Additionally, in the United States, every gun purchase is preceded by a call to the FBI. Framing this as "showing your drivers license" is disingenuous if not deliberately misleading. You make it seem like anyone can just walk in to a store off the street and buy a gun. While the process and requirements vary from state to state, several classes of persons are prohibited from legally purchasing firearms nationwide: convicted felons, persons convicted (or in some cases, merely accused) for any sort of violent crime (including domestic violence), etc.
So Sweden, Croatia, and the United States have similar health care, education, economies, and culture?
Also, guns are cheaper in Mexico (where they are illegal) than in the United States (where they're legal). Somehow your "high availability" comment seems outright false.
But, either way, I'd like to hear more about your selection criteria. How do you determine similarity of health care, education, economies, and culture? Sounds like a very complex algorithm. Is it safe to say that it consists primarily of checking Ravaldy's gut feeling? That sure sounds a lot more robust than simply looking at all the data, which I think we can both agree does not itself support any of the claims you're making.
and Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" network (hey, don't flame me, we enjoy watching him and there's nothing wrong with that)
He can be a very interesting entertainer, but I hope you don't watch him to be informed.
I used to catch him on the radio, along with Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. They're all hilarious, but I feel sad knowing that some people mistake this sort of entertainment for news programming.
This is the best reply I've ever gotten on Slashdot. Possibly one of the best-written posts I've seen on Slashdot, ever. I'm left standing here, at a loss for words. Well played.
That being said, I was merely trying to point out that the claim that "NSA's spying on everyone is good for Americans" is not true within the context of a particular philosophy that I favor (that universal adoption of the golden rule results in generally optimal outcomes, perhaps a flavor of utilitarianism), and that this is as valid (if not as common) a philosophy as realpolitik (or more specifically, Machiavellian politics). Also, I inferred your preference for realpolitik based on my perception that you were defending realism over utilitarianism. But now I feel like an engineer at an international relations party: woefully ignorant and verbally outmatched.
Also, I like your writing style. You should write a book, if you haven't already. I'm gonna go read your link now, as I suspect it can't be a bad read.
I propose a combination technological/regulatory solution to both the yapping cell phone user and wailing baby problems all at once.
In the back of every seat, install a microphone, two LEDs, and a simple circuit that lights up the "warning" LED when a certain volume threshold is exceeded, and then the "fine" LED when a higher volume threshold is exceeded. When you see the first LED light up, you know to STFU. When you see the second LED light up, you know to open up your wallet. The fine can be payable to the passengers surrounding you, as compensation for exposure to your loudness.
This will encourage cell phone users to be mindful of their conversations and parents to be mindful of their pet sirens. Anyone unsure of their ability to speak quietly or silence their children will think twice before using their phone or bringing their kid. Anyone that doesn't give a shit about the people around them will at least be suitably punished for their rudeness. And the victims that find themselves in these situations will finally see justice served.
Offtopic awesomeness: I once had the kid in the seat in front of me puke in their seat. Their vomit actually flowed between the seat cushion and the seat back, directly onto my shoes, pant legs, and small carry-on bag. Not a word from the parent. Not a "heads up, vomit incoming". Even after my overly loud "what the fuck, I think there's vomit all over me", not so much as a "oh that's my child's vomit, I apologize". Nothing. What recourse does a passenger have after being accosted in such a manner?
Firstly, everyone talks louder on the phone. They don't realize it and deny it left-and-right, but they do.
Except my girlfriend, she's quite the opposite. She makes me feel like I'm mostly deaf after she responds to my third consecutive "what?" with a barely-whispered "god damn I'm practically screaming into the phone right now". Thinking about installing a Marshall half stack in my car and wiring it to my phone's speaker so I can converse with her while driving, because speakerphone makes the problem ten times worse.
So you're saying that realpolitik is the only way of seeing things, and that alternative approaches to international relations have no merit? And I'm the one that's naive?
Also, please point out my "surprise" at this viewpoint. Or explain how my opposition to your preferred school of thought is equivalent to ignorance of a specific treatise.
If you think that objections to a particular school of thought ought to be confined to arguments based on assumed premises set forth within that school of thought, you'll indeed find it impossible to form any meaningful objections. Realpolitik is internally consistent, and any argument from absurd premises such as "the law of power governs the world of states" will inevitably confirm that fucking over foreigners is a good thing. Of course, if you were in any way familiar with the idea of rational logic, you'd understand that questioning the very premises of an internally-consistent argument is the only way to demonstrate its lack of logical soundness despite logical validity.
Machiavelli didn't write about optimal outcomes for the human race at large. He wrote about optimal outcomes for a state, not even for states in general. The Prince does not suggest a way for all states to attain optimal outcomes, merely a way for any given state to optimize its own outcome at the expense of others. To me, that's a shitty approach to optimization. Almost a state-scale example of the tragedy of the commons. It's unlikely that such an approach could be optimal for all.
Or are you saying that you support the NSA not because they're doing the right thing, but merely because their actions [supposedly] benefit you [Americans] while harming those you don't care about [foreigners]?
