Sweden being "overrun" is a topic change. Lol, the hypocrisy. You're willing to change topics but not willing to accept that someone else can (and did).
But tell me again how after someone introduced a new topic that it is in fact not the topic. I love it when you talk crazy.
You're the proverbial pigeon, so there is no point in conversing with you any further.
He didn't say he was an alt-righter. I don't see anywhere you can infer it from either.
Writing "political correctness" and "snowflake" as a stab back to the right is too obvious - I don't know why people keep trying it. On top of that, you're not using either term correctly (since it has nothing to do with political correctness and you have no evidence of him being a snowflake).
Can you answer his question? Do you litmus test every product? I get the feeling you don't. As others have pointed out, you probably haven't and can't verify the story about Luckey either.
Once again, and for the last time, I was replying to a person who made a claim about Sweden in general. He/she did not reference "Sweden last night" in this part of the thread. You introduced "Sweden last night" even though it makes no sense in this particular part of the conversation. You are clearly introducing it to try and redirect away or lessen the importance of some facts about Sweden.
Just so you're not confused, here is the parent post "He never said terror attack. Sweden has been in non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day. But Sweden is just fine, right?". I addressed the middle sentence where some general claims that cover long periods of times are made. This is the conversation that is now being had. The topic has moved away from "Sweden last night" into other territory. Conversations tend to do this, its time for you to get used to it.
You are off topic. There are three claims being made. They are either true or not. It doesn't matter who is president of the USA and whether they know Sweden even exists or not. There are three claims before you. You can prove them true or not.
It's better if you read the thread thoroughly before you reply to me. If you don't know how the reply nesting works, please learn. It's annoying but not that hard.
An Anonymous Coward above made three allegations, that Sweden has been in "non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day".
I provided a link to test one of these three allegations. I never made any claims.
The article talks of a senator making an allegation. By American law it is untrue until they prove it otherwise.
None of us know how many phones he has. He might have any arbitrary number of phones. Unless someone has proof about the exact amount of phones he has any talk about it is useless conjecture.
It sickens me to see so many people talk about an allegation as if the defendant is guilty until proven innocent (proven in court or a senate hearing committee or some other official method - not by public opinion).
As far as my reading goes, the EC was designed with the current situation in mind. In that they can ignore BOTH the popular vote AND/OR the winning EC vote in favour of choosing who they think is the person best for the role.
I didn't suggest the EC should be forced to obey the will of the people (either popular or EC vote). I was pointing out that they can ignore the popular vote. It's part of their mandate. So there is as much merit in arguing that they should pick Stein as that they should pick Hillary or Trump.
Is it broken? To many people it's not broken. But almost everyone would agree it's not ideal. Name a system that is. There are levels of change that one can talk about. You could leave it as is. Tweak it. Massively overhaul it. Or even replace it.
My opinion is that a two-party preferred system similar to Australia's would better represent the people. It wipes out the EC in favour of direct election of representatives and senators with every vote counting. I'm unsure whether following the lead on compulsory voting is the right way, but it sure does seal the deal on what the people wanted.
But that's my opinion and it's not what America has now. Right now they've got the EC, and like it or leave it, unless they can convince a whole bunch of Republican EC delegates to vote a non-Republican ticket, they should save their breath.
"We should start the process of changing the constitution now".
One could readily interpret your original statement as others already have.
The popular vote system based on first over the line is not representative of the most popular candidate. This is solved with a preferential voting system.
Case in hand, if you'd used preferential voting, where would the 4,429,019 votes for Johnson, 1,403,558 to Stein, 559,853 to McMullin, and 1,282,470 other votes spill over to? There are enough votes here to change the results either way.
Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.
The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.
Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by which the loser measured as better is the same as complaining about the results of a football match because the loser had more yards gained / ball control / ball passes / whatever.
Back on topic. I thought we were over this hurdle. Jobs are meant to be earned on merit.
Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.
Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.
You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.
No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.
Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).
Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.
As above. The topic is clear. We are relating firearms to human fatalities, not the destruction of animals for food or pest purposes. And either way, hunting is a sport (culling pest animals is more of a job).
Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.
I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).
You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.
A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.
"the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more".
Data please.
I do take your point though.
And along the same lines, also with no data, the number of bullets fired in non-fatal usage of firearms per annum is many orders of magnitude higher than bullets fired that result in injury or death. This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.
Slashdot Mirror
Sweden being "overrun" is a topic change. Lol, the hypocrisy. You're willing to change topics but not willing to accept that someone else can (and did).
But tell me again how after someone introduced a new topic that it is in fact not the topic. I love it when you talk crazy.
You're the proverbial pigeon, so there is no point in conversing with you any further.
Nobody in this part of the thread is disputing that Trump said something along the lines of "...Sweden last night".
That's not the topic.
The topic is as I have specified above.
Address the topic at hand if you're capable of it.
Or you can try again to say something along the lines of "but Trump said 'Sweden last night'" and see how you look.
He didn't say he was an alt-righter. I don't see anywhere you can infer it from either.
Writing "political correctness" and "snowflake" as a stab back to the right is too obvious - I don't know why people keep trying it. On top of that, you're not using either term correctly (since it has nothing to do with political correctness and you have no evidence of him being a snowflake).
