And make no mistake, being a white male in this society is like playing the game of life on the easiest setting
That's quite an assumption. I'm not claiming I've had a hard life, by any means, but it has not been without adversity. I don't simply assume that, based on someone's skin color or gender, they've had things any easier or harder than myself.
Hell a lot of people have a slight amount of drift in their steering even after an alignment.
Fixed that for you. And it's the truth, too. A lot of cars on the road today, the majority actually, lack camber adjustment in either the front or rear (sometimes both) and many only allow front toe-in/out adjustment. One pothole and that non-adjustable camber or rear toe is shot. According to the AC you're replying to, that car is now irreparably broken to the point of being unsafe to drive. I guess I can see that actually being true for 90% of drivers who shouldn't have a license in the first place.
Now, to really piss off that AC, I've once drove across the state of Ohio with a blown out brake line. On the freeway. At speed. I was no less safe than I'd have been with fully functional brakes, because I know how to handle my vehicle and I was still able to safely come to a stop from any speed. That's called being able to drive; a useful skill for those times when your perfectly functioning car suddenly ceases to be such at the worst possible time. Can you call a tow truck to stop you from ramming the car you're following too closely when they have to stop suddenly and your brakes decide, at that moment, to give out? No. And that's why people need to learn to control their vehicles, not just "how to drive", before we license them to drive on public roads. Knowing how to drive an obviously broken car is the first step toward knowing how to handle a suddenly broken car; not being able to do so is dangerous not just for you, but everybody else on the road.
It always kills me when someone thinks the shit they've been through is worse than any shit anyone else has ever been through. It's even worse when it's automatically assumed based on race, gender, sexual orientation, body type, or, well, really, anything other than a direct comparison of the shit two people have been through. Some people who just to happen not to be black, female, gay, or fat have been through some shit, too, y'know.
Say two people are self-taught software engineers. One male, one female, both of equal skill. Who had to overcome the most adversity to teach themselves the trade using resources available online and/or at their public library, which don't give a crap about gender? Okay, now one black and one white; remember, a website or library doesn't care about race either. One tall and one short? One fat and one skinny? One straight and one gay? The resources at hand still don't care. No, it's definitely right to judge them based on their actual qualifications for the job and let it fall to chance when two equally qualified candidates apply. To do it any other way simply shows bias and prejudice, which is exactly what people are complaining about right now; it's not suddenly right because it's going in the opposite direction.
For example, I think T-Mo has Nexus devices with proprietary WiFi calling added.
They do not. It's supposed to be coming shortly, but it will be a carrier app, not baked into the firmware. In fact, carrier apps are no longer supposed to be baked into the firmware in Lollipop (though carriers, I'm sure, are still doing this for non-Nexus devices). Instead, carrier apps are installed during the setup process, as normal apps that can be removed by the user. As a bonus, if you set up the phone without a SIM installed, it doesn't know which carrier's apps to install, so you get no carrier apps.
I like Android but my biggest gripe is not being in control of my own updates. When Apple announces a new OS everyone can get it. When Google announces a new OS you better pray you can get it a month later, and that the bug fix version won't be three months behind. That's if your device manufacturer even supports the update.
Another reason my current phone is a Nexus device.
It seems as though Google is testing the waters here, for a potential fix to this issue. Logical next steps include installing vendor binaries (launcher, lock screen, and other apps) during setup (hopefully we see this in Android M), then doing the same with drivers (requiring some basic compatibility modes in the hardware used, or some standard drivers to be included, to enable first boot and setup). At that point, Google will be able to update the OS separately from vendor and carrier apps and drivers, and vice-versa. That will be a huge benefit to users of non-Nexus devices; meanwhile, Nexus owners running Lollipop are already enjoying this.
also on this thread i learned that google's upgrade cycle is, at least de facto, 18 months
Except that the N4, released November 2012, got this update. 27 months and still supported. A damn sight better than Apple's support for the first-gen iPad paperweight I have sitting in a box, for sure. Their excuse is that the older hardware isn't capable of running the new OS; Google also used that excuse when they released Jellybean, but worked on the system requirements for KitKat so that those older devices were once again supported; Lollipop seems to be carrying on that tradition, as well.