I take it you don't subscribe to the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity), which has been expressed by Luke (6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you."), Confucius ("Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."), and Plato ("...it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere.").
This indicates a lack of empathy, and suggests that you may be on the autism spectrum or suffering from sociopathy.
So, my analysis of charts is... dumb. Great riposte, really. I can see the mathematical rigor in your argument already. That's a fantastic cherry-picked subset of the data you have there. Perhaps you can describe your methodology for determining which countries to you choose to include, and which you choose to ignore entirely. It seems as though your understanding of statistics is limited, so I drew you a picture.
Here you'll see a scatter plot illustrating any correlation between gun ownership and gun-related homicides by rank. That is, the horizontal axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun ownership, with the top ranking countries having the most guns. The vertical axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun-related homicides, with the top ranking countries having the most such homicides. It's clear that, indeed, the safest countries also have the fewest guns. Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Poland, and Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe?!) are the safest countries on the list, and all of them rank near the end of the list in terms of gun ownership. However, looking any farther in the rankings shows a different picture. Romania, the United Kingdom, and Norway are all tied in terms of homicide rank, but gun ownership varies widely. Romania is 68th in gun ownership, but Northern Ireland is 18th, and Norway is 8th. In fact, if you look at that scatter plot, you won't notice too much of a trend in any particular direction. Sure, there's the group of six or seven countries in the top-right, which have few guns and few homicides. However, there is no meaningful trend of rising homicide rates as gun ownership increases. There is no line of dots from the bottom-left to the top-right. A linear regression on this dataset yields an R-squared value of 0.024. That means there is no linear relationship here. Well, why would there be? After all, we're looking at ranking data, not absolute numbers. Well, luckily for you, I also drew you a picture of that too.
Here you'll see the same plot, but using absolute numbers instead of rank. The first thing you should notice is that most countries in this dataset are relatively safe, with only a few dots rising up and away from the horizontal axis. Additionally, the two outliers should catch your eye. These are the United States (over in the far right), with its exceptionally high rate of gun ownership (and relatively low rate of gun-related homicides), and Honduras (high up on top), with its exceptionally high rate of gun-related homicides (and relatively low rate of gun ownership). Note the total lack of any dots in the upper right area of the chart. That's where you'd expect to see all the "high gun ownership, high gun crime" countries. There aren't any. In fact, if you look at all the countries with relatively high rates of gun-related crime, there is no visible positive correlation with gun ownership rates. If anything, it looks like gun-related homicides may actually decrease as gun ownership rates increase. Unfortunately, even that statement would have to be qualified by the fact that there is mathematically no linear correlation here either. A linear regression yields an R-squared value of 0.024 again.
Your claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" may be supported by your "not a set of perfect stats", despite the fact that you don't actually do any statistical analysis. However, my set of "actual" stats demonstrates that no, the claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" is false. Baseless. Wrong. Sorry, I know it can be unsettling when facts contradict "common sense". At this point, you can either acknowledge that your beliefs regarding this subject are rooted in emotion and not reality, or you can duck your head back in the sand and continue spewing misinformation. In any case, you can no longer claim ignorance of reality. You've been informed.
So I'm cross referencing, and I notice that USA is 1st in guns per capita but 14th in homicides per capita. Serbia is 2nd in guns per capita but 25th in homicides per capita. Switzerland is 4th in guns per capita but 31st in homicides per capita. Finland is 5th in guns per capita but 42nd in homicides per capita.
Honduras is 1st in homicides per capita, but 88th in guns per capita. El Salvador is 2nd in homicides per capita, but 92nd in guns per capita. Jamaica is 3rd in homicides per capita, but 74th in guns per capita. Swaziland is 4th in homicides per capita, but 86th in guns per capita.
So, I agree that there is definitely a pattern. The more guns per capita, the fewer homicides. Your claim that it's not a coincidence isn't backed up by anything. There's clearly an inverse correlation with gun prevalence and homicide rates, but this data on its own is insufficient to claim a causal relationship. That is, it could very much be a coincidence, literally.
Ironically, Finland has 50% more guns per capita than Canada does, but only half of the homicides per capita as well. If Canada increases the presence of guns by 50%, they can save 35000 lives per year. Right, it's not worth the millions in dollars in gun sales gained. God forbid the gun enthusiasm is promoted to save a few lives.
Or are you suggesting that Finland has some wars going on in their backyard?
That's a great link. Great in terms of how misleading it is.
Are you concerned with people being killed by guns? Or are you concerned with victims of mass shootings? Because those are two different things.
An overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated by inner city gangs using illegally possessed handguns. Of course, all those fantastic charts would have you believe the opposite, suggesting that "Killer Obtained Weapons Legally" nearly 80% of the time, until you read "Mass shootings in US, 1982-2012" in the smaller-text subheading. Is this representative of gun crime in general? Of course not. But who cares about gun crime in general. After all, the victims of gun crime are disproportionately minorities. Inner city minorities, not suburban whites. Their stories don't end up on the evening news for weeks on end. You don't care about them, you care about the victims of mass shootings, who account for a fraction of a percent of all gun crime victims.
