errata: I said DC is 10 square miles. That's incorrect. It's actually a square 10 miles on a side, a large chunk of which was eventually returned to Virginia long ago. DC is 68.3 square miles which makes it 0.00179% of the US land area.
There are no references in the article to substantiate their claim of being 15x more likely to get shot in the US than Australia, but seeing as they "made a sharp turn away from the gun culture in 1996", Australia must have been a mighty rough place at one time. It's still almost a rounding error away from the claimed US "getting shot" per capita rate today.
You know, nobody is happy with any of this. Who has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Switzerland.
Mexico has a high rate of deaths by gunfire, higher than the US, even though all guns are illegal in Mexico. Banning guns nationally isn't really working out for them.
It appears that armed citizens have a higher survival rate than disarmed citizens left as victims to those who follow no laws. Singapore has a low crime rate due to their system of immediate corporal punishment for offenses which Americans would receive a parole sentence. Anyone who opens fire during a crime and is caught is quickly tried and executed in Singapore. Same goes for narcotics offenders. That doesn't happen in the US, so here we are with gun toting criminals on the street in some places.
Bottom line is I agree with the dangers of getting shot in the US, but more than half of the death rate by gunfire is people shooting themselves in the head. The other consideration is regional if you're filtering by intentional homicide. The largest danger comes from a small sliver of regions and subcultures within the US. If you walk into a narcotics driven badland, you're more likely to be harmed.
Murder Capital of the US is the DIstrict of Columbia. It's just 10 square miles of the US (out of 3.79 million) and practically all of the deaths are narcotics related. I've lived right outside of DC for 35 years and work in DC. Know it well. I've never heard gunfire. Must be because the crack houses are the old solid masonry row houses. So, 0.000264% of the US is the most dangerous. Next is Puerto Rico (3435 square miles or 0.00214% of the US) and below that is Louisiana. Most of the crime in Louisiana is centered on four cities. I won't speculate here why their crime rate is high because... hmmm... I can't even say that. Those three areas of the US, one of which isn't even on the mainland, make up for a huge chunk of the overall statistic leaving the rest of the US relatively safe - except for a few areas rife with narcotics traffic. The Northern Territory of Australia is worse than about half of the US. Even New Jersey is safer than the Northern Territory.
the likelihood of being shot in the US is 10X more per capita than in Australia.
Gawd, talk about bending facts around!
Population of Australia as of 23 July 2012 at 01:47:58 PM (Canberra time): 22,678,733 Population of USA as of 23 July 2012 at 11:48:59 PM EST: 314,004,363
Seeing as there are 13.845 time as many capitas in the US as there are in Australia, it seems it's MORE likely to be shot (per capita) in Australia than the US.
Well, this is only Slashdot where everyone gets to pick which parts they wish to believe and berate the rest. That was a real newspaper article about the time I was in High School (1970-ish). I don't care if you don't believe it.
Denver is/was (some dispute with the State Courts) an "open carry" municipality, meaning you can have a gun strapped to your side as long as it's not concealed. All of that is in flux with the courts, so I don't know in what condition that rule is in currently (I don't live there). Colorado apparently leaves it up to the municipalities to post on specific establishments whether a firearm is legal (establishments which serve alcohol etc).
America isn't any more dangerous than most places. More people are killed by a lot of other things every year than guns. Nobody says we should ban cars on the road, even though there are about 30,000 deaths a year because of them. I saw a stat that said more people are killed by pigs every year than guns - but the bacon is worth the risk.
Apparently they don't worry much about the gun nuts. Surprising in Colorado that nobody returned fire.
I wish I could find a reference to this, but I read a newspaper article long ago about a guy in Italy who boarded a city bus and drew a gun on the driver trying to rob him. Eleven out of the seventeen people on the bus drew pistols and shot the guy. If anyone has guns, everyone should.
That's really the crux of the issue. It's much easier for someone else to do all the engineering and hard work it takes to create an experience that nobody ever had - and copy it at a fraction of the cost. That goes for "Hassalblad" cameras and "Rolodex" watches. They've got no skin in the game except the expense of pulling molds off the original. In the US, they arrest people for having Louis Vuitton or Gucci knockoff hand bags. By that measure, Samsung qualifies. So does Hyundai but we can't see past the acquisition price. No doubt, they make really good ripoffs,but we bear (or submerge) the guilt of ripping off the originator when we buy it. Of course it's a good value, even if it lasts half as long.
