You obviously thought the surveillance angle important or you wouldn't have mentioned it. Such a great service the NSA is doing to Americans by making them realize the importance of cryptography. Whatever. They tried to do it in secret, lied to congress and were outed by a variety of whistle blowers. They are not heroes. If anything, Russian attempts better fit your notion of improving things by encouraging cryptography -- because they are more up front about it.
As for "censorship involves you just disappearing" -- you must *really* be behind on current affairs if you think that is just a Russian thing. See, the US has *also* been outed for grabbing people off of the street. And don't even think of whistle blowing if you're in the US -- the criminals in charge want to stay in charge and keep the public uninformed or misinformed.
You also seem to think I was apologizing for Russia. Nope, I just recognize criminals by their criminal actions. That means Russia *and* the US. Your hypocrisy on the subject (Russia bad, US good) was just too blatant to ignore.
So, when Russia tries to do stronger surveillance and open censorship it is bad and wrong, but when the NSA does it it is accidentally good because it makes people care? Wow. Pass me some of whatever you're having.
Oh, now you've done it -- gone and outed the Earth's early defense system. The G'lak advance ships were just blown to smithereens and... wait, there's some guys dressed in black knocking at my door.
For simplicity, lets go with the numbers already suggested. If we have 1/100th in our solar system then it would be about one solar mass (our sun comprises about 99% of the solar system's mass). So on principle of mass we could raid our sun for the matter to build a dyson sphere, but doing so would obviously rob us of our sun.
At the same time, not all matter is equivalent. Most matter is hydrogen, but I would be more impressed by a civilization that could build a dyson sphere out of hydrogen rather than one that had to resort to non-gaseous elements...
well, its pretty common knowledge that the tea party is against paying taxes to the US government and think that there should be no consequence for tax dodging so I'm not surprised that people would apply the same reasoning to any other tax authority.
Of course, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, Muslims or the Koran and rather more to do with their unwillingness to be a productive participant in society. But whatever.
yes, and each individual "song" downloaded should be considered a separate offense.
statistics don't lie, but they can be phrased in so many different ways that the same data set can be used to support diametrically opposed view points.
Thanks, coward, for putting your bias up front that the data must be interpreted according to your needs to make your points.
Reality is always more complicated, but despite the screed against "precrime" posted above the US has been quite successful in stopping rightwing religious terrorists with the most notable exception being Timothy McVeigh.
Not that this is likely to penetrate your preconceptions and blindered world view, but the reality is that US law enforcement has been most successful against domestic terrorist attacks -- and yet we have still had a greater number of them. It may not be apparent to you, but it is easier to monitor and control domestic whack jobs -- that does not mean that they do not exist or that we should allow them to kill more people.
In the end, which is more dangerous: a right wing christian nut job, or a muslim terrorist, or a secular anarchist? Or some other label? The proper answer is that they are all dangerous: they are all trying to kill and incite terror to further their cause. Any other answer betrays a willingness to accept crimes for their ideology. It isn't the ideology that is important, it is their crimes. And the crimes go to those who planned and executed, not to everyone who happens to have a somewhat similar ideology.
how was GP wrong? I read your link. GP said, "There's bail for some offences, but no bond or bondsmen" and that does in fact appear to be the case.
Now, if you had been a little more nuanced in your reply, rather than simply stating "wrong" there might have been something to comment. But having read the article I can assure you that what is described is nothing approaching the US bail system.
an inability to comprehend what you read doesn't slow you down, does it?
But I'll try again anyway:
You have to prove your assertion, otherwise you are begging the question. I demonstrated how -- even if you stretch and reach for it -- any impact would be negligible. You essentially assert that negligible is the same as having effect and try to rest your case. Hmmm...
So you are completely fine with an assertion that someone who pirates music will gain exposure to new artists and then buy music from ones they are interested in? That will necessarily have *some* effect on increasing sales and therefore profit so piracy is good for the MAFIA, right? Surely you can agree with this as it is essentially the same as your argument.