So yes, you're right. By limiting magazine sizes, we might be able to limit the death toll when it comes to these highly publicized but statistically insignificant mass murders. What you overlook is that this wouldn't have any measurable impact on the gun crime rate in this country. What's different in Canada is that you don't have a Chicago, you don't have a Detroit, you don't have a Camden, you don't have a Newark. You don't have bloods, you don't have crips, you don't have latin kings, all engaged in turf wars. You don't have a culture that glorifies street thugs. But sure, it's the 5 round magazine restriction that keeps you safe. Everyone knows you need more than 5 rounds to kill someone. Explain to me why places like Chicago and New York City have both a "0 round magazine" restriction (guns are effectively illegal there) and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.
An overwhelming majority of gun crime in this country is committed with handguns. Not M16s or AK47s or M134s, but plain old handguns. I suppose handguns just don't look scary enough to warrant regulation though.
Oh, the AK47. The same one that was virtually banned in 1934 and then subject to a de facto ban in 1986? If you want to buy a full automatic firearm today, legally, it must have been manufactured prior to 1986. That means there's a finite (and constantly decreasing) number of such weapons. That means that for a barely functioning "machine gun", you'll be spending upwards of $10,000 on the gun alone. Of course, you'll also be jumping over endless legal hurdles along the way. And that's if the state you live in even lets you have a machine gun. My state of residence, NJ, does allow them in theory. All you've gotta do is convince a judge that you need one. To date, zero people have succeeded in convincing a judge.
So, serious question: what new laws would you like to propose that will keep these AK47s out of the hands of crazies better than the existing laws do?
Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
A fascinating read, thank you. Possibly one of the longest-titled wiki pages I've seen. Of particular interest to me is the statement:
Many scholars also believe the commandment applies to the casual use of God's name in interjections and curses (blasphemy).
I was really hoping for a citation here, or at least a bit more background on why many scholars believe this. Their belief is a marked departure from the literal (and even less-than-literal) translation, and no justification is provided for it. Also fascinating is:
To avoid coming under guilt by accidentally misusing God's name, Jewish scholars do not write or pronounce the proper name in most circumstances, but use substitutes such as "Adonai (the Lord)," or "HaShem (the Name)."
I've noticed this personally, and I imagine similar reasoning underlies the Christian usage of "G-d". To me, this approach suggests that God is easily fooled by trivial omissions and simple substitutions, and accomplishes the very opposite of the intended purpose. Instead of sanctifying the name of God by actually using it in a sacred way, isn't God being lowered to the level of a small child? Earmuffs! Additionally, this would suggest that the Abrahamic God doesn't take mens rea into account, as believers are even concerned about accidental, unintentional violations of this commandment.
One of the first commandments listed by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah is the responsibility to sanctify God's name. Maimonides thought the commandment should be taken as generally as possible, and therefore he considered it forbidden to mention God's name unnecessarily at any time.
This I just don't understand. Is avoidance generally considered tantamount to sanctification? If avoiding unnecessary usage God's name sanctifies it, does my avoidance of unnecessary attendance at houses of worship similarly sanctify them? Unfortunately, the reference provided for this is simply the Kaddish, which is just a Hebrew prayer exalting the name of God.
Overall a fascinating read, but I'm still left with more questions than answers. Thanks for the link!
I always wondered about that whole "taking in vain" part. I don't mean to question your explanation, but do you have any references that elaborate on this point, or to detail the etymology of the expression? I've always felt that Christians considered expressions like "Jesus fucking Christ!" and "God damn it!" to be valid examples of "taking in vain", although I don't see how they could be considered "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion". It's not like one is misrepresenting the Christian idea of God when they utter "God damn", since the idea of damnation by God is written of in the Christian Bible itself. "Jesus fucking Christ" isn't even a statement so much as an interjection, so similarly I don't see how it qualifies as "taking in vain" according to your explanation. I'm not sure what the etymology of the "taking in vain" expression is, but I always understood doing something "in vain" as somewhat synonymous with doing something in a futile manner. That is, to no effect. Now, wouldn't invoking God's name "in vain" be solely up to God himself? That is, if you cry out to God for help, and your cry is in vain, isn't that only the case because God has chosen not to heed your cries? How are you to know in advance if your cry will be in vain or if it will actually be answered?
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist that harbors a genuine academic curiosity about religion.
Number of jobs per widget is an irrelevant measure unless it is related to profitability
Oh you "but it's not a zero sum game!" people. Basic math escapes you because it is "too simplistic". First of all, number of jobs per widget is also relevant if we're talking about jobs, which we are. If today X people are needed to make Y widgets, and tomorrow we only need X-n people to make Y widgets, that means that there are n fewer jobs, necessarily. That these people are now free to do other jobs doesn't mean that those other jobs were somehow "created" when these people were freed up. That's quite a leap of logic there. Companies don't exist in a vacuum, but I didn't think we'd be analyzing the global economy in the scope of a single Slashdot thread. If you'd like to trace the ancillary effects of increased productivity at a single company through the entire global economy, be my guest. If you're the one claiming that basic math isn't applicable in a discussion of economics (and oh I know you're not the only one), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Until then, I'll remain convinced that one fewer worker is indeed one fewer worker.
