I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, blah blah blah[sic].
The bIll's original sponsor is Maxine Waters, a Democrat. The bill currently has a total of 11 cosponsors, 6 of which are Democrats, and 5 of which are Republicans.
Both parties are out to screw you. Blaming one for all of your perceived evils is nonsensical.
If just having your movements restricted isn't punitive, then your upbringing must have been shit, and your government is a shit-show.
My upbringing went quite well, thanks, and I agree that confinement is punitive enough.
And if you've gotten in there even due to some nonviolent offense, now what choice do you have? Nobody will want to hire you.
I think you mistake me entirely. I agree with the above completely, and thought I made that point my original post--"society" (scare quotes in deference to the other guy that replied to me) is creating the very recidivism problem that we're talking about by its actions. It's not possible to "pay your debt to society" anymore (if it ever was) because the penalties are often way out of line with the offense, and even after you've paid the penalty, there is sometimes life long extra judicial punishment on top of it.
No one in government seems to have any desire to fix this, though some recent unpleasantness is bringing at least lip service to the issue.
You are basing everything wrong with the US justice system on the desire of society that prison be (among other things) punitive. While I agree there are some serious problems with that (the idea that anyone thinks that "prison rape" is ok because "they deserve it" is disgusting, for one) prison does need to be punitive in order to have a deterrent effect.
Recidivism has other causes, as well. Prisons are, in many ways, finishing schools for felons--it's one giant networking opportunity. The guards are often (cynics would say always) corrupt and abusive. Crime often doesn't stop when you go to prison (because of said corrupt guards and other smuggling, criminal enterprises operate inside the prisons!) There's also the problem that society these days wants everyone who commits some kind of crime to live under a bridge for the rest of their lives after they get out of prison (see sex offender registries, public outcry to kick people out of the NFL because they hit their partners, the swim team dude being barred for life from competition because he molested an incapacitated girl, etc). Both sides of the aisle are pushing this agenda. When you give people no opportunities, then crime is an attractive option.
"Data driven" solves none of the above. You can identify your problems better with data. That's it. It's not a panacea, and it will solve no problems on its own. When you already know about your problems but simply refuse (or can't) fix them, big data is just an expensive exercise in mental masturbation.
They did not, in fact have "lower death rates than the usual shooting sprees." All of them were 8 or so people dead with more (sometimes many more) wounded. I think the "magic number" in use by the gun grabbers to call something a "mass shooting" is 4 killed or wounded.
Arguing over the semantics here is not accomplishing anything, and is trivializing the issue. If that's your game, this will be my last response to you.
This implies that even if you magically make every gun in the world disappear right now, you will still have not halted mass killings. A better approach than gutting the 2nd amendment is required.
First off, I applaud your well written, well researched post. False information poisons arguments, and needs to be rooted out of discourse when it's found.
I can't access more than just the header of the article so I can't say what Mr. O'Carroll did or did not claim, but I was able to find some papers that cited his response. I won't bother with linking them directly (suffice to say that while they claim to be works of scholarship, they don't appear to be anything more than position papers) but they do claim that while he states CDC is careful to avoid biased approaches, he does not, in fact, say that he was misquoted.
Without access to the JAMA articles directly I can't confirm this, but I thought it was worth noting.
Yes there are some very good studies but not in America so pretty much any american says they are worthless "because no country is like here"
There is (unfortunately) some truth to this. Bowling for Columbine was a horrible mess, but Moore DID touch on the fact that America is different than other similar nations--then he went off the rails and in the end blamed the whole thing on an old white guy with Alzheimer's disease.
The Swiss have a (real) assault rifle in every closet, but they're not murdering each other. Canada has a large number of firearms (nothing like ths US, but they're quite widespread) and they don't have our issues. Israeli citizens are well armed and their violence is largely related to the Palestinian conflict. Americans, though, we LOVE killing each other. In absence of guns, we'd just use knives, baseball bats, or bare hands and boot heels.
The question is does the subject matter to enough folks to report on it. Especially if it isn't in line with what the site typically reports on.
AFAIK, the most commented post in the history of this site only "mattered" to two people: Taco and his (soon to be) wife. Your argument has been hashed and rehashed for almost two decades at this point, and the answer continues to be the same: "don't like it? don't read it." Don't like political stories? Then turn them off. Don't like posts from certain users? Set them as foes and give them an automatic -6. Don't like that the character of the site is, in general, USA centric? Tough shit, it's a US based site with US based administrators (I refuse to use the word "editor) and its character reflects that.
