Many of the judges in lower courts are elected and getting appointed to a higher circuit or Supreme Court is also highly political. Unelected perhaps but certainly representing some political cause and by extension politicians and corporations.
Guns are only supposed to set of metal detectors if you sell them. For home manufacturing nearly no legislation is present because the second amendment right. Same for tanks and RPGs, you can own them, you just can't buy/sell them on the open market.
Proving repeatable, testable hypotheses is indeed doing science.
Extrapolating a trend based on a single and limited metric is statistics but not science. You cannot model the entire system accurately to do extrapolation and whenever we've tried we screw shit up. Nature tends to behave like a PID regulator so it corrects and oscillates.
What does this mean: most likely an extinction event will suddenly (over a timespan of 10,000 years or so) wipe out large mammals. Then large swathes of land and ocean will be barren safe for a few smaller animals that will adapt into the new environment and fill it up again (over 100k-1M years).
What can we do: nothing much. If we've stepped over the threshold then we can't stop the system from responding. If we can't stop hurricanes or weather patterns, we're doomed. We can maybe slow down or delay things by maybe one or two human lifespans but the only solution we can come up with is to simply have less (~50% or less) people on earth which is for various reasons an unsustainable political and sociological situation.
Does a solution exist: yes, but we're not getting there without major wars and conflict in the short term. Nobody wants to give up their military and industry because if they do that they'll be the ones wiped out first. A solution thus has to take care not just of the environmental impact of humans but also the sociological, political and military issues those solutions bring.
Going a bit off topic, but I think that the problems in black neighborhoods is exactly because, not lack of, the support they've been getting. MLK didn't advocate for black supremacy, yet we have legislated as much by proxy in a misguided attempt to improve the lives of people.
My child currently can't go to a public school or my family get public assistance because policies that require equality of outcome (regardless of actual distribution of race in the district). This isn't fairness, this is a handout and time-and-again we've seen that such handouts promote dependence and when the handouts stop coming (eg. "model city" Detroit) we're pushing people further down the path of abject poverty which brings with it a vicious cycle of poverty, crime and violence. Those that do get opportunities quickly leave those situations, those that don't get angry with the system for continuing to keep them in that state of poverty. If life in Chicago or Detroit is so bad, people would leave it, but we artificially keep them there with government handouts.
No, it doesn't work like that. White/latinos (both male and female) perpetrate 57% of the rapes but make up over 75% of the population, blacks make up 12% of the population and perpetrate 28% of the rapes. You are thus nearly as likely to be raped by a white or latino male as by a non-white male.
Europe as a whole has more people than the US yet across the board their numbers are much higher. This means that overall, more people die in EU to mass shootings than the US.
To go with your rape analogy, nearly three times as much people are being raped in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Where do you want to live?
What mythical country do you live? Mass shootings in Norway has a death rate of 1.888 per million. No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.
Most would agree that the only reason you have rights is because you can defend yourself and itâ(TM)s better for those that have power to give you a number of rights so you can protect them better. Those that collectively fight are better survivors.
The US has made, in the past 50-ish years, the choice that sacrificing human lives on the altar of gun ownership is a value. Other countries have made a different choice, by putting whatever is necessary for a person to protect themselves and their loved ones. Yes, most countries also havenâ(TM)t been nearly as stable or prosperous either. If you want to protect yourself against dying, going along with whatever the government says is indeed a good idea and that mindset worked well for Europe in WW2. MOST people survived, except the Jews, gipsies and gays, thatâ(TM)s a good trade right?
US must be a very dangerous place if your first line of defense is an arsenal. I've never lived in a place where I'd feel the need to carry a weapon, because I'm not at risk. Switzerland didnâ(TM)t get invaded by Nazi Germany. Most people in (civil) war zones (see Africa, Balkans and the Middle East) or where powers have invaded (US, Russia or Israel) find that a weapon is rather useful against the oppressor-du-jour. You are privileged enough to live in a Socialist country where it goes well, once the money runs out (and it ALWAYS does), it generally stops being so nice.
Gun ownership is not one of these, because the goal of "personal safety" that you give as the main justification isn't a problem in places where there are no "gun rights". Yes it is, youâ(TM)re just blind to it. Mandatory gun ownership in Switzerland and Finland has allowed them to remain âoeneutralâ not because good will (Hitler and Stalin both pondered or actually tried invading) but because trained people with guns tend to be a good defense. Same goes for Afghanistan and Vietnam.
The alternative is government control over speech, thoughts and subsequently guns. If the first two amendments fall, how quick will the others go?
If you can lock up anyone for having âoebad thoughtsâ like suicide or murder, then you can lock up pretty much the entire population. There is one clear answer to minimizing the carnage: stop glorifying the actors in the mainstream media.
