales by a factor of 72 to make the same money. Factor out packaging costs and such and maybe you get that down to 40. so if 1 in 39 people buys the whole cd they are still ahead of the 25 cents a song model. The record companies are whining about lost sales but thay are still selling millions of 18 dollar cds so there's not much incentive to switch to selling millions of 25 cent songs.
Now that they have admitted to considering doing something that is clearly illegal, the first time you have an mp3 deleted the lawyers will be lined up around the block to try and represent you. The RIAA has deep pockets and between actual and punative damages, awards could be in the millions. They would be idiots to expose themselves to that kind of liability.