This is an opt-in thing. Don't share with burglars, technology-aware or not.
If my boss asks for a connection I will be looking for a new job asap.
This is an opt-in thing. Don't share with burglars, technology-aware or not.
If my boss asks for a connection I will be looking for a new job asap.
Amazon has really improved the online shopping experience. Sure, that's not the same thing a trying to put people on mars but it has a more tangible effect on more people.
I'm not sure if you're really getting the point here. It's fine to state "94% certainty that 2015 was the hottest year", but it is irresponsible and fake news to flatly state "2015 was the hottest year".
I'm not arguing what year was the hottest, I'm arguing that it is fake news to report it without the caveats of uncertainty - even if they're above 90%.
tl;dr - some people reported that clinton had a 99% chance of victory, and some people reported flatly that clinton was going to win. One of these was fake news, the other one just didn't beat the odds.
Agreed - and I think that your rationale works for the self-defense side - "outliers and a sad story with a friendly face should not drive policy". As tragic as negligent discharge accidents are, we shouldn't use these outliers to disenfranchise millions of safety conscious, law abiding gun owners. There will always be victims of accidents, be it with firearms, buckets with water, or falling furniture, the question is whether the incredibly rare accident should eliminate the right of self-defense, water use, or furniture ownership.
Actually, take a closer look here:
I think this does a good job of presenting the % probability based on the 95% confidence interval what years might be considered ranked as what.
tl;dr - claiming any "hottest year evar" is fake news, being specific "X% possible hottest year evar" is real news.
Looks like this is the closest I could find to 95% confidence intervals: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
The difference in uncertainty between early measurements and recent ones is *huge*.
You need to qualify that with the uncertainty for every year through which you're comparing it.
That is to say, if 1880-1978 are different than the satellite era of 1979-present, you cannot blithely state that 2016 is the hottest year from 1880-2016 (note, I'm not saying it *isn't*, I'm saying that proper uncertainty bars aren't being presented).
In particular, I'd love to see the uncertainty bars around 1934. I haven't seen any presentation of NASA data that characterizes that specifically, although they have presented uncertainty measures for recent data (oddly unreported by our MSM fake news
No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.
Looks like they've been readjusting their expectations: http://news.sky.com/story/poli...
So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ?
No problems there. Not everyone should have a gun, but anyone who is willing to learn and train and abide by the law should have that right.
I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence
Not saying these are high frequency occurrences, but the obvious answers:
* home invasion
* WROL scenario (riots, for example, that I have personally experienced)
Put another way, it's better to have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have one
Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies.
Defensive use of a gun doesn't require you to discharge your weapon, just as defensive use of your car doesn't require you to sideswipe a reckless driver off the road. Simply having the weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the times, and more than that, just having the *chance* of having a weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the time. tl;dr - there's a reason why most high profile mass shootings happen in gun free zones
Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.
Sure they do. It's idealists that don't
I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.
Funny, I feel exactly the opposite way. Knowing the culture of "gun guys", I would much rather have the guy practicing at the range with me armed than a cop who simply requalifies once a year. In fact, given the fact that civilian use of force is so much more scrutinized, I'll even argue that civilians are much more likely to be safe with their weapons than police. A police officer who kills someone in the line of duty has the protection of his union, and a bunch of the legal system. A civilian who kills someone in self defense, even when it's completely legit, is held accountable in extreme ways.
A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already.
My problem with your choice of a century as a timescale is that there are too many confounding variables. Society, culture, technology, economy, infrastructure, have all changed dramatically over 100 years, and it's very hard to assert even a standard reporting of violent crime over that period of time.
Cognitive dissonance exercise for you (since I think you mentioned you believed in global warming obliquely) - given that 1916 was a worse time for humanity than 2016, and we experienced a change of approximately +0.8C of warming, why shouldn't we expect the same benefit from the next +0.8C of warming over the next hundred years?
A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible.
I firmly disagree. A CCW holder is a responsible gun owner, and keeps his gun ready. And even if you're not carrying in the house, if you have a proper safe, you can get to your loaded firearm in an emergency while still keeping your family safe from accidents. (Oh, and don't forget to keep your wife trained and your kids trained in safety and operation too!)
Those guys may not be any better with a gun than you - but they show up with their guns already loaded and they are quicker than the police - and in sufficient numbers to outgun most break-in crews.