If you donâ(TM)t know how to define the boundary, please do not vote or run for political offices. The line is pretty clear: in the US, the bill of rights and constitution are the limits you are allowed to define. Sure, people will yell fire in a theater or shoot each other, thatâ(TM)s the price of freedom, the only other alternative always tends towards oppression and many more people die then. Look at National Socialism in Germany, Democratic Socialism in South America, Fascism in Asia, Italy and Russia: the people capable of shooting a school end up leading death squads and concentration camps instead of getting killed and arrested
As a parent, you should also realize is that in most cases, kids don’t need anything unless the doctor prescribes it.
It’s not about overdoses, their tiny livers have to process stuff like acetaminophen which could be more harmful both short and long term. Doses have to be accurately measured based on body weight and a few other factors.
Wages have gone up across the board, especially in the lower-middle classes. The gains didn’t start with Obama though he tried. Obama at best stabilized the downwards trends that he inherited but even after massive tax increases (which ended up killing a lot of the small business owners and drove conglomerates towards automation rather than job creation) the recovery was anemic at best.
Not entirely true. Companies only wanted to lay cable in profitable neighborhoods (cities and rich suburbs). The dotcom bubble laid much fiber cross-country too.
The FTC and FCC had to force the hand and many states provided funds and customers got levied many taxes and fees to make this buildout happen between cities and to rural spaces (which they collected the money but still haven't done).
Net neutrality has nothing to do with it, the concept that was legalised was another handout to the providers from the government under the guise of fairness and not at all the concept they purport it to be or the one we actually need.
Off course, consuming alcohol has poor effects on people that are depressed or go driving after drinking. Same with potheads and opioid addicts that go driving or using heavy machinery.
This is a meta-study too and they are expressly comparing Muslim countries with decidedly non-Muslim countries. I'm sure the statistics for those are very honest at less than 2% of the population drinking. I've worked with immigrant Muslims they all drink homemade hooch, statistics in Iran shows at least 10% of the population drinking.
Steps to stop automatic destruction would violate the 5th amendment. It's not a crime to automatically destroy documents unless you are legally required to hold onto the documents or in certain cases, anticipate legal action and only then there needs to be proof that the documents were there and would have had a particular effect on the case.
This is similar to a self-destructing safe, which are legal to own in the US. The government would have to anticipate the safe being self-destructing, and cannot require you to tell them it is or give the combination because of the fact it is self-destructing.
Device destruction cannot be an active attempt to destroy evidence, that is indeed illegal, but I do not have the obligation to cooperate with an investigation or perform a certain action while in custody.
Physics says it is technically possible, just read all particles state in the Universe and then wind back time. Thanks to your methods FBI is now advancing particle physics research and calling to ban bonfires.
Phones also have security options so they should be pretty much bricks by the time law enforcement gets to them (Mine are setup to be automatically wiped and I’m not even a lawyer). Additionally you can encrypt within the app or make the session entirely remote (so no data is ever stored on the device)
Signal and WhatsApp are compromised. You HAVE to rely on keeping your own private key with a strong password.
Because they're easy to understand and they're (as you pointed out) untyped which makes it easy to pick up.
JavaScript is worse than PHP but not nearly as bad as Java (for which you have to understand the worst paradigm ever invented: OOP) or C (where you need to learn about pointers, references and how your CPU and memory work) when you're learning about programming.
CS departments and research IT are woefully underfunded. Partnering up with a big company is the new business model for funding research, whether it's nVidia, Microsoft or Facebook, they all are competing to get into modern research by giving away valuable resources (eg. cloud computing and physical hardware) to be able to get their hands on the datasets.
HIPAA indeed says that, but the fact is that you can. There are a number of papers that demonstrate this, you can use an open source program like Horos or FSL to reconstruct your skull and due to the way algorithms work (offsets and distances between body parts) get matches in a Facebook algorithm.
Modern 64-ch 3T MRI has even higher resolution than the papers used (which were 8 and 12 channel 1.5 and 3T). Some of the voxel sizes we get with custom sequences allow you to even (very faintly, but sufficient for algorithmic interpolation) distinguish skin layers
The law simply hasn't caught up with what modern reconstruction and facial recognition algorithms can do.
As much as Rust has its fanboys, the issue remain that it doesn’t offer many benefits over C and to get any real work done you have to write bindings in C anyway. And then you’re offered to write major issues into RFC where they get endlessly debated between Poettering-style purists and practicalists.
A language should work, not ideally but practically. If I can’t write things natively because some idealistic thread or type safety issues that don’t agree with the real world (where we have things like OpenGL, interrupts and DMA) then the language is good for theoretical work only.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the judges in lower courts are elected and getting appointed to a higher circuit or Supreme Court is also highly political. Unelected perhaps but certainly representing some political cause and by extension politicians and corporations.
You can make semi auto and automatic weapons if you can manufacture or convert them yourself.