You must also be completely fine with the assertion that some pirates do so explicitly for the purpose of "trying before buying" and will consequently spend based on the trials. As companies are known to offer "try before buy" deals this must obviously result in *some* increase in sales and as *some* pirates are using it in this fashion then there must be *some* positive impact on sales.
But feel free to actually concoct an argument that does not rely on fallacy. Go ahead.
and my iPhone 4S lasts for a week on a charge (despite being old and weary). Its all about how you use it. Is it constantly waking up and fetching email? How much web browsing? Playing music? Watching videos? What about bluetooth? GPS? You even mention you kill "the internet browser task". I've never had to resort to killing tasks in order to maintain battery life.
Anecdotes from individuals about battery life are pretty meaningless when the variabilities of usage far outweigh the baseline power for operation.
on the other hand I knew a guy who was caught going over 100mph on I95 with a speed limit of 55mph. He didn't get a single point against his license, much less lose it (too be far, a single point would have lost it which is why he took action)
How to get out of pretty much any speeding ticket? Hire a lawyer. Its been more than a few years so I'm fuzzy on some of the details, but it went something like:
posted speed limit is 55mph, but...
the observed speed limit is 65 mph so -10mph
the speed was determined by a radar gun so -10mph
speed is only excessive if it is at least 5 mph over the limit so -5mph
I don't remember other factors, but in the end he was considered to be within an acceptable speed and had no consequences (other than having paid for the lawyer, inconvenience of court).
I do recall that the radar gun issue was simply that rather than argue over the accuracy of the gun there is simply a fixed discount in the effective speed.
Trying to argue with high profits by speculating that they might have made even more? At best you are arguing that they don't need copyright protection because they are doing just fine without it stopping piracy. And I would agree with you.
But there is a more fundamental error in your argument. You are, in fact, begging the question. That is, you are relying on an unproven assumption that there was in fact more money to be made. That is bad enough to end the case, but your unproven assumption is also wrong.
Money is not an unlimited resource. In fact, each person has a fairly limited quantity of it at their disposal. So the only way that the MAFIA could possibly have made more money is if it had been allocated differently. For example, if instead of spending $50 to go to a theater I pirate the movie and it at home (using resources already funded) and put the money into savings instead. By the MAFIA argument I would have just stolen $50 from them -- but unless I never spend the money it is really just a deferred expenditure.
Of course the reality is that no one does what I just proposed. In point of fact, people have fixed costs that are required for living (rent, property tax, groceries, etc.) with the remainder being disposable income. And, immediately or later, that gets spent. And it gets spent on luxury items, whether that is a beer you drink at home (stealing money from a bar by not drinking there), going out to watch a movie, eat in a restaurant, etc.
Now, there is room for some shuffling here. Perhaps Peter prefers eating in restaurants while Paul prefers watching movies. From a strictly economic perspective there is no difference between the two, whether or not none, one or both engage in piracy.
People make financial decisions as to whether or not they can afford to see a movie or fly to the Bahamas for vacation, but piracy is not a financial decision unless they are paying for it. And the Internet connections are a sunk cost: you pay for the connection whether or not you are downloading music and movies. The absolute closest you could get would be a claim that higher bandwidth connections are absorbing the displaced cost of buying a movie. To demonstrate the lost money would require identifying (or at least having a good approximation) of how much money was spent on upgrading Internet connection speeds for the sole purpose of piracy.
The bottom line is people aren't upgrading Internet connections to enable piracy, and even if they were the amount of money is so small compared to how much money the MAFIA grosses that it would not significantly alter the outcome.
Well, you asked so here it is: You're wrong (though not in a particularly meaningful way).
You may (or may not) have noticed that copiers and copying services post rules about not reproducing copyrighted content. This is because copyright law gives the copyright holder control over who can distribute or reproduce a work. And making a photocopy is reproduction, even when it is not for distribution. When you download a copyrighted work you are reproducing it (making a copy) and that is not permitted.
However, just making a copy does not particularly harm the copyright holder. If you make many copies and distribute them in competition then that is a more serious event. The penalties for distribution of copyrighted materials are consequently greater.