I wanted new shoes over there and the local shoe shop in Itaewon handed me a Sears catalog. A real one. I pointed to the shoes I wanted and they had them custom made the NEXT DAY for 10% of the Sears price. Can't resist supporting that.
I have that Top Gear episode. Love that series. The real one.
One way to spin it: "OUR MISTAKE! Sorry, but the Samsung tablet is NOTHING like the iPad. Nothing at all. If you can find any similarities in the two products, they would merely be a coincidence. That's what we get for buying components from Samsung. Who knew they were already going to make a tablet and we're just using their parts? That's why the parts were so cheap - they were already making them. It was us who was late to the game. Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad. Totally different. The Galaxy Tab is actually more similar to the other dozen counterfeit iPads... er... original tablet ideas independently developed a year or two later on the market today."
I spent over a year in Korea and they fucking copy EVERYTHING. Ever notice how the entire lineup of Hyundai copycat cars make you do a double take? There's one that looks like a BMW, a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Bentley... you name it, they copy it. I almost bought a beautiful camera in Yongsan for an unbelievable price until I double checked the real spelling of Hasselblad. Korea is home to the finest counterfeit luxury goods in the world. No surprise here. Move along.
I don't think he was reaching back to Gutenberg. He was probably referring to the inception of desktop publishing which was the death of all tasteful design and execution. Every office with one of those newfangled Macintosh things and a "Laser" (holding up quote fingers) printer would publish their own flyers using every stinking font they could come up with. It was ghastly and, yes, in public display on bookshelves. Oy! That went on for years until the paste-up and stat camera people gave way to designers not afraid to use a computer.
Forgot to mention... in place of all the former 3D stuff in this year's NAB booths was a whole bunch of 4K displays and camera technology. The commentary from onlookers was "wow, it looks 3D". Problem solved.
I'm not sure how many "potential buyers" there were to start with. In the TV/Movie business, it was the set manufacturers and Hollywood driving the whole thing, not customer demand. Set manufacturers needed to start selling everyone a new TV, even though they just bought one. Hollywood had a new gimmick to sell movies, which they've tried before and it didn't stick then either.
A few years ago at the NAB convention, you almost couldn't walk into a booth without being handed 3D glasses. The technologies were quite complex, like simply adding titles to any production, you now had to worry about the Z-space of the title. Camera settings were nuts to get the correct stereoptic convergence. Data storage and plant bandwidth demands went up. Displays looked dull because you had those stupid sunglasses on. You couldn't use today's common production techniques with rapid shot changes, camera angles, closeups mixed with medium shots, things going on and off screen - your eyeballs would unscrew and fall out of your head within minutes. It was headache inducing and everyone knew it.
Back in the 1950s when the first popular run of 3D movies happened, the production was very different - more like a relatively static camera shooting a stage where the actors performed. The only current content creators starting to use 3D were either trying to differentiate themselves or trying to not appear left behind.
The last NAB convention was very different. It was clear that 3D was swept into the back corner. It's still around if you want it, but they're done. When it comes back again, the displays will need to be much better and not require glasses, nor will the glasses-free displays require you to stand still in one of the 18 lanes which give you proper stereoptic perception.
True, dat. It just seemed that the origins were being misrepresented as coming from IBM when saying "actual etymology". They certainly popularized the term PC as a trademark but the actual meaning covers all "personal computers". I just had a bad reaction to "actual".
Am I trotting out geeky pedantry? It's a lot to ask on Slashdot, but if someone is going to quote "It has an actual etymology", it should at least be somewhat accurate or cite references. To put "PC" in a trade name was a brilliant marketing move. IBM co-opted and immediately owned the application of a catchy abbreviation already in common use, but they didn't make it up.
Wrong. You do know that "PC" stands for "Personal Computer", yes? The first deliberate use of the term I can find referred to the Altair 8800 around 1975. Apple used "Personal Computer" in their Apple II print ads in 1977, years before the IBM PC came out. Earlier than that, the very first "Apple Computer" was "the First Low Cost Microcomputer System with a Video Terminal and 8K Bytes of RAM on a Single PC Card". That, of course, referred to the printed circuit card.