But, of course, if hardware capability was a valid excuse for Apple to drop support for older hardware, shouldn't we allow Google to use it, as well?
Six of one, half dozen of the other, really. Decide which ecosystem you prefer and run with it. In my case, it's Android on the phone, iOS on the tablet, making me a daily user of both platforms and, therefore, qualified to compare them in this manner.
People will figure out they want control over their devices rather than buying new ones every couple years and just taking whatever setup comes with them.
The PC market has been heading in the opposite direction for as long as I can remember. What makes you think the mobile market will be any different?
Are we sure it's not that "Smoking Cannabis Instead Of Stydying Makes Students Less Likely To Pass University Courses"? That said, yeah, pot can wreak havoc on a developing brain, and you're not out of that phase until well into your 20's, so I could see this being a major issue for college aged habitual users. Of course, then, there are also studies showing that it's much easier to recall memories when you're in the same mental state as when you learned them, so it could also be that students who study high should also test high, but there are numerous other reasons not to do that, as well.
That's not how the Nexus line works. Nexus is vanilla Android direct from Google. Starting with Lollipop, they provide a small partition specifically for carrier apps and download the correct set of apps during initial setup, based on model and installed SIM; you can then delete the apps as they are not baked into the ROM, or, if you run the initial setup sans-SIM you get no carrier apps. It's also the reason the T-Mobile Nexus 6 doesn't (yet) have wi-fi calling while every other Android device they currently sell does.
As far as setup, use, and general operation, it's no different. It's a bog-standard ASUS router with a few firmware modifications. From what the tier 2 rep told me, it makes the IPSec connection to T-Mo's network directly, so when your phone is connected it it, it doesn't have to spend CPU cycles on IPSec. Also, since the tunnel is persistent, there is no additional setup time like you may experience with wi-fi calling on other routers.
Personally, I've become accustomed to GSM calls taking anywhere from 1-10sec to set up and I've never experienced a wi-fi call connecting any faster or slower than that, so I can't say whether or not that's actually the case.
That said, it's a very good router, seems to have no issues handling whatever traffic I pass it.
Starting this October, via a law that was signed in January, Michigan will start following many other states (like Texas, for example) in considering even one single employee, warehouse, or affiliate to be a legal presence. I don't entirely disagree with that, either, but it's a far cry from your claim that they have jurisdiction over entities with no presence there. If they already had that, they wouldn't need this law to redefine legal presence, would they?
And now, since you seem to follow me around for the sake of argument (which makes it personal)... I think it's cool that you realized that your birth-assigned gender was incorrect and took steps to correct the issue. I think it's great that you're open about it and wish our society was more accepting of people in your position. I honestly and truly admire the bravery it took to do what you did. That's where my respect for you stops. You're a bitch in pretty much every other respect and, it seems, even more vicious when you know you are wrong, as in this instance.
Seriously, just stop posting misinformation and made up shit in response to my comments here. Yes, I know I could simply stop responding when you do, but, you see, that would bi a disservice to my fellow Slashdotters, many of whom may not yet have realized just how mental you really are.
And yes, that's a personal attack. Remember, you fired first by following me around with the intention of starting this shit.
1) I've already posted the links elsewhere for New York (which you conveniently forgot about???), Ohio, and Michigan.
In this thread? No, that was Florida.
2) Your math (and "logic") still sucks - it's a "what if" scenario. Try to stick to the real world.
Except that we're discussing your hypothetical world in which every tax district in the world has jurisdiction over every other tax district.
Also - this other ridiculous claim of yours - "Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; " fails in the real world.
No, it doesn't, and you're about to see why...
Ever bring back goods through customs?