It is also easier to catch and prosecute a distributor. When Paul uses the office copier to run off a copy of a book so he doesn't have to buy it -- how do you catch him? But when Peter mass produces the book and sells it in a store front -- well, that's easy.
Consequently, most of the attention revolves around questions of distribution. Simple reproduction is illegal, but is a lesser crime that is difficult to detect and generally less prosecutable.
Its also interesting that they attack Margaret Sanger rather than the activities of the organization. Look, she was a eugenicist, so everything she was associated with is the evil!
For example, Planned Parenthood encourages family planning -- choosing when to have children rather than just having them happen. Are opponents concerned that some of their own might be convinced to have children when they are ready rather than as soon as they are in a relationship? Oh, the horrors!
and where are "private independent companies" going to get their funding? You do realize that the "free market" doesn't just print more money, right?
Its really strange that you go from "don't bash the EPA for congress not funding them" to "EPA has proved that they are useless" with an even more extraneous "yet again" (as you don't mention any previous EPA failures).
I'm just trying to understand your jump from facts to fiction.
I ran across something similar recently. They did fancy transparency on the black box so you could still read the site behind it, but it strained the eyes. Then I got an idea: I hit reload and as soon as the page came up I canceled the page load. Everything worked great:)
Not recommended as a general way of browsing, but it might help in a specific instance just to be able to read a web page.
Right. Tell you what, I'm going to speculate that you are an adult male living in the western hemisphere. You haven't told me this is so, but I can *infer* it. Although at this point I'm thinking we can also infer that you have a thick skull and can't back down from a position once you've taken it.
And that kind of nonsense is why we don't have a pediatrician anymore. There was a good one, but she didn't toe the company line and the death of a different doctor's patient was pinned on her. No legal action, just the emotional and social weight. She ended up leaving the country. Our choices since then have been a pediatrician who abuses her own children and a "doctor" who is no better than consulting webmd [which he excuses himself to do] (worse, actually, because he subscribes to medical scams and tries to pawn them off on his patients). There aren't actually many options where we're at and a doctor who actually cares about his or her patients and doesn't hate children is hard to find.
The big hipped trucks with the spotless paint job, nary a trace of mud and a perfect bedliner. Yeah... they are using them to haul *all* the time. Not.
Your experience is different than mine. Its all anecdotal. But some of the pickup owners want to make extra sure you know that they are compensating and buy those plastic testicles to put on their truck. Its hard to deny that.
Do you see commuter vehicles? Maybe its because I'm in the midwest, but we have a *lot* of pickup/SUV commuter vehicles. That are rarely, if ever, used to haul.
A friend of mine talked that talk and drove pickups as commuter vehicle for years. He lives in the country, but the truth is he basically never used the trucks as trucks. He finally gave in and started saving himself a lot of money by driving a car.
The reality is that most people hardly ever need the hauling capacity of a truck or SUV. And for those that live in the country a farm truck paired with a commuter car is a far better deal.
Related fun factoid: four wheel drive doesn't keep vehicles out of ditches. Possibly because the driver thinks he can drive like an idiot and the vehicle will miraculously save him from himself. Its amusing watching a 2WD truck with a winch rescue a 4WD vehicle.
without quibbling over how you presented the crime statistic, you are overlooking an important factor: what sort of crime increases and who does it target? Given the complaints here on slashdot I would not be surprised if in some places there were crimes targeting the immigrants which would have the effect of increasing the crime rate.
In point of fact, this is something that goes with the gypsy/romani -- often some locals will decry the gypsies and complain about how they come in and steal, but there will be a distinct increase in crime directed against the gypsies.
And, interestingly enough, nationalism is a recent invention. We are taught that there are distinct countries and the implication is that this has always been the case. If nothing else, people are either told or simply assume that before nations there were tribes and that tribalism preceded nationalism. But it isn't true.
There is a related problem, that of language. We like to pretend that languages are distinct and have clear boundaries. Someone speaks English, or German or Spanish or... But this notion of language is fairly modern and isn't even true. This is tacitly acknowledged by adding labels to indicate region, recognizing that American English is not the same as British English. Nor is the English spoken in India the same as either of those. Egyptian Arabic is a mix of Arabic and British English with some older Egyptian vocabulary thrown in.