It's called productivity and it is a Good Thing.
Thank you for supporting what I said. Since we're in agreement, your combative tone is perhaps unwarranted.
Fewer employees in a more profitable larger company is not a bad thing and in the real world a big increase in productivity is also usually accompanied by a big increase in overall company growth, including employment.
You handwave like a Jedi. Impressive. Again, I appreciate you agreeing with me in saying that fewer employees is not a bad thing. Work sucks, that's why you get paid to do it. However, merely claiming that layoffs are usually accompanied by a big increase in employment is neither an intuitive argument nor the same as explaining the mechanism through which that might happen.
The jobs created might not be in the company that makes the product. Instead it might be with the distributor or retailer that sells it or the warehouse that stocks it or the materials supplier that provides the raw materials for it.
Because it's not like my post specifically called out how other jobs are created in the process. Are you just repeating what I said, but somehow under the impression that you're saying the opposite?
You've apparently never been in the back seat of an Audi TT.
There's less than a centimeter of leg room between the part of the seat that your ass goes on and the back of the seat in front of you. So yea, if your shins are about 1cm in diameter, you can actually sit in the back. Otherwise, you lay across the seats, or sit cross-legged. I honestly found the CRX's back "shelf" to be a much more comfortable seat. You just gotta watch your head when going over bumps (no worse than the TT though).
I think of it as being very very considerate. I don't plan on burdening the rest of society with endless medical bills on account of barely surviving a horrible wreck. It has been conclusively demonstrated that smokers, fat people, motorcycle riders, and people who don't wear seatbelts actually cost considerably less when it comes to healthcare. I suppose being considerate is stupid in a world full of greedy assholes though.
and to acquire money, most people need a job, menial or otherwise
How about, as a solution, we have the Federal Reserve continue to offer those awesome 0% loans. But instead of banks, the recipients of the loans can be ordinary unemployed citizens. And we can have the Fed keep printing more money (cue people mentioning that the Treasury does that, bla, bla) to loan them, indefinitely. Then upon death, those unemployed citizens can have their debt discharged, so they don't need to worry about paying back the government. The destruction of money (money starts its life as debt, right?) at that stage will keep hyperinflation in check.
Automation does not mean fewer jobs, it means different jobs and in the long run it means more jobs.
You're missing the point, and as an accountant, that's odd. Sure, you might be right in that it might actually mean more jobs. But it doesn't mean more jobs per widget (per month, or whatever). That wouldn't make financial sense. So you're right, instead of 5 guys carving 5 widgets out of wood, now you've got a highly automated factory, staffed by 10 guys. But they're producing millions of widgets. If the market demands millions of widgets, you're now meeting that demand by employing only 10 guys, instead of millions of guys. Granted, there is also 10 guys employed in designing these automation systems, and another 10 guys repairing these automation systems, and maybe 10 more guys doing something else that wouldn't need to be done in a world without all this technology. But the fact of the matter is, we need less people today to crank out a million widgets than we did yesterday. If that weren't the case, nobody would automate anything, and we'd go back to doing everything manually.
That being said, I agree that automation is a good thing. That freeing people from mind-numbing drudgery is a good thing. That it's a positive cycle. I disagree that it allows you to hire more people (per unit of production output). The issue is, since we require an ever-decreasing proportion of people to contribute productive work to meet market demand, we need to find a way of keeping people from starving and/or rioting when they can't find gainful employment. Unlike many other posters here, I don't believe creating busy-work for people is the optimal solution. I don't believe opposition to automation is the best way forward. But, similarly, you can't pretend that your factory of 10 employees is better in terms of "jobs" than a factory of 5 employees if your factory has 1000 times the productive output.
No, you didn't. The person who I was responding to did. Maybe you should learn to stay the fuck out of other people's conversations if you have nothing useful to contribute. I notice that your name doesn't appear on any of the posts in the entire message thread.
He didn't, but
But fuck off. Nobody's talking to you, and if you want contribute to the discussion, it would behoove you to understand the context. The context is that nobody had mentioned anything about 10 years, or past submissions to slashdot, or a history of mainstream media reporting. The context was Maudib claimed the US military budget was 4.7% of GDP, and my followup question regarding whether or not this included discretionary spending of a military nature.
being able to ballpark the spending on the war as well as the GDP does not make someone a budget wonk.
Can you ballpark what percentage of France's 2011 GDP went towards military spending in Libya? No? Then eat a dick.
Dude, chill the fuck out. What the fuck kind of amazing math are you doing with the single figure "4.7%"? Where the fuck did Maudib mention a 10 year term? We're not all budget wonks here, so excuse me for not being intimately familiar with your country's finances. I was just asking a fucking question. Thank you for your rant of a non-answer, you dick.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, in the United States, every gun purchase is preceded by a call to the FBI. Framing this as "showing your drivers license" is disingenuous if not deliberately misleading. You make it seem like anyone can just walk in to a store off the street and buy a gun. While the process and requirements vary from state to state, several classes of persons are prohibited from legally purchasing firearms nationwide: convicted felons, persons convicted (or in some cases, merely accused) for any sort of violent crime (including domestic violence), etc.