I guess after "a better likelihood that Google could pull it off", you missed the line "despite all evidence to the contrary". I don't think they can execute much of anything except invade your privacy.
Are they good now? Xbox was so shaky for so long - defective hardware, not selling well, betting [poorly] on HD-DVD - good for them they stuck with it. The Kinect came from PrimeSense in Israel. Otherwise... mice and keyboards.
Nobody's said the same about Google because there's a better likelihood that Google could pull it off, despite all evidence to the contrary. Microsoft has already proven time and again their hardware prowess lies in making keyboards and mice.
Yeah... a freak - but we keep combing through his rants for those little notions that ring true. They're obtuse truths most of the time and you don't have to agree with a bit of it, but it's an interesting perspective. Let's hope it was an open source malady.
The Germans have their Air Force Tactical Training Center in New Mexico for their fighter pilots. In fact, the German Air Force and other NATO pilots were flying CAP around our country while we were running around like idiots after 9/11.
As far as bombing random Afghans - I don't like it. We're shooting at the specific people in Afghanistan (mostly foreigners) who have been trying to get the attention of our military for YEARS and finally succeeded. Leave them alone and they'll be right back over here.
It doesn't exist anymore on the Internet, but recall reading a piece on the Norton web site that stated there were 40 viruses for the Mac (OS 9). That was in 1998 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
OSX doesn't even have the touch amenities that Windows 7 does.
Haven't tried using multiple fingers on a MBP, Magic Mouse or Magic Trackpad yet?
errata: I said DC is 10 square miles. That's incorrect. It's actually a square 10 miles on a side, a large chunk of which was eventually returned to Virginia long ago. DC is 68.3 square miles which makes it 0.00179% of the US land area.
Here... let me help you with the speculation:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8502957/smaller-risk-of-getting-shot-in-australia
There are no references in the article to substantiate their claim of being 15x more likely to get shot in the US than Australia, but seeing as they "made a sharp turn away from the gun culture in 1996", Australia must have been a mighty rough place at one time. It's still almost a rounding error away from the claimed US "getting shot" per capita rate today.
You know, nobody is happy with any of this. Who has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Switzerland.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world.html
Mexico has a high rate of deaths by gunfire, higher than the US, even though all guns are illegal in Mexico. Banning guns nationally isn't really working out for them.
It appears that armed citizens have a higher survival rate than disarmed citizens left as victims to those who follow no laws. Singapore has a low crime rate due to their system of immediate corporal punishment for offenses which Americans would receive a parole sentence. Anyone who opens fire during a crime and is caught is quickly tried and executed in Singapore. Same goes for narcotics offenders. That doesn't happen in the US, so here we are with gun toting criminals on the street in some places.
Bottom line is I agree with the dangers of getting shot in the US, but more than half of the death rate by gunfire is people shooting themselves in the head. The other consideration is regional if you're filtering by intentional homicide. The largest danger comes from a small sliver of regions and subcultures within the US. If you walk into a narcotics driven badland, you're more likely to be harmed.
Here's a "List of countries by intentional homicide rate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Murder Capital of the US is the DIstrict of Columbia. It's just 10 square miles of the US (out of 3.79 million) and practically all of the deaths are narcotics related. I've lived right outside of DC for 35 years and work in DC. Know it well. I've never heard gunfire. Must be because the crack houses are the old solid masonry row houses. So, 0.000264% of the US is the most dangerous. Next is Puerto Rico (3435 square miles or 0.00214% of the US) and below that is Louisiana. Most of the crime in Louisiana is centered on four cities. I won't speculate here why their crime rate is high because... hmmm... I can't even say that. Those three areas of the US, one of which isn't even on the mainland, make up for a huge chunk of the overall statistic leaving the rest of the US relatively safe - except for a few areas rife with narcotics traffic. The Northern Territory of Australia is worse than about half of the US. Even New Jersey is safer than the Northern Territory.
Ok, enough.
the likelihood of being shot in the US is 10X more per capita than in Australia.
Gawd, talk about bending facts around!