Being a dead language, Latin was fairly defined as a language circa 800 AD, but the people inhabiting what we now call France did not refer to themselves as French, German or in fact any national or tribal identity. The term "the Franks" is more modern than anything else. Historically membership in a tribe was a hand wavy group identification, not about ethnicity or heredity. If you asked a Frank about his identity as a Frank you would have confused him. If you asked him what language he spoke it would similarly have confused him.
Linguists have labels for dead "languages" but the truth is there is no hard definition for what such a language was or who spoke it. If you started on the west coast and traveled east the spoken language would shift from place to place with generally increasing differences. The closest you get is a sort of civic identity where someone felt attachment to the city of his birth, but it is reading too much into it to regard it as a precursor to nationalism.
When King Harald set out to unite Norway there was no strict geographical boundary. People who lived in what we now call Norway didn't identify themselves as "Norwegians". They lived in familial groups, households, and identified with their relatives though certainly not in a tribal sense. Individuals who didn't like King Harald's requirement for land ownership left, mostly for Iceland, where family continued to be the most significant group identity and there was certainly no national identity.
No, nationalism was consciously invented as a tool to rally the mass of people behind a political figure or organization. Nationalism, and its sister patriotism, are tools to control a population. It is nationalism that encourages xenophobia. Despite a popular modern conception that primitive peoples were distrustful of outsiders, by and large what we have observed is the opposite. At least, those groups that survived with a primitive lifestyle to more modern times have failed to be adequately suspicious of foreign intruders.
It is modern nationalism, not primitive tribalism, that leads to xenophobia.
Slashdot Mirror
Man up to what?
You obviously thought the surveillance angle important or you wouldn't have mentioned it. Such a great service the NSA is doing to Americans by making them realize the importance of cryptography. Whatever. They tried to do it in secret, lied to congress and were outed by a variety of whistle blowers. They are not heroes. If anything, Russian attempts better fit your notion of improving things by encouraging cryptography -- because they are more up front about it.
As for "censorship involves you just disappearing" -- you must *really* be behind on current affairs if you think that is just a Russian thing. See, the US has *also* been outed for grabbing people off of the street. And don't even think of whistle blowing if you're in the US -- the criminals in charge want to stay in charge and keep the public uninformed or misinformed.
You also seem to think I was apologizing for Russia. Nope, I just recognize criminals by their criminal actions. That means Russia *and* the US. Your hypocrisy on the subject (Russia bad, US good) was just too blatant to ignore.
So, when Russia tries to do stronger surveillance and open censorship it is bad and wrong, but when the NSA does it it is accidentally good because it makes people care? Wow. Pass me some of whatever you're having.
Oh, now you've done it -- gone and outed the Earth's early defense system. The G'lak advance ships were just blown to smithereens and... wait, there's some guys dressed in black knocking at my door.
For simplicity, lets go with the numbers already suggested. If we have 1/100th in our solar system then it would be about one solar mass (our sun comprises about 99% of the solar system's mass). So on principle of mass we could raid our sun for the matter to build a dyson sphere, but doing so would obviously rob us of our sun.
At the same time, not all matter is equivalent. Most matter is hydrogen, but I would be more impressed by a civilization that could build a dyson sphere out of hydrogen rather than one that had to resort to non-gaseous elements...
well, its pretty common knowledge that the tea party is against paying taxes to the US government and think that there should be no consequence for tax dodging so I'm not surprised that people would apply the same reasoning to any other tax authority.
Of course, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, Muslims or the Koran and rather more to do with their unwillingness to be a productive participant in society. But whatever.
yes, and each individual "song" downloaded should be considered a separate offense.
statistics don't lie, but they can be phrased in so many different ways that the same data set can be used to support diametrically opposed view points.
Thanks, coward, for putting your bias up front that the data must be interpreted according to your needs to make your points.
