Oh, so it's illegal to talk hypothetically about guns, because discussing the pros and cons of access to guns is unconstitutional. You should seek help. Professional help.
Not once it's in the Public Domain, but you are incorrectly presuming that anything "owned" by an individual is automatically in the Public Domain, and things owned by corporation aren't.
Logistics is marketing, depending on the company. Wal-Mart requires 3rd party marketers come in and stock things (especially things like magazines). And the selection and numbers changes from week to week depending on expected sales, and the locations in the shelves will change as well. The merchandisers placing the product are 3rd party marketing people doing basic stocking. Larger retail shops put logistics under marketing, because too many of an item on shelves can make it look unwanted, and too few can lead to lost sales, both of which are more directly marketing issues. So merchandising does often fall under marketing.
Wasted water is a regional thing. Most of the places I've lived have had unmetered water because there was no water shortage. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Move out of the desert.
Cohort? How many in your cohort have children old enough to use a phone responsibly?
If I had no home phone and left children home all the time alone (illegal here until the children are 12), I'd have the number for a few of the neighbors. If there was an emergency, I'd call a neighbor, and I'd expect the kids to do the same. But we have a land line, and spare cell phones (usually discards from work, but they'll dial 911 with no SIM), so I'd have no worry.
Google is presenting it, in the form of an annotated summary or index, or however you'd like to word it.
So this decision actually makes it harder for the little guy to find out there's bad data about him floating around out there, so he can go about getting it fixed.
So because I "could" request my data be deleted, Google will preemptively not index it? No, you are confusing things. This will make it no harder for the "little guy" to find bad stuff about himself, but will make it harder for others to accidentally run across "bad stuff" someone wants forgotten.
Makes sense to me. Google is a for-profit data aggregator. The personal data belongs to the person, not the court publishing it, or the aggregator selling it. If someone wishes to remove their information from the aggregator, that should be allowed. The information belongs to the person, not the agggregator.
That wouldn't work in the US, where free speech trumps all, and "privacy" doesn't exist, but other places have different priorities of rights (though, rarely less rights, just different assignments of priorities).
What's racist? I walked through some of the "slums" torn down for the Beijing Olympics. They didn't have "indoor toilets", you had to leave your home to get to the nearest toilet. But they had plenty of mobile phones in that area.
That you are ignorant doesn't mean that the OP is racist. Why would you assume Black? That implies racism on your part against the Asians.
No - if one brandishes a toy gun, its deterrent effect is discountable.
I've seen toys that are indistinguishable from the real thing at 20+ feet and held like a real gun ready to be used (where you can't get a good angle on the slide, grips, and such). Since roughly 2,000,000 of the 2,000,000 "successful" uses of firearms for defense are simply brandishing an object perceived to be a gun, anything perceived to be a gun, including toy guns, or over-safetied useless guns would fall in those numbers, not be discounted because you find logic inconvenient in supporting your emotional (not fact-based) opinion.
Roughly 98% of defensive use of firearms is from convincing the other person you have a gun. Having a working gun is irrelevant to whether you can convince someone else you have one. Toy guns are 98% effective as self-defense tools, according to the larger gun-defense use number. Or do you doubt that number now?
I like the simplicity of Fair Tax, but I would rather tax wealth than income (that's more "fair") and taxing spending, not earning is regressive. It rewards saving with tax breaks, and we want to get away from social manipulation via tax code, as we do with housing and children. Guaranteed income of poverty*2 and a 40% flat income tax (on everything but guaranteed income) would fund the government better than we are now (not a goal, but a requirement), and be infinitely simpler/more fair 40% isn't far off the current top rate, so it'd be no change to super rich that aren't using lots of loopholes. Oh, and estate taxes and gifts over $1000 would be taxed as income.
And I'd tax corporations out of existance. Tax them at 1% of gross (not profit). Individuals are taxed at 40% of gross today, so 1% gross for corporations can't be that bad, right? Separating taxes from profit will eliminate the profit shuffling. There are a million ways to fix our problems that are too radical for people to consider We are hard wired to trust the evil we know. Change is feared. The unknown is bad.
Sea water is more corrosive. If you have a "free" source of water (pumping it out of a local stream used for drinking water downstream) why wouldn't you use the "more pure" water as your base? It'll cut your operating cost. And it's possible that seawater wouldn't work as well with the chemical mix you like to add to your freshwater
I'd found lots of other links last time I looked, but this time, all the stories I'm finding are about people shot with guns stolen from cops. Or cops shooting themselves. That seems to be more common than you'd expect from "trained" people.