No, but my father in law is a customs agent and has been consulted in this matter.
Pass over your exemptions, you pay, even though the items were purchased in an area that has no jurisdiction over you.
That's a federal import duty, not sales tax, and you are being charged, not the seller who resides outside the borders of th government imposing the duty. That does not indicate that your local tax district has jurisdiction outside its own borers.If you did not pay sales tax on the item when you bought it and it happens to be something that would be taxable in your locality, you do still ow sales tax in your local tax district. That's right you owe it not the seller, and the seller can't get in trouble for not collecting it. Ever wonder why? Let me explain again: Because your local tax district has no jurisdiction over a seller outside its own borders.
And you can pay your tax, and get a refund from the area that taxed you
Again, it's a duty, and there's no such "world law" that requires every tax authority, everywhere, to refund your sales tax just because you had to pay a duty. But, since you gave this example:
(for example, you buy something in Canada and pay Canadian taxes on it, then pay taxes again at the US. Mail your receipts and proof of tax to the provincial tax authority and they will refund the tax paid)
Canada passed a law which only covers non-commercial transactions and only applies to certain goods. Also not that, as of the 1st of this month, refund requests of $2 or less will be denied. Also note that this policy only applies in Canada. It's likely that at least one other country does something similar, but that's that country's government making concessions in order to attract tourist money, not your local tax districts enforcing jurisdiction (which they don't have) to make them refund tax they charged that happened to overlap a federal duty amount you also had to pay.
The US also claims world-wide tax jurisdiction over Americans who haven't lived in the US for years. Now they're enforcing it by requiring banks in other countries to hand over financial information on customers who are US citizens.
You also claim you are correct on this matter. That doesn't make it so, no matter how much you might try to intimidate.
In short my principal disagreement is with any suggestion of a belief in superiority. I believe that to be a quite erroneous misrepresentation.
And the retired cop and dispatcher (a husband/wife team), as well as the customs agent (a relative of mine) disagree with you on that point. Again, it's not all cops, it's not even the ones I know, but a general observation they have made and relayed to me. I'm not even the one you're arguing with, here, and they aren't here to defend themselves.
I also reject the "on the job training" metaphor, another misrepresentation of things that has erroneous connotations attached.
It's not a metaphor, it's a reality. Unless... hold on... are you saying that cops stop learning once they hit the street?
The research would be easy, but time consuming (which is why I also will likely not be doing it. It's all good.
Also, you still have a lot of twos in your UID. I'll accept the off-topic moderation (though I didn't get it the first time), I just had to point that out again.
Google can be a source of objective data, but like I said black-on-white police shootings are more rare than white-on-black police shootings... naturally the latter will be more common on Google.
I meant to address this directly in my previous reply, but got caught up in my rant about racism in the media.
It's really simple to affirmatively rule out confirmation bias here. Simply gather a few dozen individual reports of different police shootings (if you want to get really nit-picky about it, find actual statistics on police shootings by race and try to keep your representative samples proportionate to that ratio) and sort them by the race of the officer, then by the race of the victim. Now, find as many different reports of each incident as you can. Who gets the most coverage? The white cop shooting the black guy.
As much as I enjoy a good racist joke once in a while, actual true racism disgusts me to no end so, I'll be happy to be proven wrong about this if you're up to the task.
I'm well aware of confirmation bias. It's not a matter of me feeling that black-on-white police violence is less reported than white-on-black, it's a matter of me having seen reports of white-on-black police violence make national headlines on numerous occasions, with program-interruption coverage, while having no recollection black-on-white police violence ever being reported in the same way.
If my argument were merely that a higher percentage of white-on-black incidents see national coverage and excessive fanfare than their black-on-white counter-incidents, I might be inclined to agree that confirmation bias is at play. Some -vs- none, however, can not be a result of confirmation bias. If the media isn't biased toward reporting white-on-black violence, you would expect the black-on-white stories to get the same fanfare as the white-on-black stories; perhaps even moreso, as there are fewer such stories to report on.