Good thing this guy is already dead.
This would just be adding insult to injury. His whole life, the industry rapes his idea. Now they just toss it aside, obsolete.
So Sweden, Croatia, and the United States have similar health care, education, economies, and culture?
Also, guns are cheaper in Mexico (where they are illegal) than in the United States (where they're legal). Somehow your "high availability" comment seems outright false.
But, either way, I'd like to hear more about your selection criteria. How do you determine similarity of health care, education, economies, and culture? Sounds like a very complex algorithm. Is it safe to say that it consists primarily of checking Ravaldy's gut feeling? That sure sounds a lot more robust than simply looking at all the data, which I think we can both agree does not itself support any of the claims you're making.
and Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" network (hey, don't flame me, we enjoy watching him and there's nothing wrong with that)
He can be a very interesting entertainer, but I hope you don't watch him to be informed.
I used to catch him on the radio, along with Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. They're all hilarious, but I feel sad knowing that some people mistake this sort of entertainment for news programming.
This is the best reply I've ever gotten on Slashdot. Possibly one of the best-written posts I've seen on Slashdot, ever. I'm left standing here, at a loss for words. Well played.
That being said, I was merely trying to point out that the claim that "NSA's spying on everyone is good for Americans" is not true within the context of a particular philosophy that I favor (that universal adoption of the golden rule results in generally optimal outcomes, perhaps a flavor of utilitarianism), and that this is as valid (if not as common) a philosophy as realpolitik (or more specifically, Machiavellian politics). Also, I inferred your preference for realpolitik based on my perception that you were defending realism over utilitarianism. But now I feel like an engineer at an international relations party: woefully ignorant and verbally outmatched.
Also, I like your writing style. You should write a book, if you haven't already. I'm gonna go read your link now, as I suspect it can't be a bad read.
I propose a combination technological/regulatory solution to both the yapping cell phone user and wailing baby problems all at once.
In the back of every seat, install a microphone, two LEDs, and a simple circuit that lights up the "warning" LED when a certain volume threshold is exceeded, and then the "fine" LED when a higher volume threshold is exceeded. When you see the first LED light up, you know to STFU. When you see the second LED light up, you know to open up your wallet. The fine can be payable to the passengers surrounding you, as compensation for exposure to your loudness.
This will encourage cell phone users to be mindful of their conversations and parents to be mindful of their pet sirens. Anyone unsure of their ability to speak quietly or silence their children will think twice before using their phone or bringing their kid. Anyone that doesn't give a shit about the people around them will at least be suitably punished for their rudeness. And the victims that find themselves in these situations will finally see justice served.
Offtopic awesomeness: I once had the kid in the seat in front of me puke in their seat. Their vomit actually flowed between the seat cushion and the seat back, directly onto my shoes, pant legs, and small carry-on bag. Not a word from the parent. Not a "heads up, vomit incoming". Even after my overly loud "what the fuck, I think there's vomit all over me", not so much as a "oh that's my child's vomit, I apologize". Nothing. What recourse does a passenger have after being accosted in such a manner?
Firstly, everyone talks louder on the phone. They don't realize it and deny it left-and-right, but they do.
Except my girlfriend, she's quite the opposite. She makes me feel like I'm mostly deaf after she responds to my third consecutive "what?" with a barely-whispered "god damn I'm practically screaming into the phone right now". Thinking about installing a Marshall half stack in my car and wiring it to my phone's speaker so I can converse with her while driving, because speakerphone makes the problem ten times worse.
So you're saying that realpolitik is the only way of seeing things, and that alternative approaches to international relations have no merit? And I'm the one that's naive?
Also, please point out my "surprise" at this viewpoint. Or explain how my opposition to your preferred school of thought is equivalent to ignorance of a specific treatise.
If you think that objections to a particular school of thought ought to be confined to arguments based on assumed premises set forth within that school of thought, you'll indeed find it impossible to form any meaningful objections. Realpolitik is internally consistent, and any argument from absurd premises such as "the law of power governs the world of states" will inevitably confirm that fucking over foreigners is a good thing. Of course, if you were in any way familiar with the idea of rational logic, you'd understand that questioning the very premises of an internally-consistent argument is the only way to demonstrate its lack of logical soundness despite logical validity.
Machiavelli didn't write about optimal outcomes for the human race at large. He wrote about optimal outcomes for a state, not even for states in general. The Prince does not suggest a way for all states to attain optimal outcomes, merely a way for any given state to optimize its own outcome at the expense of others. To me, that's a shitty approach to optimization. Almost a state-scale example of the tragedy of the commons. It's unlikely that such an approach could be optimal for all.
How is that supposed to be logically consistent?
Or are you saying that you support the NSA not because they're doing the right thing, but merely because their actions [supposedly] benefit you [Americans] while harming those you don't care about [foreigners]?