When seconds count, cops (and security guards) are just minutes away - see https://forums.1911forum.com/s...
There is no conceivable self-defense scenario where you need to shoot 30 people in 3 seconds.
Sure, and I've got no particular problem with restrictions on fully automatic weapons. "The right to bear arms" for me ends at area effect weapons, which, effectively is what fully auto fire is.
That being said, even against a single opponent, 15 rounds is better than 10, and the numbers get even more important if the number of assailants goes up.
Thank you for the conversation - I believe I accurately understand your position, even if I disagree with the premises that lead you to it. I hope at the very least I haven't come across as some sort of "gun nut", but rather a respectful "gun guy"
There are about a thousand gun accident victims for every crime victim now - are THOSE just collateral damage to you ? How far does the ratio have to skew before you care more about them than about the few who still get killed by criminals ?
And this is *almost* the right question. You're on the right path though...here's what we need:
1) deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm per year (about 505 according to the CDC in 2013)
2) lawful defensive use of firearms per year (estimated a minimum of 760,000)
For me, that's a pretty skewed ratio. Granted #2 is only a possible death or serious injury, but my bet is that eliminating the lawful defensive use of firearms would create much more than 505 deaths per year.
Treat the rape culture that encourages it.Teach men not to rape.
And teach terrorists not to terror, and murderers not to murder, and thieves not to steal
I spoke about morality, I said nothing about the law.
Okay, so morally, we should expect our police officers to be shot at first before ever using their service firearms? Do we wait for the hostage to be shot in the head before sniping the kidnapper?
You can't teach intelligence or responsibility. It's simply beyond the means of most people to learn.
Are you sure you've learned it?
I fear both - but it's a LOT easier to defend myself against the former. I know how to drive defensively, I even took extra lessons to learn how to do that better.
Do you walk on sidewalks defensively too? And if you're allowed to have a car to drive defensively, why would you decline to allow people to defend themselves with firearms?
We can't get people to wear their seatbelts and you think you an achieve THIS on a sufficient scale to make a dent ?
Absolutely. I'm an optimist
if you can't pass a test on gun safety - including but not limited to proof you can actually hit what you are aiming at with VERY high results - then you shouldn't have one.
I agree entirely. Practice and training are key, and you'd be horrified to hear that most police only have to qualify with their sidearm once a year, and a passing score can be as low as 70% in some jurisdictions.
Now here's the kicker - I love guns. I was a professional sport-shot. I can hit a 1-inch bulls-eye at 50 yards 9 out of 10 times - and I can do that with pistols.
That's an awfully nice pistol for that kind of accuracy
And yeah - acceptable losses since all together those are STILL less than what used to be killed by gun accidents - by a factor of a hundred.
I take it if the data showed a reverse ratio, you'd reconsider your position?
Crime is not a risk that concerns me, crime rates are dropping, and have been for a century, they will keep dropping.
That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have
Evidence that, with the lowest crime rate in human history and dropping - self defense is a need you should give a thought to at all.
So for you, the casualties of criminals who cannot be stopped in time by a government police force are simply acceptable collateral damage?
It's simply the wrong tool for the job on every level.
I'm not sure what kind of reasons you would believe that a woman accosted by multiple men wouldn't be better off with a firearm for self defense. Are you arguing that perhaps pepper spray or a rape whistle are better at self defense?
it's morally wrong to suggest that you are justified to use lethal force for self defense at ANY moment up to where lethal force has been used against you.
Actually, the law looks at three things - Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. To assert that one must wait for actual lethal force (rather than jeopardy of serious harm or death), is silly. Should a police officer wait to be shot first before shooting back?
But I do fear idiots with guns and if you don't - then you're the biggest idiot of all.
The answer to idiocy is education. Teach people proper handling of firearms. Hell, I fear idiots with *cars* more than I fear idiots with guns, and if you don't, then *you're* the biggest idiot of all
For everybody who is smart enough to handle guns safely, there will ALWAYS be 20 who are idiots with them and get innocent people killed.
Apply the same thought to cars. Tell me if you feel any differently
The point of gun control is more than anything else to end gun ACCIDENTS.
The best way to prevent accidents is training.