I read that cops are more likely to be killed by their own guns than another's.
it isn't [true]
Then where is anything addressing that claim? Perhaps the numbers I read were intended to deceive (not noting that owned-gun deaths were mostly suicide), but I still haven't seen the number of cops killed in 2012 (or the most recent year with the numbers available) broken down by "shot by other than own gun" and "shot by own gun by a different person".
But so many looking at the statistics have an agenda. Even the government does, in keeping statistics (my favorite is that for cars, suicide isn't a possible option, and "other" or "undetermined" or blank answers are strongly frowned upon, so suicides prop up "speeding" and "drunk driving" statistics, and they've even officially said that they know it's bad statistics but don't want to correct it because it'd make it harder to compare results from one year to the next).
I don't have an agenda. I don't care too much either way (other than I'm a fan of abolishing the standing army). But it would be nice to have good statistics, otherwise we'll never have good decisions made.
but the reality is they're emulating the USA and keeping everything while also MITMing anything they feel like.
The lawful intercept for the fibre connections is MITM-proof. Unless they are going to make Chorus spend billions re-doing the network, the "read only" taps will be useless for MITM attacks.
When they routed Kim Dotcom's traffic through the government MITM servers just before the raid (illegally at the time) the hit in performance was enough that it was noticeable and traced.
When giving requirements for a function, it makes sense to do it for the whole device. Othewise, you'll be designing poorly. But it's obvious that was the point. Make the feature poor enough or expensive enough, and you can justify objecting to it when it's available. That's your point, feature sabotage, not discussing anything.
When you have 10-100 times a greater chance of a dud, worrying about an extra "9" in the safety is stupid and illogical.
They must have deleted their stupidity. I can't find anyone attacking him for those comments, other than a conspiracy theory that he bought "hunting guns" from a pistol maker to make people think that they are committing to not take hand guns, when they are going to ban anything that's not a hunting gun.
Why would you need to obfuscate the source? With today's Internet, you could claim that you saw an email or post that indicated the intent. They won't demand the proof before acting. So a 911 call from Canada wouldn't immediately eliminate it from reason.
I thought that there were court cases where a well-hidden shoebox in a closet up high where the kids can't reach was considered non-negligent. That the kids got out a ladder and ransacked the parent's closet looking for future presents didn't change the fact that the gun was found to be "reasonably" concealed. There are only a few places where "secured" is required.
Can you find where you indicated that "only those who are actually guilty of harming others are punished," and the "leap" of inferring that you imply not punishing everyone with low limits for the few bad actors is like punishing everyone with gun lock-outs. How is that an unreasonable reading of your position on guns?
It seems logical you'd be for abolishing all traffic rules, and only enforce punishment against those who do measurable harm.
That's what you are advocating for guns. Allow harm, then punish it, to allow for freedom.
"Punishment" implies that someone did something wrong, which is not necessarily true of all gunshot victims.
Haven't you ever heard "Bob was punished for Jill's mistake"? Punishment is usually linked to a bad act, but doesn't require fair or appropriate harm. You are inferring something obviously not implied.
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 30,000 gun deaths per year in the states (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) are accidental?
Most of those are suicide.
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 60,000-2,000,000 armed self-defence instances per year in the states ("numerous statistics") do you disbelieve?
Both are correct, but they use a different definition of "self-defense". The "brandishing is self-defense" numbers are irrelevant to a discussion on the firing reliability, so the relevant one, regardless of which you "believe" is the smaller one.
The broader measures of defensive gun use vary pretty wildly, from as low as 67,740 from pro-gun control sources to as high as 2.5 million from other surveys.
The gap is nearly all represented by brandishing being considered "defensive use". It isn't for the "official" (or anti-gun) sources, and is for the pro-gun sources. In the discussion of "smart guns" it's good to use the lower number, as the guns weren't fired for the larger number, and thus, it wouldn't matter for those if it had worked. Maybe some of the smaller number wouldn't have happened if it were only brandished.
surveys of prisoners have stated they avoided households where they suspected there were firearms
Or around Anchorage, there was a string of home invasions where students would ask around at school for who owned guns, then point them out to criminals who would perform a home invasion to steal the guns. They stopped after the news started covering it heavily, so I have no idea what happened to the criminals. But known guns at home don't necessarily make you more safe.
Except to cops. It happens often enough to cops that there's always a story in the news about it. From about a month ago: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/01/Upstate-New-York-police-officer-killed-with-own-gun/7741396370514/
Slashdot Mirror
You're imagining that.
No, I'm deducing it from the available data. What proves it wrong? Oh that's right, nothing from your post.