As I said, the reporting is the data. It's not like you need specialized lab equipment to gather and analyze it.
At the end of the day, it boils down to readership (for papers) and rating (for tv news). When a black cop shoots a white guy, nobody thinks twice; even white people assume he must have been breaking the law because (according to general consensus) white people don't generally have negative interactions with police otherwise. There are no eyeballs to be had by reporting those incidents with the same vigor as the racial-pot-stirring white-on-black incidents.
I'm not saying that's an accurate world view; in fact, I'm positively adamant that it is not, but the media knows what draws eyeballs and that's what they show us. I alluded to a possible ulterior motive (aside form gaming the ratings, that is) only because the ratings game doesn't entirely rule that out, either. Why would the media want to drum up racial tension when there are other, more effective and less destructive, ways of catching eyeballs?
Haven't seen any data on what? How heavily reported each incident is? The data is the reporting, itself. As a casual news follower, while I know that cops of all races shoot civilians of all races, I only know this through intuition because the events that get enough coverage to catch the eye of a casual new follower such as myself are always white-cop-black-victim. Yet a quick check of Google reveals that yes, reports of other shootings do exist, in the small papers and on the small affiliate stations in the localities where the shootings happened, but completely lacking any form of national coverage that we commonly see afforded to white-on-black police shootings, or to white-on-black shootings in general.
We're still not in disagreement here, no matter how much you think we are. Just because many officers are able to resist the on-the-job training (which defies their formal training in many ways) does not negate the fact that their interactions with the general public do, in a way, train them to have that mentality.
Saying that is not the same as saying all cops hold the belief that they are a superior race, or even that most do. It is true that the majority to hold to their formal training and reject the mindset the on-the-job training tries to impose. You even said it yourself, though in a roundabout way; the tendency is toward an us-vs-them mentality and it takes serious (and ongoing) formal training to prevent that tendency from taking hold.
This isn't an argument and it is no way intended to be disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. It's a mere statement of fact; the psychological stress of the job itself leads to that mentality in weaker and/or unstable individuals. Unfortunately, the screening process for becoming a cop doesn't do enough to weed those individuals out, and that's where the problem lies.
Keep in mind, I never claimed that cops received formal training teaching them that they are a superior race. Again, that's all the result of on-the-job interactions. It's also something you can't really see from the inside without serious and thoughtful introspection; if you don't want to see it, it won't appear, even if it's there. The cops who don't take the time to examine their mental state periodically and take necessary corrective measures are the exact ones who end up with the mentality I described, and they'll never know it happened because they simply aren't looking for it.
Which again, is why the formal training, as you said, warns of it.
The behavior doesn't manifest itself out of nowhere. It's learned, which, you guessed it, makes it entirely a training issue.
Oh? Ohio and Michigan require a shop in California to collect Ohio or Michigan sales tax when selling something to someone in Ohio or Michiga? I never heard of that in my 28 years living in those two states. I wonder how they enforce it.
My math was spot-on for the scenario you are arguing for. If you want to insist that every state has the right to make entities in other states collect tax on their behalf, that enables other states to decide they want to collect income tax from those sellers, as well. Tax jurisdiction covers all taxes, not just the ones that conveniently fit your argument. Follow?
Again it's not about the number of reported incidents, it's about hoe heavily each individual incident is reported. That is most certainly entirely within the media's control, and the fact is they report white-cop-black-victim shootings much more heavily. Unless you watch the news or read the paper daily, it's unlikely you'll hear about any other police shootings unless you actively seek them out.
Slashdot Mirror
And make no mistake, being a white male in this society is like playing the game of life on the easiest setting
That's quite an assumption. I'm not claiming I've had a hard life, by any means, but it has not been without adversity. I don't simply assume that, based on someone's skin color or gender, they've had things any easier or harder than myself.