Reality is always more complicated, but despite the screed against "precrime" posted above the US has been quite successful in stopping rightwing religious terrorists with the most notable exception being Timothy McVeigh.
Not that this is likely to penetrate your preconceptions and blindered world view, but the reality is that US law enforcement has been most successful against domestic terrorist attacks -- and yet we have still had a greater number of them. It may not be apparent to you, but it is easier to monitor and control domestic whack jobs -- that does not mean that they do not exist or that we should allow them to kill more people.
In the end, which is more dangerous: a right wing christian nut job, or a muslim terrorist, or a secular anarchist? Or some other label? The proper answer is that they are all dangerous: they are all trying to kill and incite terror to further their cause. Any other answer betrays a willingness to accept crimes for their ideology. It isn't the ideology that is important, it is their crimes. And the crimes go to those who planned and executed, not to everyone who happens to have a somewhat similar ideology.
gotta love the tautology...
"violent extremists Islamists (which are pretty much exclusively Muslim)"
yep. Just like "violent extremist Christianists (which are pretty much exclusively Christian)"
Or are you so stupid and uninformed that you don't understand the relationship between the words "Islam" and "Muslim"?
which just demonstrates how useful this "popularity" index is. Or is not...
how was GP wrong? I read your link. GP said, "There's bail for some offences, but no bond or bondsmen" and that does in fact appear to be the case.
Now, if you had been a little more nuanced in your reply, rather than simply stating "wrong" there might have been something to comment. But having read the article I can assure you that what is described is nothing approaching the US bail system.
an inability to comprehend what you read doesn't slow you down, does it?
But I'll try again anyway:
You have to prove your assertion, otherwise you are begging the question. I demonstrated how -- even if you stretch and reach for it -- any impact would be negligible. You essentially assert that negligible is the same as having effect and try to rest your case. Hmmm...
So you are completely fine with an assertion that someone who pirates music will gain exposure to new artists and then buy music from ones they are interested in? That will necessarily have *some* effect on increasing sales and therefore profit so piracy is good for the MAFIA, right? Surely you can agree with this as it is essentially the same as your argument.
You must also be completely fine with the assertion that some pirates do so explicitly for the purpose of "trying before buying" and will consequently spend based on the trials. As companies are known to offer "try before buy" deals this must obviously result in *some* increase in sales and as *some* pirates are using it in this fashion then there must be *some* positive impact on sales.
But feel free to actually concoct an argument that does not rely on fallacy. Go ahead.
and my iPhone 4S lasts for a week on a charge (despite being old and weary). Its all about how you use it. Is it constantly waking up and fetching email? How much web browsing? Playing music? Watching videos? What about bluetooth? GPS? You even mention you kill "the internet browser task". I've never had to resort to killing tasks in order to maintain battery life.
Anecdotes from individuals about battery life are pretty meaningless when the variabilities of usage far outweigh the baseline power for operation.
a shame I ran out of mod points. This makes rather more sense than the alarmist story...
on the other hand I knew a guy who was caught going over 100mph on I95 with a speed limit of 55mph. He didn't get a single point against his license, much less lose it (too be far, a single point would have lost it which is why he took action)
How to get out of pretty much any speeding ticket? Hire a lawyer. Its been more than a few years so I'm fuzzy on some of the details, but it went something like:
posted speed limit is 55mph, but...
the observed speed limit is 65 mph so -10mph
the speed was determined by a radar gun so -10mph
speed is only excessive if it is at least 5 mph over the limit so -5mph
I don't remember other factors, but in the end he was considered to be within an acceptable speed and had no consequences (other than having paid for the lawyer, inconvenience of court).
I do recall that the radar gun issue was simply that rather than argue over the accuracy of the gun there is simply a fixed discount in the effective speed.
ummmm... you might actually try reading what he wrote. Mighty big of you to say that he agrees with what you are saying.
Trying to argue with high profits by speculating that they might have made even more? At best you are arguing that they don't need copyright protection because they are doing just fine without it stopping piracy. And I would agree with you.