I take it you don't subscribe to the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity), which has been expressed by Luke (6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you."), Confucius ("Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."), and Plato ("...it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere.").
This indicates a lack of empathy, and suggests that you may be on the autism spectrum or suffering from sociopathy.
So, my analysis of charts is... dumb. Great riposte, really. I can see the mathematical rigor in your argument already. That's a fantastic cherry-picked subset of the data you have there. Perhaps you can describe your methodology for determining which countries to you choose to include, and which you choose to ignore entirely. It seems as though your understanding of statistics is limited, so I drew you a picture.
Here you'll see a scatter plot illustrating any correlation between gun ownership and gun-related homicides by rank. That is, the horizontal axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun ownership, with the top ranking countries having the most guns. The vertical axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun-related homicides, with the top ranking countries having the most such homicides. It's clear that, indeed, the safest countries also have the fewest guns. Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Poland, and Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe?!) are the safest countries on the list, and all of them rank near the end of the list in terms of gun ownership. However, looking any farther in the rankings shows a different picture. Romania, the United Kingdom, and Norway are all tied in terms of homicide rank, but gun ownership varies widely. Romania is 68th in gun ownership, but Northern Ireland is 18th, and Norway is 8th. In fact, if you look at that scatter plot, you won't notice too much of a trend in any particular direction. Sure, there's the group of six or seven countries in the top-right, which have few guns and few homicides. However, there is no meaningful trend of rising homicide rates as gun ownership increases. There is no line of dots from the bottom-left to the top-right. A linear regression on this dataset yields an R-squared value of 0.024. That means there is no linear relationship here. Well, why would there be? After all, we're looking at ranking data, not absolute numbers. Well, luckily for you, I also drew you a picture of that too.
Here you'll see the same plot, but using absolute numbers instead of rank. The first thing you should notice is that most countries in this dataset are relatively safe, with only a few dots rising up and away from the horizontal axis. Additionally, the two outliers should catch your eye. These are the United States (over in the far right), with its exceptionally high rate of gun ownership (and relatively low rate of gun-related homicides), and Honduras (high up on top), with its exceptionally high rate of gun-related homicides (and relatively low rate of gun ownership). Note the total lack of any dots in the upper right area of the chart. That's where you'd expect to see all the "high gun ownership, high gun crime" countries. There aren't any. In fact, if you look at all the countries with relatively high rates of gun-related crime, there is no visible positive correlation with gun ownership rates. If anything, it looks like gun-related homicides may actually decrease as gun ownership rates increase. Unfortunately, even that statement would have to be qualified by the fact that there is mathematically no linear correlation here either. A linear regression yields an R-squared value of 0.024 again.
Your claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" may be supported by your "not a set of perfect stats", despite the fact that you don't actually do any statistical analysis. However, my set of "actual" stats demonstrates that no, the claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" is false. Baseless. Wrong. Sorry, I know it can be unsettling when facts contradict "common sense". At this point, you can either acknowledge that your beliefs regarding this subject are rooted in emotion and not reality, or you can duck your head back in the sand and continue spewing misinformation. In any case, you can no longer claim ignorance of reality. You've been informed.
Sunday, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!!!!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So I'm cross referencing, and I notice that USA is 1st in guns per capita but 14th in homicides per capita. Serbia is 2nd in guns per capita but 25th in homicides per capita. Switzerland is 4th in guns per capita but 31st in homicides per capita. Finland is 5th in guns per capita but 42nd in homicides per capita.
Honduras is 1st in homicides per capita, but 88th in guns per capita. El Salvador is 2nd in homicides per capita, but 92nd in guns per capita. Jamaica is 3rd in homicides per capita, but 74th in guns per capita. Swaziland is 4th in homicides per capita, but 86th in guns per capita.
So, I agree that there is definitely a pattern. The more guns per capita, the fewer homicides. Your claim that it's not a coincidence isn't backed up by anything. There's clearly an inverse correlation with gun prevalence and homicide rates, but this data on its own is insufficient to claim a causal relationship. That is, it could very much be a coincidence, literally.
Ironically, Finland has 50% more guns per capita than Canada does, but only half of the homicides per capita as well. If Canada increases the presence of guns by 50%, they can save 35000 lives per year. Right, it's not worth the millions in dollars in gun sales gained. God forbid the gun enthusiasm is promoted to save a few lives.
Or are you suggesting that Finland has some wars going on in their backyard?
Given the rise in violence
Violent crime has been falling for decades if not centuries. Levels of violent crime are at historic lows, and continue to plummet.
That's a great link. Great in terms of how misleading it is.
Are you concerned with people being killed by guns? Or are you concerned with victims of mass shootings? Because those are two different things.
An overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated by inner city gangs using illegally possessed handguns. Of course, all those fantastic charts would have you believe the opposite, suggesting that "Killer Obtained Weapons Legally" nearly 80% of the time, until you read "Mass shootings in US, 1982-2012" in the smaller-text subheading. Is this representative of gun crime in general? Of course not. But who cares about gun crime in general. After all, the victims of gun crime are disproportionately minorities. Inner city minorities, not suburban whites. Their stories don't end up on the evening news for weeks on end. You don't care about them, you care about the victims of mass shootings, who account for a fraction of a percent of all gun crime victims.