Simple idea: if it's such a burden to read about people getting blown up overseas, don't click the story. Don't write a post about it. If it's wasting your time, then why the hell are you wasting your time?
Keep it up. You're just winding the political rubber band tighter and tighter. Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps.
You and I have different definitions of "hilarious."
A perp could easily get to the center of that mass of people and do just as much damage as they could by crashing an airplane.
Yes and no. They may be able to kill a similar number of people, but the amount of damage would be negligible compared to flying a large plane full of fuel into a structure. However, it would be pretty difficult to kill as many people as were on 9-11. That would take a lot of people with bomb vests that would need to go unnoticed. Probably more than could be done logistically without something going wrong.
With sufficient resources, you can simply buy one of those "large planes full of fuel." A 737 costs in the neighborhood of $60M. Being a part of the GA system means no security checkpoints, no screening of any kind. There's also (as elsewhere noted in this thread) the fact that NO ONE is ever going to allow an aircraft to be taken again--anyone attempting such is going to be swarmed and beaten to death by passengers unwilling to be cruise missiles.
Do the math on the above and tell me that your objections still make sense.
Nor is it on Wired, TechDirt, Gizmodo, TheVerge, etc. ( Hint: Because general news like Jihiadi-Bob blowing themselves up or shooting up a bus full of nuns really isn't what those sites typically report on
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
This site has "always" covered non-technology related things that fall into category two. Sorry you don't like that, but you know, if it's such a problem, you could simply not bother to spend the time to click on the links, post comments, etc in the stories you don't like. Posts like yours decrease the signal to noise ratio.
I'm convinced that Google, as an entity is absolutely insane and should probably be heavily medicated. They bougth Motorola to move into smartphones, but sold them, because they couldn't integrate them (IIRC there were culture issues) so when they move back into mobile, they hire a Moto guy as CEO? I'm at a loss.
I'm fairly certain that the Brexit people, while they might be upset about some people who overstay their student visas, were more upset about the "once you're in the EU, go wherever you like" part.
I agree that once people are in, it would be prohibitively difficult/expensive to find them all and kick them out (you'll fail if you try), but the biggest complaints appears to be "people we let in in the first place."
Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain, basically - but common sense says that there is no realistic way to stop that happening without incurring massive costs, and no matter who is in charge of the government, they will still have to address reality as it is.
The UK is an island. (okay, more than one, but you get my point). Barring hordes of boat people setting out from Calais, keeping out immigrants is a trivial task as the vast majority of them would arrive by air in tightly controlled conditions (I've been through British customs lately, and it's almost a bad as the US). The rest would come through the Chunnel, which is similarly a very easy entry point to control.
And this is the other one. Part of this involves moving money around. The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports
The Germans did not push for the Euro, they had to be pushed into it (their eventual support for the Euro was a quid pro quo for the French support for German reunification). I'll agree that the Germans have benefited from the Euro FAR more than anyone else has, but your statement above is false.
IANAL but, if an investigation brings up a potential crime, they may be able to take the money involved in these company's accounts via civil forfeiture. Potentially, that could make investigations not merely inexpensive, but downright profitable to enforcement agencies.
As satisfying s that sounds, civil forfeiture is a cancer that needs to be killed with fire, not expanded to target "People We Don't Like." Two wrongs don't make a right.
You aren't really changing ISPs, the City is still the ISP. They still get you connected to the Internet, but instead of directly connected to the Internet, they connect you to an intermediate, who charges you a surcharge to get to the rest of the Internet, and presumably offers you some other value added services, though for me I don't know what they would be.
The city is not the ISP. The city runs a metro area network. 3rd parties are selling internet access over the MAN. Basically, they're following the same model that Texas uses for electric utilities.
In 25,000 years, you'd reach far less than half. I don't feel like trying to do the math, but suffice to say that a circle centered on Sol with a 25,000 LY radius contains more like 25% of the stars in the milky way (if that).
Slashdot Mirror
Prime day is any day with a whole number that can be divided by itself or one.
The above describes every real number....
I'm guessing his point was that verbing weirds language.
Just because his implementation is different than previous modchips does not make this "not a modchip."
He did it without requiring a modchip. If I understood the interview right, he has built a card
So he's not using a modchip, he just... built a modchip?