But there is a more fundamental error in your argument. You are, in fact, begging the question. That is, you are relying on an unproven assumption that there was in fact more money to be made. That is bad enough to end the case, but your unproven assumption is also wrong.
Money is not an unlimited resource. In fact, each person has a fairly limited quantity of it at their disposal. So the only way that the MAFIA could possibly have made more money is if it had been allocated differently. For example, if instead of spending $50 to go to a theater I pirate the movie and it at home (using resources already funded) and put the money into savings instead. By the MAFIA argument I would have just stolen $50 from them -- but unless I never spend the money it is really just a deferred expenditure.
Of course the reality is that no one does what I just proposed. In point of fact, people have fixed costs that are required for living (rent, property tax, groceries, etc.) with the remainder being disposable income. And, immediately or later, that gets spent. And it gets spent on luxury items, whether that is a beer you drink at home (stealing money from a bar by not drinking there), going out to watch a movie, eat in a restaurant, etc.
Now, there is room for some shuffling here. Perhaps Peter prefers eating in restaurants while Paul prefers watching movies. From a strictly economic perspective there is no difference between the two, whether or not none, one or both engage in piracy.
People make financial decisions as to whether or not they can afford to see a movie or fly to the Bahamas for vacation, but piracy is not a financial decision unless they are paying for it. And the Internet connections are a sunk cost: you pay for the connection whether or not you are downloading music and movies. The absolute closest you could get would be a claim that higher bandwidth connections are absorbing the displaced cost of buying a movie. To demonstrate the lost money would require identifying (or at least having a good approximation) of how much money was spent on upgrading Internet connection speeds for the sole purpose of piracy.
The bottom line is people aren't upgrading Internet connections to enable piracy, and even if they were the amount of money is so small compared to how much money the MAFIA grosses that it would not significantly alter the outcome.
Well, you asked so here it is: You're wrong (though not in a particularly meaningful way).
You may (or may not) have noticed that copiers and copying services post rules about not reproducing copyrighted content. This is because copyright law gives the copyright holder control over who can distribute or reproduce a work. And making a photocopy is reproduction, even when it is not for distribution. When you download a copyrighted work you are reproducing it (making a copy) and that is not permitted.
However, just making a copy does not particularly harm the copyright holder. If you make many copies and distribute them in competition then that is a more serious event. The penalties for distribution of copyrighted materials are consequently greater.
It is also easier to catch and prosecute a distributor. When Paul uses the office copier to run off a copy of a book so he doesn't have to buy it -- how do you catch him? But when Peter mass produces the book and sells it in a store front -- well, that's easy.
Consequently, most of the attention revolves around questions of distribution. Simple reproduction is illegal, but is a lesser crime that is difficult to detect and generally less prosecutable.
Its also interesting that they attack Margaret Sanger rather than the activities of the organization. Look, she was a eugenicist, so everything she was associated with is the evil!
For example, Planned Parenthood encourages family planning -- choosing when to have children rather than just having them happen. Are opponents concerned that some of their own might be convinced to have children when they are ready rather than as soon as they are in a relationship? Oh, the horrors!
and where are "private independent companies" going to get their funding? You do realize that the "free market" doesn't just print more money, right?
Its really strange that you go from "don't bash the EPA for congress not funding them" to "EPA has proved that they are useless" with an even more extraneous "yet again" (as you don't mention any previous EPA failures).
I'm just trying to understand your jump from facts to fiction.
I ran across something similar recently. They did fancy transparency on the black box so you could still read the site behind it, but it strained the eyes. Then I got an idea: I hit reload and as soon as the page came up I canceled the page load. Everything worked great :)
Not recommended as a general way of browsing, but it might help in a specific instance just to be able to read a web page.
Right. Tell you what, I'm going to speculate that you are an adult male living in the western hemisphere. You haven't told me this is so, but I can *infer* it. Although at this point I'm thinking we can also infer that you have a thick skull and can't back down from a position once you've taken it.