Population of Australia as of 23 July 2012 at 01:47:58 PM (Canberra time): 22,678,733
Population of USA as of 23 July 2012 at 11:48:59 PM EST: 314,004,363
Seeing as there are 13.845 time as many capitas in the US as there are in Australia, it seems it's MORE likely to be shot (per capita) in Australia than the US.
Thanks for playing. Please try again.
Well, this is only Slashdot where everyone gets to pick which parts they wish to believe and berate the rest. That was a real newspaper article about the time I was in High School (1970-ish). I don't care if you don't believe it.
Denver is/was (some dispute with the State Courts) an "open carry" municipality, meaning you can have a gun strapped to your side as long as it's not concealed. All of that is in flux with the courts, so I don't know in what condition that rule is in currently (I don't live there). Colorado apparently leaves it up to the municipalities to post on specific establishments whether a firearm is legal (establishments which serve alcohol etc).
America isn't any more dangerous than most places. More people are killed by a lot of other things every year than guns. Nobody says we should ban cars on the road, even though there are about 30,000 deaths a year because of them. I saw a stat that said more people are killed by pigs every year than guns - but the bacon is worth the risk.
Apparently they don't worry much about the gun nuts. Surprising in Colorado that nobody returned fire.
I wish I could find a reference to this, but I read a newspaper article long ago about a guy in Italy who boarded a city bus and drew a gun on the driver trying to rob him. Eleven out of the seventeen people on the bus drew pistols and shot the guy. If anyone has guns, everyone should.
Let me Google that for you:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/feds-in-nj-26-arrests-made-in-325-million-counterfeit-goods-operation/
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/suspects-arrested-in-counterfeit-purse-operation/
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/14950996/2011/06/21/3-accused-of-selling-counterfeit-nikes-gucci?clienttype=printable
http://gucci.ezinemark.com/replica-gucci-handbags-low-quality-product-for-fashion-7d35cb4db7aa.html
Mostly about selling, but "...you could get yourself arrested, if you are spotted buying counterfeits."
This is only America, you know.
Correct.
That's really the crux of the issue. It's much easier for someone else to do all the engineering and hard work it takes to create an experience that nobody ever had - and copy it at a fraction of the cost. That goes for "Hassalblad" cameras and "Rolodex" watches. They've got no skin in the game except the expense of pulling molds off the original. In the US, they arrest people for having Louis Vuitton or Gucci knockoff hand bags. By that measure, Samsung qualifies. So does Hyundai but we can't see past the acquisition price. No doubt, they make really good ripoffs,but we bear (or submerge) the guilt of ripping off the originator when we buy it. Of course it's a good value, even if it lasts half as long.
I wanted new shoes over there and the local shoe shop in Itaewon handed me a Sears catalog. A real one. I pointed to the shoes I wanted and they had them custom made the NEXT DAY for 10% of the Sears price. Can't resist supporting that.
I have that Top Gear episode. Love that series. The real one.
One way to spin it: "OUR MISTAKE! Sorry, but the Samsung tablet is NOTHING like the iPad. Nothing at all. If you can find any similarities in the two products, they would merely be a coincidence. That's what we get for buying components from Samsung. Who knew they were already going to make a tablet and we're just using their parts? That's why the parts were so cheap - they were already making them. It was us who was late to the game. Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad. Totally different. The Galaxy Tab is actually more similar to the other dozen counterfeit iPads... er... original tablet ideas independently developed a year or two later on the market today."
I spent over a year in Korea and they fucking copy EVERYTHING. Ever notice how the entire lineup of Hyundai copycat cars make you do a double take? There's one that looks like a BMW, a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Bentley... you name it, they copy it. I almost bought a beautiful camera in Yongsan for an unbelievable price until I double checked the real spelling of Hasselblad. Korea is home to the finest counterfeit luxury goods in the world. No surprise here. Move along.
I don't think he was reaching back to Gutenberg. He was probably referring to the inception of desktop publishing which was the death of all tasteful design and execution. Every office with one of those newfangled Macintosh things and a "Laser" (holding up quote fingers) printer would publish their own flyers using every stinking font they could come up with. It was ghastly and, yes, in public display on bookshelves. Oy! That went on for years until the paste-up and stat camera people gave way to designers not afraid to use a computer.