Hell a lot of people have a slight amount of drift in their steering even after an alignment.
Fixed that for you. And it's the truth, too. A lot of cars on the road today, the majority actually, lack camber adjustment in either the front or rear (sometimes both) and many only allow front toe-in/out adjustment. One pothole and that non-adjustable camber or rear toe is shot. According to the AC you're replying to, that car is now irreparably broken to the point of being unsafe to drive. I guess I can see that actually being true for 90% of drivers who shouldn't have a license in the first place.
Now, to really piss off that AC, I've once drove across the state of Ohio with a blown out brake line. On the freeway. At speed. I was no less safe than I'd have been with fully functional brakes, because I know how to handle my vehicle and I was still able to safely come to a stop from any speed. That's called being able to drive; a useful skill for those times when your perfectly functioning car suddenly ceases to be such at the worst possible time. Can you call a tow truck to stop you from ramming the car you're following too closely when they have to stop suddenly and your brakes decide, at that moment, to give out? No. And that's why people need to learn to control their vehicles, not just "how to drive", before we license them to drive on public roads. Knowing how to drive an obviously broken car is the first step toward knowing how to handle a suddenly broken car; not being able to do so is dangerous not just for you, but everybody else on the road.
It always kills me when someone thinks the shit they've been through is worse than any shit anyone else has ever been through. It's even worse when it's automatically assumed based on race, gender, sexual orientation, body type, or, well, really, anything other than a direct comparison of the shit two people have been through. Some people who just to happen not to be black, female, gay, or fat have been through some shit, too, y'know.
Say two people are self-taught software engineers. One male, one female, both of equal skill. Who had to overcome the most adversity to teach themselves the trade using resources available online and/or at their public library, which don't give a crap about gender? Okay, now one black and one white; remember, a website or library doesn't care about race either. One tall and one short? One fat and one skinny? One straight and one gay? The resources at hand still don't care. No, it's definitely right to judge them based on their actual qualifications for the job and let it fall to chance when two equally qualified candidates apply. To do it any other way simply shows bias and prejudice, which is exactly what people are complaining about right now; it's not suddenly right because it's going in the opposite direction.
For example, I think T-Mo has Nexus devices with proprietary WiFi calling added.
They do not. It's supposed to be coming shortly, but it will be a carrier app, not baked into the firmware. In fact, carrier apps are no longer supposed to be baked into the firmware in Lollipop (though carriers, I'm sure, are still doing this for non-Nexus devices). Instead, carrier apps are installed during the setup process, as normal apps that can be removed by the user. As a bonus, if you set up the phone without a SIM installed, it doesn't know which carrier's apps to install, so you get no carrier apps.
I like Android but my biggest gripe is not being in control of my own updates. When Apple announces a new OS everyone can get it. When Google announces a new OS you better pray you can get it a month later, and that the bug fix version won't be three months behind. That's if your device manufacturer even supports the update.
Another reason my current phone is a Nexus device.
It seems as though Google is testing the waters here, for a potential fix to this issue. Logical next steps include installing vendor binaries (launcher, lock screen, and other apps) during setup (hopefully we see this in Android M), then doing the same with drivers (requiring some basic compatibility modes in the hardware used, or some standard drivers to be included, to enable first boot and setup). At that point, Google will be able to update the OS separately from vendor and carrier apps and drivers, and vice-versa. That will be a huge benefit to users of non-Nexus devices; meanwhile, Nexus owners running Lollipop are already enjoying this.
we're talking about bricking here
It's not like Apple has dome that recently or anything, is it?
also on this thread i learned that google's upgrade cycle is, at least de facto, 18 months
Except that the N4, released November 2012, got this update. 27 months and still supported. A damn sight better than Apple's support for the first-gen iPad paperweight I have sitting in a box, for sure. Their excuse is that the older hardware isn't capable of running the new OS; Google also used that excuse when they released Jellybean, but worked on the system requirements for KitKat so that those older devices were once again supported; Lollipop seems to be carrying on that tradition, as well.
But, of course, if hardware capability was a valid excuse for Apple to drop support for older hardware, shouldn't we allow Google to use it, as well?
Six of one, half dozen of the other, really. Decide which ecosystem you prefer and run with it. In my case, it's Android on the phone, iOS on the tablet, making me a daily user of both platforms and, therefore, qualified to compare them in this manner.
People will figure out they want control over their devices rather than buying new ones every couple years and just taking whatever setup comes with them.
The PC market has been heading in the opposite direction for as long as I can remember. What makes you think the mobile market will be any different?
But do you exploit them?
Yar, write two.
Are we sure it's not that "Smoking Cannabis Instead Of Stydying Makes Students Less Likely To Pass University Courses"? That said, yeah, pot can wreak havoc on a developing brain, and you're not out of that phase until well into your 20's, so I could see this being a major issue for college aged habitual users. Of course, then, there are also studies showing that it's much easier to recall memories when you're in the same mental state as when you learned them, so it could also be that students who study high should also test high, but there are numerous other reasons not to do that, as well.
Now unless you are speaking of JUST the Nexus branded device
The whole point of the Nexus branded devices
(your comment is tough to determine your intent)
Not for someone with reading comprehension...
That's not how the Nexus line works. Nexus is vanilla Android direct from Google. Starting with Lollipop, they provide a small partition specifically for carrier apps and download the correct set of apps during initial setup, based on model and installed SIM; you can then delete the apps as they are not baked into the ROM, or, if you run the initial setup sans-SIM you get no carrier apps. It's also the reason the T-Mobile Nexus 6 doesn't (yet) have wi-fi calling while every other Android device they currently sell does.
Let me guess... LG G3? If so, unfortunately, it won't solve the certificate error issue, at least in my experience.
As far as setup, use, and general operation, it's no different. It's a bog-standard ASUS router with a few firmware modifications. From what the tier 2 rep told me, it makes the IPSec connection to T-Mo's network directly, so when your phone is connected it it, it doesn't have to spend CPU cycles on IPSec. Also, since the tunnel is persistent, there is no additional setup time like you may experience with wi-fi calling on other routers.
Personally, I've become accustomed to GSM calls taking anywhere from 1-10sec to set up and I've never experienced a wi-fi call connecting any faster or slower than that, so I can't say whether or not that's actually the case.
That said, it's a very good router, seems to have no issues handling whatever traffic I pass it.
Also, you're wrong about New York. And Ohio. Oh, Michigan, too.
Starting this October, via a law that was signed in January, Michigan will start following many other states (like Texas, for example) in considering even one single employee, warehouse, or affiliate to be a legal presence. I don't entirely disagree with that, either, but it's a far cry from your claim that they have jurisdiction over entities with no presence there. If they already had that, they wouldn't need this law to redefine legal presence, would they?
And now, since you seem to follow me around for the sake of argument (which makes it personal)... I think it's cool that you realized that your birth-assigned gender was incorrect and took steps to correct the issue. I think it's great that you're open about it and wish our society was more accepting of people in your position. I honestly and truly admire the bravery it took to do what you did. That's where my respect for you stops. You're a bitch in pretty much every other respect and, it seems, even more vicious when you know you are wrong, as in this instance.
Seriously, just stop posting misinformation and made up shit in response to my comments here. Yes, I know I could simply stop responding when you do, but, you see, that would bi a disservice to my fellow Slashdotters, many of whom may not yet have realized just how mental you really are.
And yes, that's a personal attack. Remember, you fired first by following me around with the intention of starting this shit.
1) I've already posted the links elsewhere for New York (which you conveniently forgot about???), Ohio, and Michigan.
In this thread? No, that was Florida.
2) Your math (and "logic") still sucks - it's a "what if" scenario. Try to stick to the real world.
Except that we're discussing your hypothetical world in which every tax district in the world has jurisdiction over every other tax district.
Also - this other ridiculous claim of yours - "Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; " fails in the real world.
No, it doesn't, and you're about to see why...
Ever bring back goods through customs?
No, but my father in law is a customs agent and has been consulted in this matter.
Pass over your exemptions, you pay, even though the items were purchased in an area that has no jurisdiction over you.
That's a federal import duty, not sales tax, and you are being charged, not the seller who resides outside the borders of th government imposing the duty. That does not indicate that your local tax district has jurisdiction outside its own borers.If you did not pay sales tax on the item when you bought it and it happens to be something that would be taxable in your locality, you do still ow sales tax in your local tax district. That's right you owe it not the seller, and the seller can't get in trouble for not collecting it. Ever wonder why? Let me explain again: Because your local tax district has no jurisdiction over a seller outside its own borders.
And you can pay your tax, and get a refund from the area that taxed you
Again, it's a duty, and there's no such "world law" that requires every tax authority, everywhere, to refund your sales tax just because you had to pay a duty. But, since you gave this example:
(for example, you buy something in Canada and pay Canadian taxes on it, then pay taxes again at the US. Mail your receipts and proof of tax to the provincial tax authority and they will refund the tax paid)
Canada passed a law which only covers non-commercial transactions and only applies to certain goods. Also not that, as of the 1st of this month, refund requests of $2 or less will be denied. Also note that this policy only applies in Canada. It's likely that at least one other country does something similar, but that's that country's government making concessions in order to attract tourist money, not your local tax districts enforcing jurisdiction (which they don't have) to make them refund tax they charged that happened to overlap a federal duty amount you also had to pay.
The US also claims world-wide tax jurisdiction over Americans who haven't lived in the US for years. Now they're enforcing it by requiring banks in other countries to hand over financial information on customers who are US citizens.
You also claim you are correct on this matter. That doesn't make it so, no matter how much you might try to intimidate.
In short my principal disagreement is with any suggestion of a belief in superiority. I believe that to be a quite erroneous misrepresentation.
And the retired cop and dispatcher (a husband/wife team), as well as the customs agent (a relative of mine) disagree with you on that point. Again, it's not all cops, it's not even the ones I know, but a general observation they have made and relayed to me. I'm not even the one you're arguing with, here, and they aren't here to defend themselves.
I also reject the "on the job training" metaphor, another misrepresentation of things that has erroneous connotations attached.
It's not a metaphor, it's a reality. Unless... hold on... are you saying that cops stop learning once they hit the street?
We'll have to agree to disagree then, I suppose.
I want to say "Amen" to that, but I fear there may be consequences if I do.
The research would be easy, but time consuming (which is why I also will likely not be doing it. It's all good.
Also, you still have a lot of twos in your UID. I'll accept the off-topic moderation (though I didn't get it the first time), I just had to point that out again.
Google can be a source of objective data, but like I said black-on-white police shootings are more rare than white-on-black police shootings... naturally the latter will be more common on Google.
I meant to address this directly in my previous reply, but got caught up in my rant about racism in the media.
It's really simple to affirmatively rule out confirmation bias here. Simply gather a few dozen individual reports of different police shootings (if you want to get really nit-picky about it, find actual statistics on police shootings by race and try to keep your representative samples proportionate to that ratio) and sort them by the race of the officer, then by the race of the victim. Now, find as many different reports of each incident as you can. Who gets the most coverage? The white cop shooting the black guy.
As much as I enjoy a good racist joke once in a while, actual true racism disgusts me to no end so, I'll be happy to be proven wrong about this if you're up to the task.
I'm well aware of confirmation bias. It's not a matter of me feeling that black-on-white police violence is less reported than white-on-black, it's a matter of me having seen reports of white-on-black police violence make national headlines on numerous occasions, with program-interruption coverage, while having no recollection black-on-white police violence ever being reported in the same way.
