Warp wrote:
>   So exactly where is the flaw in this math?

The flaw in the math is that you're using the same number of mexicans and 
canadians.

The percentage of interest is the percentage of illegals to legals in each 
group you want to target, *not* the absolute percentages.


You said
>   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> of them by how they look.

This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
investigate all the europeans.

Google for Bayesian math.

>> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from 
>> illegal residents than looks.
> 
>   That may well be true.

Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?

>> Concentrate on people who look mexican?  Bad idea!
> 
>   Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.

Yes, really, it does.  You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the 
best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different 
distinguishing factor as "outrageous".

>>>   I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
>>> Maybe that's what you were after.
> 
>> Why did you find it outlandish?  If 90% of illegal immigrants look mexican, 
>> and 90% of illegal immigrants are christian, why is it better to focus on 
>> people who look mexican than to focus on people who look christian?
> 
>   You might as well argue "100% of illegals look like people, so why not
> concentrate on people?"

That doesn't answer the question. And yes, I wouldn't go around trying to 
find out the legal immigration status of dogs and cats.

>> The very fact that you're calling it outlandish is *exactly* the point I'm 
>> making. *That* is why focusing on people who look mexican is racist and not 
>> just statistics.
> 
>   What do you even mean by "racism"? Usually "racism" implies prejudice and
> forming preconceptions about people based on their ethnicity.

Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common 
(usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.

>   Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> them.

Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of 
genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?

>   One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok. 

We're not talking about that here.

And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about 
something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on 
ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.

>   Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.

Then why did you call it outrageous?

Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my 
mind about this" is a good thing at this point.  Otherwise, I'm going to be 
confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not. 
Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here 
you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.

>   You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".

No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the 
most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share 
and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on 
that list.

> I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".

Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that 
leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal 
aliens."

>>>   Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
>>> something unheard of.
> 
>> Welcome to democracy.
> 
>   Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?

It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> If the distinguishing
> feature happens to be ethnicity, that doesn't change anything.

Except it's not.  The best distinguishing feature is probable cause. That's 
why they call it that.

>> You're 
>> saying "we should act as if those with the same genetics as criminals are 
>> more likely to also be criminals" is racist.  I don't know any other word 
>> for it, especially when you're claiming that genetics is a factor, but not 
>> religion or shopping habits or anything like that.
> 
>   Now you are outright insulting me. Nowhere have I said that.

I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.

Maybe you're not racist. But it sure as heck sounds like you're condoning 
racist behavior on the part of the police here, in the name of efficiency.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > If the distinguishing
> > feature happens to be ethnicity, that doesn't change anything.

> Except it's not.  The best distinguishing feature is probable cause. That's 
> why they call it that.

  That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
what I'm writing.

> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.

  What the fuck are you talking about?

  Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you have a hard time
understanding the difference between an expression like "if the
distinguishing feature is ethnicity" and "the distinguishing feature
is ethnicity"?

  And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
do with anything?

> Maybe you're not racist. But it sure as heck sounds like you're condoning 
> racist behavior on the part of the police here, in the name of efficiency.

  Then maybe you should learn to read.

  I don't appreciate you insulting me like that, so I suppose you just can
go fuck yourself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:45:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Isn't there a problem that if somebody does not have papers you won't
>> > know where to send him/her?
> 
>> We have that situation already here in the US.  Typically people whose
>> country of origin can't be determined are detained indefinitely.
> 
>   Guess what's the most common tactic of people who want to get inside
> the European Union and not get deported? Make it as hard as possible to
> determine where they come from.

That's not just the most common tactic in the EU, I'd guess it's pretty 
common worldwide.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.

Because that's the way the world works, Warp.  In fact, some people who 
immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin because 
their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with them?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
>   based
> on how someone looks like?
> 
>   I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> criminal investigation.

No, but being brown isn't a crime.  What about that do you not understand?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> what I'm writing.

OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore 
other examples?

And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
feature, which happens to be probable cause?

That's why I'm confused.

And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
they'll behave in a certain way.

>> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
>> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
>> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
> 
>   What the fuck are you talking about?

Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."

>   And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> do with anything?

I quote:  (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)

 > > And you still didn't answer whether you'd agree that it might be more
 > > efficient to target people in churches than people who look central
 > > american. :-)

 >  I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
 > Maybe that's what you were after.

Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?

If you had said "Yes, that's another excellent example", then I'd say "OK, 
he's talking a particular example when he says how they look." But you seem 
to be thinking that targeting how people look is a good idea for efficiency 
and targeting how people worship is a bad idea for efficiency.

Again, if we've miscommunicated, then that's fine.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:12:55 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:10:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in
>> >   prison?
>> > Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
> 
>> NO!  That's the point - if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant, you have
>> to provide on the spot PROOF that you're not, and if you can't, YOU GO
>> TO JAIL.  That's what the law is all about.
> 
>   Well, there are basically two options:
> 
> 1) Demand that all people always carry a form of identification. 2) Stop
> trying to catch illegal immigrants.
> 
>   Which one do you prefer? I assume you understand the consequences of
> choice #2.

There's no point in arguing this with you any more as far as I'm 
concerned.  You deal strictly with absolutes, and this is an area where 
there are no absolutes to deal with.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
>> live in a Nazi state.
> 
>   I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.

I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by 
invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You said
> >   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> > the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> > of them by how they look.

> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
> investigate all the europeans.

  I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
efficiently.

  But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
formula".

  Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.

> >> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from 
> >> illegal residents than looks.
> > 
> >   That may well be true.

> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?

  Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?

> >> Concentrate on people who look mexican?  Bad idea!
> > 
> >   Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> > people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.

> Yes, really, it does.  You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the 
> best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different 
> distinguishing factor as "outrageous".

  Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
somewhere.

> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common 
> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.

  And who is making such assumptions here?

> >   Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> > "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> > if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> > simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> > them.

> Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of 
> genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?

  You really got infatuate with that odd word, it seems. And now also with
"unthinkable"? Where did that one come from?

> >   One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> > curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> > look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok. 

> We're not talking about that here.

  Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?

> And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about 
> something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on 
> ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.

  Seems like "genetics" has become a third pet word for you. Also of
uknown origin.

> >   Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> > if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.

> Then why did you call it outrageous?

  This is approaching OCD levels.

  Exactly where did I use the word "outrageous"?

> Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my 
> mind about this" is a good thing at this point.  Otherwise, I'm going to be 
> confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not. 
> Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here 
> you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.

  You indeed seem to be very confused. I have not used such a word anywhere.

  When did you last sleep?

> >   You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> > enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".

> No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the 
> most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share 
> and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on 
> that list.

  You talk like I had said "looking mexican is the most distinguishing
feature of American illegal immigrants".

> > I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> > *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> > purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".

> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that 
> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal 
> aliens."

  At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. Except when in
a next post (or even next paragraph) you won't, and keep talking like I had
said something like "mexicans have criminal genetics" or whatever bullshit.

> >>>   Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
> >>> something unheard of.
> > 
> >> Welcome to democracy.
> > 
> >   Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?

> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)

  Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
on their best interest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message