I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, blah blah blah[sic].
The bIll's original sponsor is Maxine Waters, a Democrat. The bill currently has a total of 11 cosponsors, 6 of which are Democrats, and 5 of which are Republicans.
Both parties are out to screw you. Blaming one for all of your perceived evils is nonsensical.
If just having your movements restricted isn't punitive, then your upbringing must have been shit, and your government is a shit-show.
My upbringing went quite well, thanks, and I agree that confinement is punitive enough.
And if you've gotten in there even due to some nonviolent offense, now what choice do you have? Nobody will want to hire you.
I think you mistake me entirely. I agree with the above completely, and thought I made that point my original post--"society" (scare quotes in deference to the other guy that replied to me) is creating the very recidivism problem that we're talking about by its actions. It's not possible to "pay your debt to society" anymore (if it ever was) because the penalties are often way out of line with the offense, and even after you've paid the penalty, there is sometimes life long extra judicial punishment on top of it.
No one in government seems to have any desire to fix this, though some recent unpleasantness is bringing at least lip service to the issue.
You are basing everything wrong with the US justice system on the desire of society that prison be (among other things) punitive. While I agree there are some serious problems with that (the idea that anyone thinks that "prison rape" is ok because "they deserve it" is disgusting, for one) prison does need to be punitive in order to have a deterrent effect.
Recidivism has other causes, as well. Prisons are, in many ways, finishing schools for felons--it's one giant networking opportunity. The guards are often (cynics would say always) corrupt and abusive. Crime often doesn't stop when you go to prison (because of said corrupt guards and other smuggling, criminal enterprises operate inside the prisons!) There's also the problem that society these days wants everyone who commits some kind of crime to live under a bridge for the rest of their lives after they get out of prison (see sex offender registries, public outcry to kick people out of the NFL because they hit their partners, the swim team dude being barred for life from competition because he molested an incapacitated girl, etc). Both sides of the aisle are pushing this agenda. When you give people no opportunities, then crime is an attractive option.
"Data driven" solves none of the above. You can identify your problems better with data. That's it. It's not a panacea, and it will solve no problems on its own. When you already know about your problems but simply refuse (or can't) fix them, big data is just an expensive exercise in mental masturbation.
They did not, in fact have "lower death rates than the usual shooting sprees." All of them were 8 or so people dead with more (sometimes many more) wounded. I think the "magic number" in use by the gun grabbers to call something a "mass shooting" is 4 killed or wounded.
Arguing over the semantics here is not accomplishing anything, and is trivializing the issue. If that's your game, this will be my last response to you.
No doubt harder, but it still happens.
Here's one. Here's another. Here's one almost as bad as Pulse. And another. One more.
This implies that even if you magically make every gun in the world disappear right now, you will still have not halted mass killings. A better approach than gutting the 2nd amendment is required.
First off, I applaud your well written, well researched post. False information poisons arguments, and needs to be rooted out of discourse when it's found.
I can't access more than just the header of the article so I can't say what Mr. O'Carroll did or did not claim, but I was able to find some papers that cited his response. I won't bother with linking them directly (suffice to say that while they claim to be works of scholarship, they don't appear to be anything more than position papers) but they do claim that while he states CDC is careful to avoid biased approaches, he does not, in fact, say that he was misquoted.
Without access to the JAMA articles directly I can't confirm this, but I thought it was worth noting.
Their "well regulated militia" consists of basically "every male in the country. not unfit for service."
Yes there are some very good studies but not in America so pretty much any american says they are worthless "because no country is like here"
There is (unfortunately) some truth to this. Bowling for Columbine was a horrible mess, but Moore DID touch on the fact that America is different than other similar nations--then he went off the rails and in the end blamed the whole thing on an old white guy with Alzheimer's disease.
The Swiss have a (real) assault rifle in every closet, but they're not murdering each other. Canada has a large number of firearms (nothing like ths US, but they're quite widespread) and they don't have our issues. Israeli citizens are well armed and their violence is largely related to the Palestinian conflict. Americans, though, we LOVE killing each other. In absence of guns, we'd just use knives, baseball bats, or bare hands and boot heels.
The question is does the subject matter to enough folks to report on it. Especially if it isn't in line with what the site typically reports on.