The second major thing it prevents is mass shootings
Interesting, Australia did something like that in response to a mass shooting, and while they haven't had another mass shooting since, they've had increases in rape, murder, assault, and suicide by means other than firearm. Acceptable losses in your mind?
We don't need to disarm criminals - they are a dying breed anyway. We just have to wait until there aren't anymore, and the risk of having to deal with one now is already so low that if you ever spend a single second worrying about it
That's an amazingly optimistic view of Chicago
Now, look, I get your argument - you're doing a cost benefit analysis, and you've measured the costs in accidents and mass shootings against the benefits of lawful self defense, and found it weighed in one direction. I'll caution you that perhaps your cost benefit analysis is skewed, and those who disagree with you aren't gun nuts, but simply rational actors who have used your same basic argument, but have started from different premises.
Again, if you want to educate yourself further, I highly suggest John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". Even if you don't agree with his end conclusion, it may provide you with some food for thought if your mind is still open to learning more on the topic.
John Lott. More Guns, Less Crime. Decent book, worth a read for you.
Now, that being said, gun control nuts would actually get more sympathy from me if they dropped all the bullshit attempts at rationalization and just admitted there is nothing rational about gun control. Just admit it. You're just scared of guns. It makes you feel uncomfortable. Whether it is just a mangina thing, or a cry for a benevolent daddy of government to protect you from boogey men. Just admit it. It's an emotional thing. You have some emotional need to remove guns from the hands of your fellow citizens and leave them only in the hands of your government minders and tenders, as if any of your laws would ever stop a criminal from having a gun.
Just admit you care more about preserving your good feelings of moral superiority by trying to take away the ability of people in harsher circumstances from defending themselves, than you care about all the people raped, murdered, or assaulted who could have remained unvictimized if they had, or some other nearby citizen had, been armed. Just admit that you're okay with letting these people get raped, murdered or assaulted to satisfy your emotional needs.
All mocking aside, if you're going to have a gun, learn safe handling. The basics for children should be taught in school:
2) don't touch
3) leave the area
4) tell an adult
For adults, proper safety knowledge of firearms should be mandatory:
1) treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2) never point at anything you don't want to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
As for an honest conversation, I'm not quite sure if you're ready for one yet
Many organizations were explicitly white-only
And that's just as terrible as having an explicitly latino-only or black-only group.
Insofar as LBJ, while they might label it "unproven", they do a pretty good job of showing it wouldn't have been out of character: http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voti...
As noted in several online dictionaries, "La Raza" means "the people" or "the community."
If it simply meant "the people" or "the community", why would it explicitly limit itself to latinos and hispanics? Is the implication that whites and blacks, and other non-latinos aren't "people"? Or maybe they must be excluded from "the community"?
Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:
Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench
Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.
Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.
Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.
Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.
Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.
Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.
It is obvious, from the goals stated by the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, that they are focusing on a single race. If a white adopted child of a latino family joined the legal profession, it wouldn't count to them. If a white spouse of a latina applied to be a judicial candidate, it wouldn't count to them. If the white parent of a latino adopted child was promoted as an attorney, it wouldn't count for them. These, most intimate communal bonds of parent, spouse, and child, are violated by ideas of racial segregation, and give the lie to any translation of "La Raza" as "people" or "community".
The point of guns is protection from people who present a clear and present danger to yourself or other innocents. Whether or not your attackers are using guns, sharp sticks, or just their fists, if they have the ability, opportunity, and you or others are in jeopardy of grievous harm or death, being able to defend yourself is important.
Are you really happy to get rid of millennial? That sounds like a short sighted strategy.
The page represents uncertainty ranges for a single year.
The page compares temperatures from 1880-2015.
The implication of the comparison is that it is apples-to-apples, that is, we can say that X year is the hottest year in 1880-2015, because we have the same uncertainty in measurement for every year.
Now, if in fact the error bars around earlier temperatures in the range of 1880-2015 are significant (say specifically for 1934), it is possible that our "hottest year" claims are only a probability, not a certainty.
The bottom line here is that flat claims of "hottest year ever" without specifying uncertainty, across the entire scale of comparison, is fake news. One may argue that the general public is too ignorant to comprehend uncertainty, and the differences in uncertainty over the years, but the answer to that isn't inappropriate simplification, it's better education on uncertainty.
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.