Forgot to mention... in place of all the former 3D stuff in this year's NAB booths was a whole bunch of 4K displays and camera technology. The commentary from onlookers was "wow, it looks 3D". Problem solved.
I'm not sure how many "potential buyers" there were to start with. In the TV/Movie business, it was the set manufacturers and Hollywood driving the whole thing, not customer demand. Set manufacturers needed to start selling everyone a new TV, even though they just bought one. Hollywood had a new gimmick to sell movies, which they've tried before and it didn't stick then either.
A few years ago at the NAB convention, you almost couldn't walk into a booth without being handed 3D glasses. The technologies were quite complex, like simply adding titles to any production, you now had to worry about the Z-space of the title. Camera settings were nuts to get the correct stereoptic convergence. Data storage and plant bandwidth demands went up. Displays looked dull because you had those stupid sunglasses on. You couldn't use today's common production techniques with rapid shot changes, camera angles, closeups mixed with medium shots, things going on and off screen - your eyeballs would unscrew and fall out of your head within minutes. It was headache inducing and everyone knew it.
Back in the 1950s when the first popular run of 3D movies happened, the production was very different - more like a relatively static camera shooting a stage where the actors performed. The only current content creators starting to use 3D were either trying to differentiate themselves or trying to not appear left behind.
The last NAB convention was very different. It was clear that 3D was swept into the back corner. It's still around if you want it, but they're done. When it comes back again, the displays will need to be much better and not require glasses, nor will the glasses-free displays require you to stand still in one of the 18 lanes which give you proper stereoptic perception.
True, dat. It just seemed that the origins were being misrepresented as coming from IBM when saying "actual etymology". They certainly popularized the term PC as a trademark but the actual meaning covers all "personal computers". I just had a bad reaction to "actual".
Who let the English Majors in here?
Am I trotting out geeky pedantry? It's a lot to ask on Slashdot, but if someone is going to quote "It has an actual etymology", it should at least be somewhat accurate or cite references. To put "PC" in a trade name was a brilliant marketing move. IBM co-opted and immediately owned the application of a catchy abbreviation already in common use, but they didn't make it up.
Wrong. You do know that "PC" stands for "Personal Computer", yes? The first deliberate use of the term I can find referred to the Altair 8800 around 1975. Apple used "Personal Computer" in their Apple II print ads in 1977, years before the IBM PC came out. Earlier than that, the very first "Apple Computer" was "the First Low Cost Microcomputer System with a Video Terminal and 8K Bytes of RAM on a Single PC Card". That, of course, referred to the printed circuit card.
I guess after "a better likelihood that Google could pull it off", you also missed "despite all evidence to the contrary".
I guess after "a better likelihood that Google could pull it off", you missed the line "despite all evidence to the contrary". I don't think they can execute much of anything except invade your privacy.
Are they good now? Xbox was so shaky for so long - defective hardware, not selling well, betting [poorly] on HD-DVD - good for them they stuck with it. The Kinect came from PrimeSense in Israel. Otherwise... mice and keyboards.
Nobody's said the same about Google because there's a better likelihood that Google could pull it off, despite all evidence to the contrary. Microsoft has already proven time and again their hardware prowess lies in making keyboards and mice.
Yeah... a freak - but we keep combing through his rants for those little notions that ring true. They're obtuse truths most of the time and you don't have to agree with a bit of it, but it's an interesting perspective. Let's hope it was an open source malady.
The Germans have their Air Force Tactical Training Center in New Mexico for their fighter pilots. In fact, the German Air Force and other NATO pilots were flying CAP around our country while we were running around like idiots after 9/11.
As far as bombing random Afghans - I don't like it. We're shooting at the specific people in Afghanistan (mostly foreigners) who have been trying to get the attention of our military for YEARS and finally succeeded. Leave them alone and they'll be right back over here.
It doesn't exist anymore on the Internet, but recall reading a piece on the Norton web site that stated there were 40 viruses for the Mac (OS 9). That was in 1998 or so.
Why would Bill Gates invest in Apple if Jobs admitted that Apple wouldn't survive long enough to win a patent lawsuit against MS anyway?
Because Apple was Microsoft's R&D Department.
You're right. No evidence. Supply make & model of your equipment and we'll see.