 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 9:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
>> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
>> claim, and it has to work as advertised.
>
> And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches
> what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as
> advertised". Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation,
> but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets
> their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they
> win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.
>
> Jim
Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto. Otherwise, not so much.
Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
example of "success".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
>> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
>> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
>> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
>> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
>> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
>> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
>> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
>> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
>> own country for visits.
>>
>
> What is the big deal about being American?
>
If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
This is what they think will "save the country", while whining that
their goal is to do the exact opposite. More money, power, and privilege
to companies, even the ones that outsource 90% of their jobs to some
foreign country, and everyone else gets completely screwed. So.. Its
simple. Stop treating companies that outsource more than 49.9% of their
jobs to China, or the like, as privileged, US, companies, with all the
rights and special treatment that come with it. Apply the same foreign
import taxes, and the like, to them that anyone else that manufactures
outside the US has to. If they won't hire us, they should at least
frakking pay enough taxes to to make up the difference it costs in
keeping the people that can't find work from starving to death.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 9:55 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
>> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
>> about.
>
> The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
> such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
> you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
> normal people aren't interesting news.
>
> It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
> get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
> a way that isn't offensive.
>
> If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
> Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
> strong reaction.
>
> But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
> rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
> get a respectful discussion.
>
> I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
>
> Jim
Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime rate
goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar areas next
to each other and compare, the place with less gun control has lower crime
rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy pickin's close by.
Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of guns simply because
there aren't many laws against shooting other people that get enforced or
because most of the violence is the government against the peasants. Gun
crime is very low in some countries that traditionally even the police don't
carry guns, simply because the culture isn't as violent and is much more
uniform, and the crime rate would be equally low if everyone had guns.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that
> everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how many
times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many times
people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times people
who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college, that
it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were unharmed, 86% of
the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired it or not) were
unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So, basically, having a
gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent crime that's likely to
get you less hurt than just handing over your wallet.
> ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
If they were *saved*, they can tell you what happened.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2011 2:56 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> What is the big deal about being American?
>>
> If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
> and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
> the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
>
>
Woosh!
> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>
I'm still no wiser.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
discussion.
Rationality doesn't imply starting from a valid premise. You can be
completely rational and logical in discussing something that starts with
a bad premise.
An argument can be completely rational as well if the goal isn't to
change someone's mind but to provide them with another data point or to
learn something yourself.
That's why I've continued responding here, for example <ducking>. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:47:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
"Look, it snowed boatloads in the eastern seaboard - the earth ISN'T
warming up after all! It's freezing outside! Al Gore is a LIAR LAIR
PANTS ON FIRE!!!@@!@!".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:46:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
Sure, it's hard to prove definitively, but it is possible to extend
conjecture.
Otherwise, how does the statistic you cited about the reduction of gun-
related crime in New York fit into this? An increase in gun control
effectiveness may well not have had anything to do with the drop-off in
crime at all, using this logic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
"you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
some cash". That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
confirmation that it was "predicted".
> Otherwise, not so much.
> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
> example of "success".
So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after all,
optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:54:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>
> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
I like that, will have to remember it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>> saved
>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>
>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>
>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>
> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
produce them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.
And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred or
more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
>
> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
worry they are mostly foreigners.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>> produce them.
>>
>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>
> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
> worry they are mostly foreigners.
feel free to insert a few ;) 's at appropriate places.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
>> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>>> produce them.
>>>
>>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>>
>> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
>> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
>
> feel free to insert a few ;) 's at appropriate places.
That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
"foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 23:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 28-1-2011 23:12, andrel wrote:
>>> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>>>> produce them.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>>>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>>>
>>> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
>>> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence. Get over it, your
>>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>
>> feel free to insert a few ;) 's at appropriate places.
>
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)
I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not
to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than
those, I don't care. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 22:01, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed
>>>>>> accidentally by
>>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>>> saved
>>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>>
>>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>>
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.
BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here by
the guns made in and for the US market...
Anyone else can think of a likely scenario, cause I can't?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:21:40 +0100, andrel wrote:
> I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not
> to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than
> those, I don't care. ;)
Ah, but doesn't their well-being depend on the well being of others in
the country? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too, being Spics and Chicos
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>
> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>
>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>
> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>
But you're quite liberal.
> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>
It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:57:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the
>>>> US, but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess
>>>> would be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>>
>>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>>
>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
>>
> But you're quite liberal.
Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
>> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>>
>>
> It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
> reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if
that carried over to UK culture. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 9:50 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime
> rate goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar
> areas next to each other and compare, the place with less gun control
> has lower crime rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy
> pickin's close by. Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of
> guns simply because there aren't many laws against shooting other people
> that get enforced or because most of the violence is the government
> against the peasants. Gun crime is very low in some countries that
> traditionally even the police don't carry guns, simply because the
> culture isn't as violent and is much more uniform, and the crime rate
> would be equally low if everyone had guns.
>
You can't do controlled studies. Its one of them etheekal things, or
what nots... ;) Seriously though, all you have is statistics to go off
of. In the case of NY, the statistics say two things, based on a long
history of issues:
1. Enforcing even the smaller crimes tends to result in fewer crimes in
general. Based off an earlier case of them doing that, and them not
going back up a lot later, or the like.
2. It seems that enforcing gun laws effectively drops violent crime
(specifically with guns), more than its dropping in other places
already. The interesting thing with that being, a large city, with lots
of people in it, is usually *slower* at reducing such things than rural
areas, in the general scheme.
Not proof of correlation, but either it has to do with enforcement, or
magic, because its not too clear what else *could* be causing the
result, or why it would be higher one place than another, sans the obvious.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>
> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>
And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed
>>>>>> accidentally by
>>>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>>>> saved
>>>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>>>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>>>> relevant statistics to include.
>>>
>>> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
>>> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>>>
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
> produce them.
Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 3:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
>
> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>
That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
public, b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't
justified to shoot someone, and c) you didn't have whole organizations
dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!", which, imho,
makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes don't
kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy idea
that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific, and
intentional, way to kill things.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 4:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>
>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>
> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>
Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc., not drug
dealers, drug buyers, people who refuse to work low paying jobs,
thinking they should just get rich quick, and the like, the vast
majority of them, Americans. Drug dealers are a possible exception, but
most of the growers, etc., never set foot in the US, they find mules to
bring them in, and that is like, conservatively, about 50:50 US citizens
looking to make a buck, and actual illegals, trying to pay off the
person that snuck them into the country.
Shit, given some of the "legals" I deal with on a daily basis at work, I
would prefer some of the illegals. They would work harder, and probably
be significantly less stupid...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume
>> that everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
>
> No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how
> many times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many
> times people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times
> people who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
>
> It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college,
> that it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were
> unharmed, 86% of the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired
> it or not) were unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So,
> basically, having a gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent
> crime that's likely to get you less hurt than just handing over your
> wallet.
>
Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about
how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided
it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway. This is
likely to be a bit less clear, since, well.. You obviously are not going
to have the gun on you anymore, if they shoot, then rob you, and it
might be years before someone else gets caught using it to commit
another crime. Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it
really is. Even less so when, like someplace like Arizona, the laws
pretty much allow any damn person that wants one, to have one, *any
place they want*, unless the building/business owner says flat out, "No
way in hell on my premises."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>
>
> I'm still no wiser.
>
Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
the middle class (hell, I made less than 13k last year on my own job),
while lining the pockets of people that, if they keep it up, will have
to sell shit they make in China to people in Mexico, because the people
in the US won't be able to afford to buy it. And, half the idiots in
congress right now think jobs, pay rates, deficits, budget short falls,
costs in general, and the inability of anyone to buy anything, is all
going to be fixed by good old Reagan Voodoo Economics (i.e., trickle
down economics), so the solution is more outsourcing, removing minimum
wage laws, stripping away safety nets, repealing anything the government
does for people, oh.. and giving more tax breaks to "US companies". The
same companies shipping more than 49.9% of their jobs to some other country.
This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point. Even the damned
experts responsible for determining what the effect of government
policies has all say its madness. Many of the people in the party
driving this have said "parts" of it are mad, even if they won't say all
of it is. Its, to use a literary analogy, like watching the Wizards from
the Unseen University, of Discworld fame, try to balance the budget,
while Star Trek Ferengi give them advice on the rules of acquisition.
The "experts" they use are in it purely for the money, and by 'the
money', I mean *their money*, not to help anyone, unless it makes them
more money doing it, and the people they are advising are back stabbing
idiots, who say things like, "Sputnik caused Russia to go bankrupt!"
Thereby simultaneously missing *why* the satellite was even mentioned
*and* proving they probably couldn't correctly tell someone what they
had for lunch five minutes ago, and get it right, never mind quote
plausible facts from world history.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:56 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
>
> Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
> "you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
> some cash". That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
>
> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
> lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>
Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was
wrong, or are never heard from again.
>> Otherwise, not so much.
>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>> example of "success".
>
> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after all,
> optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
>
> Jim
There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination
of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember
a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the
con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back,
called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by,
harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.
Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most
people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things
they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those
makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately
wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
>> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
>> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
>
> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
> discussion.
>
Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
valid description of *anything* at all...
Mind, show me a religion that has *as much* consistency as string theory
does to itself, and we can talk about the plausibility of it. It should
also be noted that, imho, you just excluded pretty much every western
religion in existence, since the only way to make most of them self
consistent is by throwing out most, if not all, of the stuff the purport
to base themselves on, and/or ignore the evidence (or total lack of it)
supporting any of what they keep.
Sort of becomes an argument in line of, "Well, Tolkien's world is self
consistent, as long as you ignore a) reality, b) all the stuff the ideas
in it where stolen from, and c) the scattered notes he used to construct
it, which show he changes bits in various places. But, you know, as long
as you ignore it being fiction, and the old stuff it came from, and the
stuff he edited, its all completely reasonable... lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:16:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning
>> the lotto. Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
>> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>>
> Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was
> wrong, or are never heard from again.
Sure, people tend to focus on what works when it works, not when it
doesn't.
>>> Otherwise, not so much.
>>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>>> example of "success".
>>
>> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic? Because after
>> all, optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of
>> success.
>>
> There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination
> of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember
> a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the
> con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back,
> called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by,
> harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.
Everyone has personal biases. Even you. :-)
> Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most
> people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things
> they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those
> makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately
> wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".
I can't even begin to tell you the number of times something has happened
to me that has looked bad (and in fact probably been bad when it
happened), but in the end, things have worked out for the best. Even
when I lost my job and spent 4 months unemployed without unemployment
benefits - but with a mortgage.
I think that even though I was depressed, I was optimistic that things
would work out. And they did. Does that make me a moron for being
optimistic? I don't think so.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:33:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>
>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
Alternate theory, then: Those who had committed violent crimes were
either dead or in jail, and thus unable to commit more crimes.
Or they got past that "phase" of their lives and have gone on to become
productive members of society.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:48:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
> Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
> ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc.,
Don't you *dare* put words in my mouth, Patrick. I didn't say that, nor
did I imply that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:23:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
>> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
>> discussion.
>>
> Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
> theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
> valid description of *anything* at all...
I don't believe I was involved in that discussion. I certainly don't
know a lot about string theory, and not nearly enough to compare a
religion to it.
That is just a ludicrous statement/challenge.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > But you're quite liberal.
> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>
Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the pond.
>> > It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
>> > reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
> True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if
> that carried over to UK culture.:-)
>
It is not a word in common usage here. But I suppose most of us could
guess its meaning.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2011 2:39, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, andrel wrote:
>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
> Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
> Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
> maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
> laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
> was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
> both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).
Sorry for the typo. The spell-checker didn't get it because I changed on
a chance that was an existing word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 2:09 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>>
>>
>> I'm still no wiser.
>>
> Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
>
> Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
> the middle class
[Snip]
Now I understand and sympathise.
We have had similar situations since the Blessed Mrs T </irony> came to
power.
> This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point.
[Snip]
They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> > But you're quite liberal.
>> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>>
>>
> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
> pond.
Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>> pond.
>
> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>
Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:14:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
Interesting - so which meaning were you using?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
>> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
> Interesting - so which meaning were you using?
>
With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called
Whigs now they are just little "c"s
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>
>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many
variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially
given other studies that show the opposite.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>> produce them.
>>
>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>
> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence.
I know you meant cheaply. I'm saying it doesn't matter how cheap they are,
because even when they're expensive lots of people got killed.
> Get over it, your
> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
> worry they are mostly foreigners.
Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people killed
outside the EU. You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We don't
blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
http://www.glock.com/english/index_contact.htm
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
> public,
I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at each
other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't
> justified to shoot someone,
Of course they did.
> and c) you didn't have whole organizations
> dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!",
Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools just
like knives were.
> makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes don't
> kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy idea
> that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific, and
> intentional, way to kill things.
Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry guns?
How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here by
> the guns made in and for the US market...
Does that count stuff like weapons for soldiers? Because I think we're still
ahead on that one, barely. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about
> how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided
> it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway.
So the number of armed people who get shot and die and have their gun taken
away counts as unarmed people who died? Alright. It also doesn't count the
number of people who got shot and died and had their knife taken away. So
I'm not sure how it washes out.
> Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it
> really is.
Unless the percentage of deadly crimes compared to overall violent crimes is
fairly low, which I'd think it would be back in the 1980s.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.
"Gold. It makes the world go around."
"I thought it was love that makes the world go around."
"Yes, that too. Love of gold."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