So yes, you're right. By limiting magazine sizes, we might be able to limit the death toll when it comes to these highly publicized but statistically insignificant mass murders. What you overlook is that this wouldn't have any measurable impact on the gun crime rate in this country. What's different in Canada is that you don't have a Chicago, you don't have a Detroit, you don't have a Camden, you don't have a Newark. You don't have bloods, you don't have crips, you don't have latin kings, all engaged in turf wars. You don't have a culture that glorifies street thugs. But sure, it's the 5 round magazine restriction that keeps you safe. Everyone knows you need more than 5 rounds to kill someone. Explain to me why places like Chicago and New York City have both a "0 round magazine" restriction (guns are effectively illegal there) and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.
An overwhelming majority of gun crime in this country is committed with handguns. Not M16s or AK47s or M134s, but plain old handguns. I suppose handguns just don't look scary enough to warrant regulation though.
And that's relevant because making illegal guns more illegal will stop their involvement in crime?
Oh, the AK47. The same one that was virtually banned in 1934 and then subject to a de facto ban in 1986? If you want to buy a full automatic firearm today, legally, it must have been manufactured prior to 1986. That means there's a finite (and constantly decreasing) number of such weapons. That means that for a barely functioning "machine gun", you'll be spending upwards of $10,000 on the gun alone. Of course, you'll also be jumping over endless legal hurdles along the way. And that's if the state you live in even lets you have a machine gun. My state of residence, NJ, does allow them in theory. All you've gotta do is convince a judge that you need one. To date, zero people have succeeded in convincing a judge.
So, serious question: what new laws would you like to propose that will keep these AK47s out of the hands of crazies better than the existing laws do?
Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
Many scholars also believe the commandment applies to the casual use of God's name in interjections and curses (blasphemy).
I was really hoping for a citation here, or at least a bit more background on why many scholars believe this. Their belief is a marked departure from the literal (and even less-than-literal) translation, and no justification is provided for it. Also fascinating is:
To avoid coming under guilt by accidentally misusing God's name, Jewish scholars do not write or pronounce the proper name in most circumstances, but use substitutes such as "Adonai (the Lord)," or "HaShem (the Name)."
I've noticed this personally, and I imagine similar reasoning underlies the Christian usage of "G-d". To me, this approach suggests that God is easily fooled by trivial omissions and simple substitutions, and accomplishes the very opposite of the intended purpose. Instead of sanctifying the name of God by actually using it in a sacred way, isn't God being lowered to the level of a small child? Earmuffs! Additionally, this would suggest that the Abrahamic God doesn't take mens rea into account, as believers are even concerned about accidental, unintentional violations of this commandment.
One of the first commandments listed by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah is the responsibility to sanctify God's name. Maimonides thought the commandment should be taken as generally as possible, and therefore he considered it forbidden to mention God's name unnecessarily at any time.
This I just don't understand. Is avoidance generally considered tantamount to sanctification? If avoiding unnecessary usage God's name sanctifies it, does my avoidance of unnecessary attendance at houses of worship similarly sanctify them? Unfortunately, the reference provided for this is simply the Kaddish, which is just a Hebrew prayer exalting the name of God.
Overall a fascinating read, but I'm still left with more questions than answers. Thanks for the link!
I always wondered about that whole "taking in vain" part. I don't mean to question your explanation, but do you have any references that elaborate on this point, or to detail the etymology of the expression? I've always felt that Christians considered expressions like "Jesus fucking Christ!" and "God damn it!" to be valid examples of "taking in vain", although I don't see how they could be considered "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion". It's not like one is misrepresenting the Christian idea of God when they utter "God damn", since the idea of damnation by God is written of in the Christian Bible itself. "Jesus fucking Christ" isn't even a statement so much as an interjection, so similarly I don't see how it qualifies as "taking in vain" according to your explanation. I'm not sure what the etymology of the "taking in vain" expression is, but I always understood doing something "in vain" as somewhat synonymous with doing something in a futile manner. That is, to no effect. Now, wouldn't invoking God's name "in vain" be solely up to God himself? That is, if you cry out to God for help, and your cry is in vain, isn't that only the case because God has chosen not to heed your cries? How are you to know in advance if your cry will be in vain or if it will actually be answered?
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist that harbors a genuine academic curiosity about religion.
Number of jobs per widget is an irrelevant measure unless it is related to profitability
Oh you "but it's not a zero sum game!" people. Basic math escapes you because it is "too simplistic". First of all, number of jobs per widget is also relevant if we're talking about jobs, which we are. If today X people are needed to make Y widgets, and tomorrow we only need X-n people to make Y widgets, that means that there are n fewer jobs, necessarily. That these people are now free to do other jobs doesn't mean that those other jobs were somehow "created" when these people were freed up. That's quite a leap of logic there. Companies don't exist in a vacuum, but I didn't think we'd be analyzing the global economy in the scope of a single Slashdot thread. If you'd like to trace the ancillary effects of increased productivity at a single company through the entire global economy, be my guest. If you're the one claiming that basic math isn't applicable in a discussion of economics (and oh I know you're not the only one), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Until then, I'll remain convinced that one fewer worker is indeed one fewer worker.