And that kind of nonsense is why we don't have a pediatrician anymore. There was a good one, but she didn't toe the company line and the death of a different doctor's patient was pinned on her. No legal action, just the emotional and social weight. She ended up leaving the country. Our choices since then have been a pediatrician who abuses her own children and a "doctor" who is no better than consulting webmd [which he excuses himself to do] (worse, actually, because he subscribes to medical scams and tries to pawn them off on his patients). There aren't actually many options where we're at and a doctor who actually cares about his or her patients and doesn't hate children is hard to find.
The big hipped trucks with the spotless paint job, nary a trace of mud and a perfect bedliner. Yeah... they are using them to haul *all* the time. Not.
Your experience is different than mine. Its all anecdotal. But some of the pickup owners want to make extra sure you know that they are compensating and buy those plastic testicles to put on their truck. Its hard to deny that.
Do you see commuter vehicles? Maybe its because I'm in the midwest, but we have a *lot* of pickup/SUV commuter vehicles. That are rarely, if ever, used to haul.
A friend of mine talked that talk and drove pickups as commuter vehicle for years. He lives in the country, but the truth is he basically never used the trucks as trucks. He finally gave in and started saving himself a lot of money by driving a car.
The reality is that most people hardly ever need the hauling capacity of a truck or SUV. And for those that live in the country a farm truck paired with a commuter car is a far better deal.
Related fun factoid: four wheel drive doesn't keep vehicles out of ditches. Possibly because the driver thinks he can drive like an idiot and the vehicle will miraculously save him from himself. Its amusing watching a 2WD truck with a winch rescue a 4WD vehicle.
without quibbling over how you presented the crime statistic, you are overlooking an important factor: what sort of crime increases and who does it target? Given the complaints here on slashdot I would not be surprised if in some places there were crimes targeting the immigrants which would have the effect of increasing the crime rate.
In point of fact, this is something that goes with the gypsy/romani -- often some locals will decry the gypsies and complain about how they come in and steal, but there will be a distinct increase in crime directed against the gypsies.
And, interestingly enough, nationalism is a recent invention. We are taught that there are distinct countries and the implication is that this has always been the case. If nothing else, people are either told or simply assume that before nations there were tribes and that tribalism preceded nationalism. But it isn't true.
There is a related problem, that of language. We like to pretend that languages are distinct and have clear boundaries. Someone speaks English, or German or Spanish or... But this notion of language is fairly modern and isn't even true. This is tacitly acknowledged by adding labels to indicate region, recognizing that American English is not the same as British English. Nor is the English spoken in India the same as either of those. Egyptian Arabic is a mix of Arabic and British English with some older Egyptian vocabulary thrown in.
Being a dead language, Latin was fairly defined as a language circa 800 AD, but the people inhabiting what we now call France did not refer to themselves as French, German or in fact any national or tribal identity. The term "the Franks" is more modern than anything else. Historically membership in a tribe was a hand wavy group identification, not about ethnicity or heredity. If you asked a Frank about his identity as a Frank you would have confused him. If you asked him what language he spoke it would similarly have confused him.
Linguists have labels for dead "languages" but the truth is there is no hard definition for what such a language was or who spoke it. If you started on the west coast and traveled east the spoken language would shift from place to place with generally increasing differences. The closest you get is a sort of civic identity where someone felt attachment to the city of his birth, but it is reading too much into it to regard it as a precursor to nationalism.
When King Harald set out to unite Norway there was no strict geographical boundary. People who lived in what we now call Norway didn't identify themselves as "Norwegians". They lived in familial groups, households, and identified with their relatives though certainly not in a tribal sense. Individuals who didn't like King Harald's requirement for land ownership left, mostly for Iceland, where family continued to be the most significant group identity and there was certainly no national identity.
No, nationalism was consciously invented as a tool to rally the mass of people behind a political figure or organization. Nationalism, and its sister patriotism, are tools to control a population. It is nationalism that encourages xenophobia. Despite a popular modern conception that primitive peoples were distrustful of outsiders, by and large what we have observed is the opposite. At least, those groups that survived with a primitive lifestyle to more modern times have failed to be adequately suspicious of foreign intruders.
It is modern nationalism, not primitive tribalism, that leads to xenophobia.