Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 305

That's not a citation that's "the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action" making the same claim without providing a citation.

One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

Is unsourced and unnamed making it rather difficult to confirm.

Some digging (which shouldn't be necessary since providing a citation is trivial) turns up http://dailycaller.com/2013/10... which in turn makes the claim:

Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”

However the Feb 3 1989 issue of JAMA does not have an article in it authored by Patrick O'Carroll.

Yet more digging (which again should be unnecessary) shows that issue does have an article: Marsha F. Goldsmith, "Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=376136) - note citations are really easy to do. That article apparently quotes O'Carroll, however that itself it uncited so we have hearsay.

And then we do actually have something in writing from O'Carroll in JAMA, in July 1989. A letter to the editor claiming that he was misrepresented in the article above and didn't say any such thing: Patrick O'Carroll, "CDC's Approach to Firearm Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 262 no. 3, July 21, 1989, pp.348-349.

So do you have an actual citation? Note they are easy to give, see the two I gave above.

Comment Re:lol (Score 5, Interesting) 441

What does one have to do with the other? If [cost of litigation] + [probabilit of losing] * $10.000 is greater than $10,000 then you obviously just pay the $10,000. Other than the case where $10,000 will bankrupt the company (in which case litigate since who cares about another debtor) the valuation of the company is irrelevant.

Of course there's also the "how many other people will try this" factor but again losing an appeal increases that risk so keeping on going isn't necessarily the best choice there either.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

It's too late, the second amendment supporters have already lost. The government has cruise missiles, they do not. The government has nuclear weapons, they do not. And so on, and so on.

Just like 21st amendment supporters have already lost. The government has outlawed numerous substances since, without bothering with an amendment to the constitution to give them the authority to do so.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

So you define everything that people talk about or criticize the opposite of or associate with rational options as a religion?

So if some person has believes that an omnipotent being created the universe because he loves them and wants them to play in it but since everything else was created for them no other people matter at all and thus must never be told about this loving creator and left to whatever beliefs they want to have. This person has a bunch of rituals to perform each day to show their thanks for the awesome universe. That person isn't religious?

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

Surely if you believe that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable then you don't think the question is open? A theist or atheist is at least willing to argue the evidence and possibly change their opinion based upon that evidence, making them treat the question as more open than someone who declares it impossible to know.

Comment Gee, I wonder... (Score 1) 231

If it could have something to do with the fact that more ram, more cpu, more storage increase power usage, heat production, and weight. And more battery life means more weight.

I'm not sure there is a very large market for heavy tablets that melt your fingers. Though gaming laptops exist so I'm probably wrong...

Comment Re:And Googles moral responsibility is. (Score 1) 304

How are they not representative?

Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "black", and "teenagers" happen to be media crime reports.

Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "white", "teenagers" happen to be stock photos of teenagers with white backgrounds.

That is what you asked when you do the search.

Comment Re:And Googles moral responsibility is. (Score 1) 304

There's nothing to correct.

The only time you would use the text "three black teenagers" is when race somehow matters. A common case in which it matters is when describing suspects in media reports. Since America is mostly white you don't use "three white teenagers" as often since that's the assumption of "three teenagers" anyway. And of course "three black teenagers" is an uncommon use of language outside of media reporting - and surprise surprise media reporting spends more time on crime than crime rates would make you expect they would.

Couple that with the fact a common stock image description format is of the form "three teenagers on a white background" and surprise surprise you get these ridiculous complaint. Since black is not a common background color and media photos are going to rank higher than stock photos you get fewer on the black search.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up reasons for it afterwards." -- Soren F. Petersen

Working...