Guns are only supposed to set of metal detectors if you sell them. For home manufacturing nearly no legislation is present because the second amendment right. Same for tanks and RPGs, you can own them, you just can't buy/sell them on the open market.
Proving repeatable, testable hypotheses is indeed doing science.
Extrapolating a trend based on a single and limited metric is statistics but not science. You cannot model the entire system accurately to do extrapolation and whenever we've tried we screw shit up. Nature tends to behave like a PID regulator so it corrects and oscillates.
What does this mean: most likely an extinction event will suddenly (over a timespan of 10,000 years or so) wipe out large mammals. Then large swathes of land and ocean will be barren safe for a few smaller animals that will adapt into the new environment and fill it up again (over 100k-1M years).
What can we do: nothing much. If we've stepped over the threshold then we can't stop the system from responding. If we can't stop hurricanes or weather patterns, we're doomed. We can maybe slow down or delay things by maybe one or two human lifespans but the only solution we can come up with is to simply have less (~50% or less) people on earth which is for various reasons an unsustainable political and sociological situation.
Does a solution exist: yes, but we're not getting there without major wars and conflict in the short term. Nobody wants to give up their military and industry because if they do that they'll be the ones wiped out first. A solution thus has to take care not just of the environmental impact of humans but also the sociological, political and military issues those solutions bring.
Going a bit off topic, but I think that the problems in black neighborhoods is exactly because, not lack of, the support they've been getting. MLK didn't advocate for black supremacy, yet we have legislated as much by proxy in a misguided attempt to improve the lives of people.
My child currently can't go to a public school or my family get public assistance because policies that require equality of outcome (regardless of actual distribution of race in the district). This isn't fairness, this is a handout and time-and-again we've seen that such handouts promote dependence and when the handouts stop coming (eg. "model city" Detroit) we're pushing people further down the path of abject poverty which brings with it a vicious cycle of poverty, crime and violence. Those that do get opportunities quickly leave those situations, those that don't get angry with the system for continuing to keep them in that state of poverty. If life in Chicago or Detroit is so bad, people would leave it, but we artificially keep them there with government handouts.
No, it doesn't work like that. White/latinos (both male and female) perpetrate 57% of the rapes but make up over 75% of the population, blacks make up 12% of the population and perpetrate 28% of the rapes. You are thus nearly as likely to be raped by a white or latino male as by a non-white male.
Europe as a whole has more people than the US yet across the board their numbers are much higher. This means that overall, more people die in EU to mass shootings than the US.
To go with your rape analogy, nearly three times as much people are being raped in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Where do you want to live?
Inform the public and vote with your wallet. You don't have to be oppressive to get a desired outcome.
America is only 11 when it comes to mass shooting casualties per capita. Belgium, France, Norway are way ahead.
The only difference is the mainstream media that has an agenda to push and therefore glorified the perpetrators.
What mythical country do you live? Mass shootings in Norway has a death rate of 1.888 per million. No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.
Most would agree that the only reason you have rights is because you can defend yourself and itâ(TM)s better for those that have power to give you a number of rights so you can protect them better. Those that collectively fight are better survivors.
The US has made, in the past 50-ish years, the choice that sacrificing human lives on the altar of gun ownership is a value. Other countries have made a different choice, by putting whatever is necessary for a person to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Yes, most countries also havenâ(TM)t been nearly as stable or prosperous either. If you want to protect yourself against dying, going along with whatever the government says is indeed a good idea and that mindset worked well for Europe in WW2. MOST people survived, except the Jews, gipsies and gays, thatâ(TM)s a good trade right?
US must be a very dangerous place if your first line of defense is an arsenal. I've never lived in a place where I'd feel the need to carry a weapon, because I'm not at risk.
Switzerland didnâ(TM)t get invaded by Nazi Germany. Most people in (civil) war zones (see Africa, Balkans and the Middle East) or where powers have invaded (US, Russia or Israel) find that a weapon is rather useful against the oppressor-du-jour. You are privileged enough to live in a Socialist country where it goes well, once the money runs out (and it ALWAYS does), it generally stops being so nice.
Gun ownership is not one of these, because the goal of "personal safety" that you give as the main justification isn't a problem in places where there are no "gun rights".
Yes it is, youâ(TM)re just blind to it. Mandatory gun ownership in Switzerland and Finland has allowed them to remain âoeneutralâ not because good will (Hitler and Stalin both pondered or actually tried invading) but because trained people with guns tend to be a good defense. Same goes for Afghanistan and Vietnam.
The alternative is government control over speech, thoughts and subsequently guns. If the first two amendments fall, how quick will the others go?
If you can lock up anyone for having âoebad thoughtsâ like suicide or murder, then you can lock up pretty much the entire population. There is one clear answer to minimizing the carnage: stop glorifying the actors in the mainstream media.