Can you answer his question? Do you litmus test every product? I get the feeling you don't. As others have pointed out, you probably haven't and can't verify the story about Luckey either.
Try harder.
Lol. Some people. You're getting pretty boring.
Once again, and for the last time, I was replying to a person who made a claim about Sweden in general. He/she did not reference "Sweden last night" in this part of the thread. You introduced "Sweden last night" even though it makes no sense in this particular part of the conversation. You are clearly introducing it to try and redirect away or lessen the importance of some facts about Sweden.
Just so you're not confused, here is the parent post "He never said terror attack. Sweden has been in non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day. But Sweden is just fine, right?". I addressed the middle sentence where some general claims that cover long periods of times are made. This is the conversation that is now being had. The topic has moved away from "Sweden last night" into other territory. Conversations tend to do this, its time for you to get used to it.
You are off topic. There are three claims being made. They are either true or not. It doesn't matter who is president of the USA and whether they know Sweden even exists or not. There are three claims before you. You can prove them true or not.
It's better if you read the thread thoroughly before you reply to me. If you don't know how the reply nesting works, please learn. It's annoying but not that hard.
An Anonymous Coward above made three allegations, that Sweden has been in "non stop mass rape and grenade attacks for years, riots almost every day".
I provided a link to test one of these three allegations. I never made any claims.
"So it's about making unfounded conclusions from big data sets"
Lets look at the syllabus. http://callingbullshit.org/syl...
I don't draw the same conclusion as you. Do you still hold the same conclusion?
I believe "Age of Big Data" is just a catchy title.
'"Good chance" != "Absolute certainty"'
I'm pretty sure he knows that, and that's specifically why he wrote "good chance".
"there's a good chance"
Did you miss this bit? He didn't say it would definitively be a "shitty opinion", but that it had a "good chance" of being a shitty opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Judge for yourself on one of his three allegations and then report back to us.
The article talks of a senator making an allegation. By American law it is untrue until they prove it otherwise.
None of us know how many phones he has. He might have any arbitrary number of phones. Unless someone has proof about the exact amount of phones he has any talk about it is useless conjecture.
It sickens me to see so many people talk about an allegation as if the defendant is guilty until proven innocent (proven in court or a senate hearing committee or some other official method - not by public opinion).
Fucking "keenwah".
http://www.aukihenry.com/2015/...
There you go. It'll still taste like cardboard balls even though you can now pronounce it correctly.
Fair enough. I do that often enough as well.
If you get a chance check out Australia's preferential voting system.
There are a sources saying that this is the purpose of the EC. I have no reason to doubt them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.historycentral.com/...
As far as my reading goes, the EC was designed with the current situation in mind. In that they can ignore BOTH the popular vote AND/OR the winning EC vote in favour of choosing who they think is the person best for the role.
I didn't suggest the EC should be forced to obey the will of the people (either popular or EC vote). I was pointing out that they can ignore the popular vote. It's part of their mandate. So there is as much merit in arguing that they should pick Stein as that they should pick Hillary or Trump.
Is it broken? To many people it's not broken. But almost everyone would agree it's not ideal. Name a system that is. There are levels of change that one can talk about. You could leave it as is. Tweak it. Massively overhaul it. Or even replace it.
My opinion is that a two-party preferred system similar to Australia's would better represent the people. It wipes out the EC in favour of direct election of representatives and senators with every vote counting. I'm unsure whether following the lead on compulsory voting is the right way, but it sure does seal the deal on what the people wanted.
But that's my opinion and it's not what America has now. Right now they've got the EC, and like it or leave it, unless they can convince a whole bunch of Republican EC delegates to vote a non-Republican ticket, they should save their breath.
So really you meant to say:
"We should start the process of changing the constitution now".
One could readily interpret your original statement as others already have.
The popular vote system based on first over the line is not representative of the most popular candidate. This is solved with a preferential voting system.
Case in hand, if you'd used preferential voting, where would the 4,429,019 votes for Johnson, 1,403,558 to Stein, 559,853 to McMullin, and 1,282,470 other votes spill over to? There are enough votes here to change the results either way.
Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.
The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.
Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by which the loser measured as better is the same as complaining about the results of a football match because the loser had more yards gained / ball control / ball passes / whatever.
Back on topic. I thought we were over this hurdle. Jobs are meant to be earned on merit.
I.
Lol, typo.
Should read "I didn't 'think that'".
Please excuse how my replies got lumped at the bottom. They reply to you in the order your comments appear.
Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.
Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.
You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.
No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.
Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).
Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.
As above. The topic is clear. We are relating firearms to human fatalities, not the destruction of animals for food or pest purposes. And either way, hunting is a sport (culling pest animals is more of a job).
Please stop conflating things.
Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.
I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).
You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.
A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.
The Apple standard end user license that you agree to when using their devices and software holds them not liable for offensive content.
http://images.apple.com/legal/...
"the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more".
Data please.
I do take your point though.
And along the same lines, also with no data, the number of bullets fired in non-fatal usage of firearms per annum is many orders of magnitude higher than bullets fired that result in injury or death. This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.
Are you afraid of guns?
ETSA don't exist anymore. It's SA Power Networks now.