Oh, so it's illegal to talk hypothetically about guns, because discussing the pros and cons of access to guns is unconstitutional. You should seek help. Professional help.
Not once it's in the Public Domain, but you are incorrectly presuming that anything "owned" by an individual is automatically in the Public Domain, and things owned by corporation aren't.
Logistics is marketing, depending on the company. Wal-Mart requires 3rd party marketers come in and stock things (especially things like magazines). And the selection and numbers changes from week to week depending on expected sales, and the locations in the shelves will change as well. The merchandisers placing the product are 3rd party marketing people doing basic stocking. Larger retail shops put logistics under marketing, because too many of an item on shelves can make it look unwanted, and too few can lead to lost sales, both of which are more directly marketing issues. So merchandising does often fall under marketing.
Wasted water is a regional thing. Most of the places I've lived have had unmetered water because there was no water shortage. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Move out of the desert.
Cohort? How many in your cohort have children old enough to use a phone responsibly?
If I had no home phone and left children home all the time alone (illegal here until the children are 12), I'd have the number for a few of the neighbors. If there was an emergency, I'd call a neighbor, and I'd expect the kids to do the same. But we have a land line, and spare cell phones (usually discards from work, but they'll dial 911 with no SIM), so I'd have no worry.
Google isn't the one presenting the data.
Google is presenting it, in the form of an annotated summary or index, or however you'd like to word it.
So this decision actually makes it harder for the little guy to find out there's bad data about him floating around out there, so he can go about getting it fixed.
So because I "could" request my data be deleted, Google will preemptively not index it? No, you are confusing things. This will make it no harder for the "little guy" to find bad stuff about himself, but will make it harder for others to accidentally run across "bad stuff" someone wants forgotten.
Makes sense to me. Google is a for-profit data aggregator. The personal data belongs to the person, not the court publishing it, or the aggregator selling it. If someone wishes to remove their information from the aggregator, that should be allowed. The information belongs to the person, not the agggregator.
That wouldn't work in the US, where free speech trumps all, and "privacy" doesn't exist, but other places have different priorities of rights (though, rarely less rights, just different assignments of priorities).
What's racist? I walked through some of the "slums" torn down for the Beijing Olympics. They didn't have "indoor toilets", you had to leave your home to get to the nearest toilet. But they had plenty of mobile phones in that area.
That you are ignorant doesn't mean that the OP is racist. Why would you assume Black? That implies racism on your part against the Asians.
No - if one brandishes a toy gun, its deterrent effect is discountable.
I've seen toys that are indistinguishable from the real thing at 20+ feet and held like a real gun ready to be used (where you can't get a good angle on the slide, grips, and such). Since roughly 2,000,000 of the 2,000,000 "successful" uses of firearms for defense are simply brandishing an object perceived to be a gun, anything perceived to be a gun, including toy guns, or over-safetied useless guns would fall in those numbers, not be discounted because you find logic inconvenient in supporting your emotional (not fact-based) opinion.
Roughly 98% of defensive use of firearms is from convincing the other person you have a gun. Having a working gun is irrelevant to whether you can convince someone else you have one. Toy guns are 98% effective as self-defense tools, according to the larger gun-defense use number. Or do you doubt that number now?
I like the simplicity of Fair Tax, but I would rather tax wealth than income (that's more "fair") and taxing spending, not earning is regressive. It rewards saving with tax breaks, and we want to get away from social manipulation via tax code, as we do with housing and children. Guaranteed income of poverty*2 and a 40% flat income tax (on everything but guaranteed income) would fund the government better than we are now (not a goal, but a requirement), and be infinitely simpler/more fair 40% isn't far off the current top rate, so it'd be no change to super rich that aren't using lots of loopholes. Oh, and estate taxes and gifts over $1000 would be taxed as income.
And I'd tax corporations out of existance. Tax them at 1% of gross (not profit). Individuals are taxed at 40% of gross today, so 1% gross for corporations can't be that bad, right? Separating taxes from profit will eliminate the profit shuffling. There are a million ways to fix our problems that are too radical for people to consider We are hard wired to trust the evil we know. Change is feared. The unknown is bad.
Sea water is more corrosive. If you have a "free" source of water (pumping it out of a local stream used for drinking water downstream) why wouldn't you use the "more pure" water as your base? It'll cut your operating cost. And it's possible that seawater wouldn't work as well with the chemical mix you like to add to your freshwater
I'd found lots of other links last time I looked, but this time, all the stories I'm finding are about people shot with guns stolen from cops. Or cops shooting themselves. That seems to be more common than you'd expect from "trained" people.