It's called productivity and it is a Good Thing.
Thank you for supporting what I said. Since we're in agreement, your combative tone is perhaps unwarranted.
Fewer employees in a more profitable larger company is not a bad thing and in the real world a big increase in productivity is also usually accompanied by a big increase in overall company growth, including employment.
You handwave like a Jedi. Impressive. Again, I appreciate you agreeing with me in saying that fewer employees is not a bad thing. Work sucks, that's why you get paid to do it. However, merely claiming that layoffs are usually accompanied by a big increase in employment is neither an intuitive argument nor the same as explaining the mechanism through which that might happen.
The jobs created might not be in the company that makes the product. Instead it might be with the distributor or retailer that sells it or the warehouse that stocks it or the materials supplier that provides the raw materials for it.
Because it's not like my post specifically called out how other jobs are created in the process. Are you just repeating what I said, but somehow under the impression that you're saying the opposite?
You've apparently never been in the back seat of an Audi TT.
There's less than a centimeter of leg room between the part of the seat that your ass goes on and the back of the seat in front of you. So yea, if your shins are about 1cm in diameter, you can actually sit in the back. Otherwise, you lay across the seats, or sit cross-legged. I honestly found the CRX's back "shelf" to be a much more comfortable seat. You just gotta watch your head when going over bumps (no worse than the TT though).
I think of it as being very very considerate. I don't plan on burdening the rest of society with endless medical bills on account of barely surviving a horrible wreck. It has been conclusively demonstrated that smokers, fat people, motorcycle riders, and people who don't wear seatbelts actually cost considerably less when it comes to healthcare. I suppose being considerate is stupid in a world full of greedy assholes though.
and to acquire money, most people need a job, menial or otherwise
How about, as a solution, we have the Federal Reserve continue to offer those awesome 0% loans. But instead of banks, the recipients of the loans can be ordinary unemployed citizens. And we can have the Fed keep printing more money (cue people mentioning that the Treasury does that, bla, bla) to loan them, indefinitely. Then upon death, those unemployed citizens can have their debt discharged, so they don't need to worry about paying back the government. The destruction of money (money starts its life as debt, right?) at that stage will keep hyperinflation in check.
Comment made in jest. But seriously, though.
Automation does not mean fewer jobs, it means different jobs and in the long run it means more jobs.
You're missing the point, and as an accountant, that's odd. Sure, you might be right in that it might actually mean more jobs. But it doesn't mean more jobs per widget (per month, or whatever). That wouldn't make financial sense. So you're right, instead of 5 guys carving 5 widgets out of wood, now you've got a highly automated factory, staffed by 10 guys. But they're producing millions of widgets. If the market demands millions of widgets, you're now meeting that demand by employing only 10 guys, instead of millions of guys. Granted, there is also 10 guys employed in designing these automation systems, and another 10 guys repairing these automation systems, and maybe 10 more guys doing something else that wouldn't need to be done in a world without all this technology. But the fact of the matter is, we need less people today to crank out a million widgets than we did yesterday. If that weren't the case, nobody would automate anything, and we'd go back to doing everything manually.
That being said, I agree that automation is a good thing. That freeing people from mind-numbing drudgery is a good thing. That it's a positive cycle. I disagree that it allows you to hire more people (per unit of production output). The issue is, since we require an ever-decreasing proportion of people to contribute productive work to meet market demand, we need to find a way of keeping people from starving and/or rioting when they can't find gainful employment. Unlike many other posters here, I don't believe creating busy-work for people is the optimal solution. I don't believe opposition to automation is the best way forward. But, similarly, you can't pretend that your factory of 10 employees is better in terms of "jobs" than a factory of 5 employees if your factory has 1000 times the productive output.
I never said "4.7%"
No, you didn't. The person who I was responding to did. Maybe you should learn to stay the fuck out of other people's conversations if you have nothing useful to contribute. I notice that your name doesn't appear on any of the posts in the entire message thread.
He didn't, but
But fuck off. Nobody's talking to you, and if you want contribute to the discussion, it would behoove you to understand the context. The context is that nobody had mentioned anything about 10 years, or past submissions to slashdot, or a history of mainstream media reporting. The context was Maudib claimed the US military budget was 4.7% of GDP, and my followup question regarding whether or not this included discretionary spending of a military nature.
being able to ballpark the spending on the war as well as the GDP does not make someone a budget wonk.
Can you ballpark what percentage of France's 2011 GDP went towards military spending in Libya? No? Then eat a dick.
Dude, chill the fuck out. What the fuck kind of amazing math are you doing with the single figure "4.7%"? Where the fuck did Maudib mention a 10 year term? We're not all budget wonks here, so excuse me for not being intimately familiar with your country's finances. I was just asking a fucking question. Thank you for your rant of a non-answer, you dick.