Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Rethink (Score 1) 186

The idea wasn't to destroy Europe, just the bit with the soviet tanks and supply lines on it... And the Germans were more gung-ho about it than the Americans. is a terrible automated translation, but if you know german maybe you can read the original, the whole thing is crazy, but in particular:

German Defence thought meet NATO with a conjuring trick. He wanted to make up for the shortage of soldiers with an atomic micro ordnance, with the atomic mortars Davy Crockett.

Strauss also not allowed to be disturbed by reports of his officers from Washington. In the American Army General Staff had, laconically replied to the question of whether Davy Crockett could replace conventional artillery: "No way!"

It was a scary time - I'll take today's crazy terrorists over it actually. NATO truly believed that they could not repel a soviet invasion with conventional forces, short range nukes (heck nuclear mortars even) were honest to goodness plans... Of course Putin is doing his best to revive those old days.

A Trump v Putin game of chicken does not sound like a wonderful thing, I must admit...

Comment Re:Rethink (Score 1) 186

But your claim was just Europe, which clearly is a location all US Presidents have not ruled out using nuclear weapons in since it was an option.

Also, using nuclear weapons against a soviet tank invasion of western Europe was clearly on the table for NATO during the cold war, which would have been using nuclear weapons in Germany.

Comment Re:Short sighted twats! (Score 1) 186

McDonalds is being mentioned on slashdot and likely numerous other places seen by people who might then get a burger for lunch/dinner. They didn't have to say anything racist or homophobic or whatever evil trigger it is this week and can instead blame the evil white supremacists on the internet while still getting all the publicity.

I'm not sure "by fiat" is necessary.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 565

Yeah, almost 30 year old articles not being freely available is stupid. Making them available is not going to hurt their current subscription revenue...

It makes verifying these claims way more difficult than it should be (I'm not going to the library to check something I'm not actually all that interested in, I'm interested in the meta discussion of citations more than in gun laws and research, from slashdot after all). Of course it would be much easier if the people making the claim would give the original citation (with an excerpt even) rather than "a person I won't name once said". Of course the citation of " wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association" is even worse - either the "Executive Vice President, NRA" at the time just repeated something he heard without checking or he intentionally used the word "wrote" to make a false citation.

There's basically no choice but to give the claim as much weight as "I heard someone say X" when they go out of their way not to provide a real citation.

Note, that this occurs on all sides. It's part of what appears to be the nature of people wanting to confirm their views instead of actually find out if they match reality.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 565

No what you said was "Since owning a gun ISN'T a disease, it's outside the CDC's purview" and then your very quote indicates that things which aren't diseases are also part of what the CDC does "environmental health" for example. Thus making the claim incorrect.

You keep assigning motivations and ideas to me that I don't hold, it is very annoying. How about you argue the points and not some whatever monster you imagine me to be. I had hoped you were using a generic "you" previously, but given "including you" I guess I was giving too much benefit of the doubt.

For example "The domain of the CDC explicitly, by law excludes guns. There are people, including you, who wish otherwise." - I have never said I think the domain of the CDC should not explicitly exclude guns. And previously "You don't get to use the machinery of the federal government for your political crusade." - I'm not on a political crusade and not trying to use the machinery of the federal government. And also the false dichotomy of "If the problem is guns, and the only solution is banning law abiding people from owning guns, you're the problem ... On the other hand, if the problem you want to solve is reducing gun crimes that's different" - I'm not in either of those categories.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 565

That might be your criteria, but it wasn't the one being claimed in what I replied to and thus is irrelevant.

Of course yours is factually incorrect, since the domain of the CDC is broader than "disease" - names do not entirely define things after all. You can of course think it should be restricted to "is this actually a disease", but you said "the cutoff is" not "the cutoff should be".

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 5, Informative) 565

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 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 ( - 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison