The law wasn't approved in Spain because the opposing parties didn't support it, true, but that had little to do with wikileaks.
Most Spanish politicians simply ignore the whole wikileaks deal; they don't mention it, publicly, at all. I think many of them don't even understand what wikileaks is (besides the most obvious effects of exposing some of their dirty clothes to the public)
The lack of support happened because the opposing parties didn't get the benefits they wanted in other negotiations. It was a reprisal to the governing party, which proposed the law. It would have happened just the same without wikileaks.
It was one of those occasions in which the egoistical interests of a few benefited the many. Which is funny and sad at the same time.
If I was the email-reader, I'd just sue the beater saying that "He beats women".
So it would be an accusation of reading an email vs an accusation of beating a woman. The other parties will have much more to loose.
The other option would be to just plead guilty. Probably the judge will just give him a night behind bars or just let him go, if he's a first "offender".
Sorry, I didn't see your numbers - "sociologists" is plural, is that your data?
There're two ways to demonstrate this scientifically, given the number of factors:
* Equalize the US to Switzerland, in all possible ways. From the diet, to the climate, and of course the economy - and of course lowering the gun ownership ratio.
* Abolishing guns on the US for 10 years, and see how it goes.
I'm pretty sure (hey! this is also an hypothesis!) that the first method would decrease the violence rate. But it is kind of impractical.
The second one, on the other hand...
If you support your own claims, you should be defending prohibition, at least to see whether it works. For science.
You said that Switzerland and Sweden had "very high rates" of gun ownership, and then pointed out that they have low crime rates. The "height" of those rates, compared with US, is either half or one third. The rates are too different to apply the status to one end to the other. For example, it could happen that there's a "threshold" from which the crime rate dramatically starts increasing - say, 60%. To make a simile, 200mg of arsenic are lethal, but 5mg are not.
Then you said that UK had a "very high rates of violent crime and murder". I just pointed out that they were not that high, at least in the murder case, and specially compared with the US rates.
The law wasn't approved because of the usual reason - a couple groups (the nationalistic ones, I believe) didn't get the favors they wanted, so they boycotted the approval in retribution.
Even if congreso.es was down for a full day, I doubt these particular politicians would notice, unless the TV made a lot of fuss about it. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them didn't know the url.
I've not lived in China, but I traveled a lot through it last summer, for one month, moving from place to place every two days on average.
I can confirm first hand that the same websites that were unavailable in some regions were completely open (and even fast) on others. It seemed completely random - on big cities it changed from district to district.
Interestingly enough, I found less restrictions in rural areas (when there was any connectivity at all, it wasn't very firewalled).
Slashdot Mirror
The law wasn't approved in Spain because the opposing parties didn't support it, true, but that had little to do with wikileaks.
Most Spanish politicians simply ignore the whole wikileaks deal; they don't mention it, publicly, at all. I think many of them don't even understand what wikileaks is (besides the most obvious effects of exposing some of their dirty clothes to the public)
The lack of support happened because the opposing parties didn't get the benefits they wanted in other negotiations. It was a reprisal to the governing party, which proposed the law. It would have happened just the same without wikileaks.
It was one of those occasions in which the egoistical interests of a few benefited the many. Which is funny and sad at the same time.
It's exploiting them what gets you jail.
Are we really even considering taking those guys seriously?
It's probably all made-up.
Only a direct mind-computer link could.
If I was the email-reader, I'd just sue the beater saying that "He beats women".
So it would be an accusation of reading an email vs an accusation of beating a woman. The other parties will have much more to loose.
The other option would be to just plead guilty. Probably the judge will just give him a night behind bars or just let him go, if he's a first "offender".
Sorry, I didn't see your numbers - "sociologists" is plural, is that your data?
There're two ways to demonstrate this scientifically, given the number of factors:
* Equalize the US to Switzerland, in all possible ways. From the diet, to the climate, and of course the economy - and of course lowering the gun ownership ratio.
* Abolishing guns on the US for 10 years, and see how it goes.
I'm pretty sure (hey! this is also an hypothesis!) that the first method would decrease the violence rate. But it is kind of impractical.
The second one, on the other hand...
If you support your own claims, you should be defending prohibition, at least to see whether it works. For science.
In the meantime, the US still has the highest
Sounds like the 4096 CPUs guy:
http://xkcd.com/619/
I don't care how "good" a "libavcodec-based" player is if it doesn't play everything out-of-the box.
VLC has played everything I had, out of the box, in all the systems I've tested (Linux, Windows and Mac for now).
I want that on my Android.
You said that Switzerland and Sweden had "very high rates" of gun ownership, and then pointed out that they have low crime rates. The "height" of those rates, compared with US, is either half or one third. The rates are too different to apply the status to one end to the other. For example, it could happen that there's a "threshold" from which the crime rate dramatically starts increasing - say, 60%. To make a simile, 200mg of arsenic are lethal, but 5mg are not.
Then you said that UK had a "very high rates of violent crime and murder". I just pointed out that they were not that high, at least in the murder case, and specially compared with the US rates.
Really, do want.
urinated, swallowed, or both?
The single hypothesis I have made is that people bringing guns around are more afraid than people that don't.
For the rest, I was just providing contradicting data to hypothesis that you have formulated and I don't defend.
self-correction: Switzerland has a 46% gun rate so it is in the middle point between Spain and US.
Regarding Sweden & Switzerland, in those countries it's still 30 guns per 100 residents vs 90 per 100 residents in the US (data from 2007 - source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership).
Spain has 10 guns per 100 people - Sweden and Switzerland are actually closer to Spain than to the US on that regard.
Regarding UK, I just found this comparative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison
US has 5.5 homicides per 100k people, while UK has 1.4.
Data is from 2007 and 2000 respectively.
Not a single inch.
The law wasn't approved because of the usual reason - a couple groups (the nationalistic ones, I believe) didn't get the favors they wanted, so they boycotted the approval in retribution.
Even if congreso.es was down for a full day, I doubt these particular politicians would notice, unless the TV made a lot of fuss about it. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them didn't know the url.
"1. I disagree that doctors and electricity generation staff shouldn't be allowed (through criminal law) to strike. "
Tell it to me when your child needs an operation, the lights on the hospital go out and the doctor isn't to be found because he wants a bigger salary.
Spain sided with Hitler actually.
But yeah, there were plenty of guns in Spain on that time. And it was a time of terror, and neightbours killing each other.
Dude, the guy carrying a gun around is the one that is afraid.
And it's not just the Spanish people, it's pretty much the whole developed world. The US is the minority there.
"Regardless of whether it works or not in this day and age, that is the reason for the right"
Examining a right regardlessly is like commenting a dish tastelessly.
blahblahblah the Pope blahblahblah child abuse blahblah.
"How hardware works isn't computer science."
Of course. Everybody knows that computer chips are designed by elves. And then the chip manufacturing process is handed over to dwarves.
Yeah but where did the pig come from?
Where did the pig they had for lunch come from?
"Someone makes a buck and so they must be a god."
Well maybe not a god, but someone to imitate - if you are into buck making.
I've not lived in China, but I traveled a lot through it last summer, for one month, moving from place to place every two days on average.
I can confirm first hand that the same websites that were unavailable in some regions were completely open (and even fast) on others. It seemed completely random - on big cities it changed from district to district.
Interestingly enough, I found less restrictions in rural areas (when there was any connectivity at all, it wasn't very firewalled).