Yup, so more guns doesn't make one safer, right? So banning guns wouldn't make you any less safe...
I read that cops are more likely to be killed by their own guns than another's.
it isn't [true]
Then where is anything addressing that claim? Perhaps the numbers I read were intended to deceive (not noting that owned-gun deaths were mostly suicide), but I still haven't seen the number of cops killed in 2012 (or the most recent year with the numbers available) broken down by "shot by other than own gun" and "shot by own gun by a different person".
But so many looking at the statistics have an agenda. Even the government does, in keeping statistics (my favorite is that for cars, suicide isn't a possible option, and "other" or "undetermined" or blank answers are strongly frowned upon, so suicides prop up "speeding" and "drunk driving" statistics, and they've even officially said that they know it's bad statistics but don't want to correct it because it'd make it harder to compare results from one year to the next).
I don't have an agenda. I don't care too much either way (other than I'm a fan of abolishing the standing army). But it would be nice to have good statistics, otherwise we'll never have good decisions made.
but the reality is they're emulating the USA and keeping everything while also MITMing anything they feel like.
The lawful intercept for the fibre connections is MITM-proof. Unless they are going to make Chorus spend billions re-doing the network, the "read only" taps will be useless for MITM attacks.
When they routed Kim Dotcom's traffic through the government MITM servers just before the raid (illegally at the time) the hit in performance was enough that it was noticeable and traced.
The government just isn't that smart.
When giving requirements for a function, it makes sense to do it for the whole device. Othewise, you'll be designing poorly. But it's obvious that was the point. Make the feature poor enough or expensive enough, and you can justify objecting to it when it's available. That's your point, feature sabotage, not discussing anything.
When you have 10-100 times a greater chance of a dud, worrying about an extra "9" in the safety is stupid and illogical.
They must have deleted their stupidity. I can't find anyone attacking him for those comments, other than a conspiracy theory that he bought "hunting guns" from a pistol maker to make people think that they are committing to not take hand guns, when they are going to ban anything that's not a hunting gun.
Why would you need to obfuscate the source? With today's Internet, you could claim that you saw an email or post that indicated the intent. They won't demand the proof before acting. So a 911 call from Canada wouldn't immediately eliminate it from reason.
I thought that there were court cases where a well-hidden shoebox in a closet up high where the kids can't reach was considered non-negligent. That the kids got out a ladder and ransacked the parent's closet looking for future presents didn't change the fact that the gun was found to be "reasonably" concealed. There are only a few places where "secured" is required.
Can you find where you indicated that "only those who are actually guilty of harming others are punished," and the "leap" of inferring that you imply not punishing everyone with low limits for the few bad actors is like punishing everyone with gun lock-outs. How is that an unreasonable reading of your position on guns?
It seems logical you'd be for abolishing all traffic rules, and only enforce punishment against those who do measurable harm.
That's what you are advocating for guns. Allow harm, then punish it, to allow for freedom.
"Punishment" implies that someone did something wrong, which is not necessarily true of all gunshot victims.
Haven't you ever heard "Bob was punished for Jill's mistake"? Punishment is usually linked to a bad act, but doesn't require fair or appropriate harm. You are inferring something obviously not implied.
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 30,000 gun deaths per year in the states (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) are accidental?
Most of those are suicide.
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 60,000-2,000,000 armed self-defence instances per year in the states ("numerous statistics") do you disbelieve?
Both are correct, but they use a different definition of "self-defense". The "brandishing is self-defense" numbers are irrelevant to a discussion on the firing reliability, so the relevant one, regardless of which you "believe" is the smaller one.
The broader measures of defensive gun use vary pretty wildly, from as low as 67,740 from pro-gun control sources to as high as 2.5 million from other surveys.
The gap is nearly all represented by brandishing being considered "defensive use". It isn't for the "official" (or anti-gun) sources, and is for the pro-gun sources. In the discussion of "smart guns" it's good to use the lower number, as the guns weren't fired for the larger number, and thus, it wouldn't matter for those if it had worked. Maybe some of the smaller number wouldn't have happened if it were only brandished.
surveys of prisoners have stated they avoided households where they suspected there were firearms
Or around Anchorage, there was a string of home invasions where students would ask around at school for who owned guns, then point them out to criminals who would perform a home invasion to steal the guns. They stopped after the news started covering it heavily, so I have no idea what happened to the criminals. But known guns at home don't necessarily make you more safe.
This basically never happens.
Except to cops. It happens often enough to cops that there's always a story in the news about it. From about a month ago:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/01/Upstate-New-York-police-officer-killed-with-own-gun/7741396370514/