GP asked about relation of gun laws vs death numbers. You are pretending to answer that, but you weasel in the change from 'general violence' to 'gun violence'. Of course if guns are more easily available, there will be more gun violence, but that's not what GP asked.
I believe the less deaths part is really meant as gun deaths.
Do you honestly think that he wants information about less guns leading to lower cardiac arrests? Or perhaps less motor vehicle accidents involving death?
There is only one type of death that is in context in a discussion about firearms, death caused by firearms.
We are discussing crime. If crime wasn't commited by firearms, there would be no need to have legal framework regulating firearms. However, once firearms are heavily regulated, the violence commited through use of firearms doesn't magically go away. Violent criminals just switch to other methods.
You can see similar things happening in UK recently, where they had a heavy campaign on banning knifes. This has resulted in increased use of acid attacks in gang/criminal violence.
"The same willful ignorance of existing examples is also applied to ..."
I was merely pointing out that haggy's comment ("I would love to see hard statistical evidence that less guns = less deaths...") was an exact example of this willful ignorance. The fact that we are discussing gun death/violence isn't really the point.
The point is that there are policies/laws working in other areas of the world and its kinda silly to outright dismiss them because "its different here" etc.
There will always be violent criminals. My belief is if there are less firearms, there are less choices for those criminals to easily commit violence. I would think survival chances when a criminal is attacking with a knife are much higher than if they had a gun.
This may seem obvious to you, but it certainly isn't to me.
You are right that natural deaths are unlikely to be affected, but it's entirely possible for other kinds of death to be affected (e.g. if I can't shoot you I may stab you to death). The appropriate category to compare would be violent deaths.
Between this and the Mac root login, looks like Apple has got 'an offer they can't refuse' from Uncle Sam, and are establishing plausible deniability by intentionally introducing security failures.
But they patched the Mac root login within 48 hours of it becoming “a story”? I don’t buy the conspiracy.
More likely, Apple wants to ease user adoption.
Did you buy an iPhone X? It was awesome to setup. There was this nifty feature to use NFC/the cameras on my new phone to authenticate myself, and it was a breeze. Huge fan of this type of improvement and convenience.
You know what I’m not a fan of? My iPhone being a gateway to hijack the rest of my digital life. It’s a key to my little kingdom that didn’t exist before, and my only protection is (figuratively speaking) locking my phone to me like the Nuclear Football, and continuing to use a 20+ character passphrase with enough entropy I can’t be brute forced.
I meant that they are 'introducing' security fails so that once there'll be indications they're giving data to Uncle Sam they can claim they were hax'd.
But I'm not really serious with this 'conspiracy theory', it's just some food for thought/shitpostin'.
It is not, but I'd like to note one thing: while here Netflix is the 'bad guy', in the Net Neutrality issue they are positing themselves as the 'good guy'.
This article made me wonder if I should cancel my Netflix account. I still see them as a "good guy" (and haven't really considered it heavily until now) because of how straight forward and valuable their offering is, the contributions they make to the open source community, and their general underdog-ness in comparison to the entrenched cable industry. They just don't seem to be overtly evil, they seem to be making a fair amount of consumer and even business environment-friendly decisions (they're running a profitable business, not using VC money to suck the air from the market).
I don't know that I blame Netflix as much as I blame the W3C for being spineless/bending to their will. It's absolutely Netflix's perogative to seek the most money, and to try to force their users into apps if that's how they can do so, but the W3C should have been different/stopped it. From my understanding that's the point of a standards body like that (and like the article states, it's in purported reason they were founded at all).
In the end, I'm not as dissapointed with the W3C because the world just isn't that cut and dry most of the time (and browsers still at least give you the option to turn EME off), but
These new-style tech companies have become very good at keeping the underdog/one-with-the-masses image while slowly turning into market-cornering behemoths the likes of Bell. Netflix is just following the Google's playbook IMO.
Also: this duality was why I was suspicious of the end result of the Net Neutrality (as opposed to net neutrality) in discussions couple days ago and I got completely shredded. People should be more critical of everything and not fall for feel-good phrases by faceless corps.
Netflix would benefit from the net neutrality repeal. It's basically bound to get repealed, so they don't have to actively lobby for it to be so (and get the negative pr that comes with that) so instead they can get positive pr just from saying "We support net neutrality!" while not doing anything to actually support it like lobby for it to remail.
They can pay so that: people with really slow internet can have netflix at high speeds, and if competition ever starts to sprout, they can quash it by paying for its speed to be stifled.
In my online experience, 90% of people who straight up attack keto like this are vegans who want to keep propping up the dogma that 'animal products = bad for you'. They often also assume that keto = eating only meat.
That doesn't help the project at all...
HLE seems to be more workable for Xbox...
Xenia is VERY far for the Xbox 360, it isn't technical but organisational issues instead
Regardless of how bad Trump is considered to be, and how true that will turn out to be, in my opinion this is the first time that someone is actually doing something that has a chance at ending this horrible situation that we've been just sweeping under the rug for the past few decades. He put a squeeze on their only ally, China, put in meaningful sanctions that are hitting where it hurts, the elite, and is calling out their leader on his bluffing tactics that worked well (for the leader and the elite) so far.
Hundreds of thousands of people, slowly languishing in famine and unspeakable suffering, all ignored because it's an 'inconvenient problem'.
The hard stance you speak of was always simple containment and ignoring, and then when their leader would start shaking sabres and making threats, he would get appeased with free food.
That was exactly my point. The problem was ignored, and at times when it couldn't be ignored, NK would bluff, and the rest of the world would appease them.
Pushing of apps onto mobile users viewing sites inside browser has really gone evil. Reddit makes you click 'No, I don't want to install reddit app' or similar at least 3 times before letting you view the content.
Unrelated to that, as a HAM I've long (since 2000 or so) been preaching that if you want to know how internet will be changed by commercial and government interest, look into early radio history - it has many parallels with development of internet: an open, free to publish network primarily ran by enthusiasts that got progressively locked down until you had to be a major player to publish content on it, turned into ad-driven economy etc.