If you donâ(TM)t know how to define the boundary, please do not vote or run for political offices. The line is pretty clear: in the US, the bill of rights and constitution are the limits you are allowed to define. Sure, people will yell fire in a theater or shoot each other, thatâ(TM)s the price of freedom, the only other alternative always tends towards oppression and many more people die then. Look at National Socialism in Germany, Democratic Socialism in South America, Fascism in Asia, Italy and Russia: the people capable of shooting a school end up leading death squads and concentration camps instead of getting killed and arrested
As a parent, you should also realize is that in most cases, kids don’t need anything unless the doctor prescribes it.
It’s not about overdoses, their tiny livers have to process stuff like acetaminophen which could be more harmful both short and long term. Doses have to be accurately measured based on body weight and a few other factors.
Wages have gone up across the board, especially in the lower-middle classes. The gains didn’t start with Obama though he tried. Obama at best stabilized the downwards trends that he inherited but even after massive tax increases (which ended up killing a lot of the small business owners and drove conglomerates towards automation rather than job creation) the recovery was anemic at best.
Not entirely true. Companies only wanted to lay cable in profitable neighborhoods (cities and rich suburbs).
The dotcom bubble laid much fiber cross-country too.
The FTC and FCC had to force the hand and many states provided funds and customers got levied many taxes and fees to make this buildout happen between cities and to rural spaces (which they collected the money but still haven't done).
Net neutrality has nothing to do with it, the concept that was legalised was another handout to the providers from the government under the guise of fairness and not at all the concept they purport it to be or the one we actually need.
Off course, consuming alcohol has poor effects on people that are depressed or go driving after drinking. Same with potheads and opioid addicts that go driving or using heavy machinery.
This is a meta-study too and they are expressly comparing Muslim countries with decidedly non-Muslim countries. I'm sure the statistics for those are very honest at less than 2% of the population drinking. I've worked with immigrant Muslims they all drink homemade hooch, statistics in Iran shows at least 10% of the population drinking.
Steps to stop automatic destruction would violate the 5th amendment. It's not a crime to automatically destroy documents unless you are legally required to hold onto the documents or in certain cases, anticipate legal action and only then there needs to be proof that the documents were there and would have had a particular effect on the case.
This is similar to a self-destructing safe, which are legal to own in the US. The government would have to anticipate the safe being self-destructing, and cannot require you to tell them it is or give the combination because of the fact it is self-destructing.
Device destruction cannot be an active attempt to destroy evidence, that is indeed illegal, but I do not have the obligation to cooperate with an investigation or perform a certain action while in custody.
Welcome to the left. You can't even call a person male or female but they don't give you a proper alternative.
Physics says it is technically possible, just read all particles state in the Universe and then wind back time. Thanks to your methods FBI is now advancing particle physics research and calling to ban bonfires.
Phones also have security options so they should be pretty much bricks by the time law enforcement gets to them (Mine are setup to be automatically wiped and I’m not even a lawyer). Additionally you can encrypt within the app or make the session entirely remote (so no data is ever stored on the device)
Signal and WhatsApp are compromised. You HAVE to rely on keeping your own private key with a strong password.
People, especially the rich, do exceptionally well when their way of life is threatened.
Because they're easy to understand and they're (as you pointed out) untyped which makes it easy to pick up.
JavaScript is worse than PHP but not nearly as bad as Java (for which you have to understand the worst paradigm ever invented: OOP) or C (where you need to learn about pointers, references and how your CPU and memory work) when you're learning about programming.
CS departments and research IT are woefully underfunded. Partnering up with a big company is the new business model for funding research, whether it's nVidia, Microsoft or Facebook, they all are competing to get into modern research by giving away valuable resources (eg. cloud computing and physical hardware) to be able to get their hands on the datasets.
HIPAA indeed says that, but the fact is that you can. There are a number of papers that demonstrate this, you can use an open source program like Horos or FSL to reconstruct your skull and due to the way algorithms work (offsets and distances between body parts) get matches in a Facebook algorithm.
Modern 64-ch 3T MRI has even higher resolution than the papers used (which were 8 and 12 channel 1.5 and 3T). Some of the voxel sizes we get with custom sequences allow you to even (very faintly, but sufficient for algorithmic interpolation) distinguish skin layers
The law simply hasn't caught up with what modern reconstruction and facial recognition algorithms can do.
As much as Rust has its fanboys, the issue remain that it doesn’t offer many benefits over C and to get any real work done you have to write bindings in C anyway. And then you’re offered to write major issues into RFC where they get endlessly debated between Poettering-style purists and practicalists.
A language should work, not ideally but practically. If I can’t write things natively because some idealistic thread or type safety issues that don’t agree with the real world (where we have things like OpenGL, interrupts and DMA) then the language is good for theoretical work only.