AFAIK, the most commented post in the history of this site only "mattered" to two people: Taco and his (soon to be) wife. Your argument has been hashed and rehashed for almost two decades at this point, and the answer continues to be the same: "don't like it? don't read it." Don't like political stories? Then turn them off. Don't like posts from certain users? Set them as foes and give them an automatic -6. Don't like that the character of the site is, in general, USA centric? Tough shit, it's a US based site with US based administrators (I refuse to use the word "editor) and its character reflects that.
Simple idea: if it's such a burden to read about people getting blown up overseas, don't click the story. Don't write a post about it. If it's wasting your time, then why the hell are you wasting your time?
Keep it up. You're just winding the political rubber band tighter and tighter. Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps.
You and I have different definitions of "hilarious."
A perp could easily get to the center of that mass of people and do just as much damage as they could by crashing an airplane.
Yes and no. They may be able to kill a similar number of people, but the amount of damage would be negligible compared to flying a large plane full of fuel into a structure. However, it would be pretty difficult to kill as many people as were on 9-11. That would take a lot of people with bomb vests that would need to go unnoticed. Probably more than could be done logistically without something going wrong.
With sufficient resources, you can simply buy one of those "large planes full of fuel." A 737 costs in the neighborhood of $60M. Being a part of the GA system means no security checkpoints, no screening of any kind. There's also (as elsewhere noted in this thread) the fact that NO ONE is ever going to allow an aircraft to be taken again--anyone attempting such is going to be swarmed and beaten to death by passengers unwilling to be cruise missiles.
Do the math on the above and tell me that your objections still make sense.
Nor is it on Wired, TechDirt, Gizmodo, TheVerge, etc.
( Hint: Because general news like Jihiadi-Bob blowing themselves up or shooting up a bus full of nuns really isn't what those sites typically report on
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
This site has "always" covered non-technology related things that fall into category two. Sorry you don't like that, but you know, if it's such a problem, you could simply not bother to spend the time to click on the links, post comments, etc in the stories you don't like. Posts like yours decrease the signal to noise ratio.
I'm convinced that Google, as an entity is absolutely insane and should probably be heavily medicated. They bougth Motorola to move into smartphones, but sold them, because they couldn't integrate them (IIRC there were culture issues) so when they move back into mobile, they hire a Moto guy as CEO? I'm at a loss.
I'm fairly certain that the Brexit people, while they might be upset about some people who overstay their student visas, were more upset about the "once you're in the EU, go wherever you like" part.
I agree that once people are in, it would be prohibitively difficult/expensive to find them all and kick them out (you'll fail if you try), but the biggest complaints appears to be "people we let in in the first place."
Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain, basically - but common sense says that there is no realistic way to stop that happening without incurring massive costs, and no matter who is in charge of the government, they will still have to address reality as it is.
The UK is an island. (okay, more than one, but you get my point). Barring hordes of boat people setting out from Calais, keeping out immigrants is a trivial task as the vast majority of them would arrive by air in tightly controlled conditions (I've been through British customs lately, and it's almost a bad as the US). The rest would come through the Chunnel, which is similarly a very easy entry point to control.
And this is the other one. Part of this involves moving money around. The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports
The Germans did not push for the Euro, they had to be pushed into it (their eventual support for the Euro was a quid pro quo for the French support for German reunification). I'll agree that the Germans have benefited from the Euro FAR more than anyone else has, but your statement above is false.
IANAL but, if an investigation brings up a potential crime, they may be able to take the money involved in these company's accounts via civil forfeiture. Potentially, that could make investigations not merely inexpensive, but downright profitable to enforcement agencies.
As satisfying s that sounds, civil forfeiture is a cancer that needs to be killed with fire, not expanded to target "People We Don't Like." Two wrongs don't make a right.
You aren't really changing ISPs, the City is still the ISP. They still get you connected to the Internet, but instead of directly connected to the Internet, they connect you to an intermediate, who charges you a surcharge to get to the rest of the Internet, and presumably offers you some other value added services, though for me I don't know what they would be.
The city is not the ISP. The city runs a metro area network. 3rd parties are selling internet access over the MAN. Basically, they're following the same model that Texas uses for electric utilities.
Touché, sir.
Nitpick: corn is a grain, not a vegetable.
In 25,000 years, you'd reach far less than half. I don't feel like trying to do the math, but suffice to say that a circle centered on Sol with a 25,000 LY radius contains more like 25% of the stars in the milky way (if that).