If my argument were merely that a higher percentage of white-on-black incidents see national coverage and excessive fanfare than their black-on-white counter-incidents, I might be inclined to agree that confirmation bias is at play. Some -vs- none, however, can not be a result of confirmation bias. If the media isn't biased toward reporting white-on-black violence, you would expect the black-on-white stories to get the same fanfare as the white-on-black stories; perhaps even moreso, as there are fewer such stories to report on.
As I said, the reporting is the data. It's not like you need specialized lab equipment to gather and analyze it.
At the end of the day, it boils down to readership (for papers) and rating (for tv news). When a black cop shoots a white guy, nobody thinks twice; even white people assume he must have been breaking the law because (according to general consensus) white people don't generally have negative interactions with police otherwise. There are no eyeballs to be had by reporting those incidents with the same vigor as the racial-pot-stirring white-on-black incidents.
I'm not saying that's an accurate world view; in fact, I'm positively adamant that it is not, but the media knows what draws eyeballs and that's what they show us. I alluded to a possible ulterior motive (aside form gaming the ratings, that is) only because the ratings game doesn't entirely rule that out, either. Why would the media want to drum up racial tension when there are other, more effective and less destructive, ways of catching eyeballs?
Haven't seen any data on what? How heavily reported each incident is? The data is the reporting, itself. As a casual news follower, while I know that cops of all races shoot civilians of all races, I only know this through intuition because the events that get enough coverage to catch the eye of a casual new follower such as myself are always white-cop-black-victim. Yet a quick check of Google reveals that yes, reports of other shootings do exist, in the small papers and on the small affiliate stations in the localities where the shootings happened, but completely lacking any form of national coverage that we commonly see afforded to white-on-black police shootings, or to white-on-black shootings in general.
We're still not in disagreement here, no matter how much you think we are. Just because many officers are able to resist the on-the-job training (which defies their formal training in many ways) does not negate the fact that their interactions with the general public do, in a way, train them to have that mentality.
Saying that is not the same as saying all cops hold the belief that they are a superior race, or even that most do. It is true that the majority to hold to their formal training and reject the mindset the on-the-job training tries to impose. You even said it yourself, though in a roundabout way; the tendency is toward an us-vs-them mentality and it takes serious (and ongoing) formal training to prevent that tendency from taking hold.
This isn't an argument and it is no way intended to be disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. It's a mere statement of fact; the psychological stress of the job itself leads to that mentality in weaker and/or unstable individuals. Unfortunately, the screening process for becoming a cop doesn't do enough to weed those individuals out, and that's where the problem lies.
Keep in mind, I never claimed that cops received formal training teaching them that they are a superior race. Again, that's all the result of on-the-job interactions. It's also something you can't really see from the inside without serious and thoughtful introspection; if you don't want to see it, it won't appear, even if it's there. The cops who don't take the time to examine their mental state periodically and take necessary corrective measures are the exact ones who end up with the mentality I described, and they'll never know it happened because they simply aren't looking for it.
Which again, is why the formal training, as you said, warns of it.
The behavior doesn't manifest itself out of nowhere. It's learned, which, you guessed it, makes it entirely a training issue.
Oh? Ohio and Michigan require a shop in California to collect Ohio or Michigan sales tax when selling something to someone in Ohio or Michiga? I never heard of that in my 28 years living in those two states. I wonder how they enforce it.
My math was spot-on for the scenario you are arguing for. If you want to insist that every state has the right to make entities in other states collect tax on their behalf, that enables other states to decide they want to collect income tax from those sellers, as well. Tax jurisdiction covers all taxes, not just the ones that conveniently fit your argument. Follow?
Again it's not about the number of reported incidents, it's about hoe heavily each individual incident is reported. That is most certainly entirely within the media's control, and the fact is they report white-cop-black-victim shootings much more heavily. Unless you watch the news or read the paper daily, it's unlikely you'll hear about any other police shootings unless you actively seek them out.